Do we still need religion?

[danieldemol]

god was removed in west with the 60's sexual revolution

Your God is so impotent it can be removed by sexual revolution?

proponents argued you can still be moral with out god/religion.

Those proponents are correct

60 yrs later 54 million Americans are on food stamps most headed by single moms. baby mamas and baby daddies are increasing. mothers killed 55 million babies in u s alone

Cite sources for your statistics if there are any, and do you know what percentage of those single mums are religious?

...25k gun murders in us per yr. thats 550k murdered Americans since 9/11

In Australia God did not create our anti-gun laws, unless you think John Howard is God.

men marry men. and kids want to transgender. any questions

Yeah, what does gay relationships and transgender kids have to do with any of the problems you mentioned above?

By the way thanks for the gish gallop instead of focusing on these issues one at a time so that progress can be made

In my opinion

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

because it was an interesting article that referenced a valuable study and that suggested ideas worth discussing.

Facebook survey. The "study" was a Facebook survey.

But there is a difference between the facts revealed by the study, and his attempt to give them explanation. Surely you are not suggesting the two are on the same level.

I think that this "study" was stronger at data analysis than the actual data.

And the data, such as it was, found negligible benefit from private prayer. It found that the only aspect of religiosity that correlated with beneficial outcomes was attending religious services regularly.

... and even then, it found that the benefit of this was limited until you hit a pretty high attendance frequency.

You're more than welcome to explain these findings in a different way; just do it in a way with what the survey data actually showed. Can you?

 

[night912]

If the goal is wellbeing for the overall of humanity, we eliminate religion over night,
then the answer is a simple one. Ideally, we don't need religion because the benefits/goods that are associated with religion are achievable without religion while also eliminating the negatives that comes with religion. But realistically, religion is needed because it's the only thing that prevents a lot of people from doing immoral acts.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

If the goal is wellbeing for the overall of humanity, we eliminate religion over night,

Not if you trust science.

 

[night912]

Not if you trust science.

Not sure what you're trying to say.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not sure what you're trying to say.

Read the opening post. It states the results of scientific research, which is that participation in religious communities is very beneficial. So you can't really say you go by science and yet advocate the abolition of religion, eh?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Read the opening post. It states the results of scientific research, which is that participation in religious communities is very beneficial.

Are you talking about stuff like this?

Part of the reason people are attracted to religion is that its rituals – the standing, sitting and kneeling in unison, the singing, the listening to emotionally rousing sermons – trigger the brain’s endorphin system. This is the mechanism that underpins social bonding in all primates, including humans. Like opiates, endorphins produce a sense of bliss bordering on ecstasy, calmness and warmth, relaxation and trust, while elevating pain thresholds. In addition to these hedonic benefits, endorphins trigger the release of natural killer cells (part of the body’s immune system).

So you can't really say you go by science and yet advocate the abolition of religion, eh?

Heh... your article isn't that scientific.

(And you don't seem to have read it all the way through)

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Are you talking about stuff like this?)

No, I am not talking about his speculations. I'm talking about the articles reference to a scientific study.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, I am not talking about his speculations. I'm talking about the articles reference to a scientific study.

The Facebook survey, you mean.

What conclusions do you draw from that study? Did you look at the paper? Here it is again:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...as_factors_in_wellbeing_and_social_engagement

Because here's what the study said:

- out of "personal religiosity," "private prayer," and "church attendance," the only aspect of religiosity that had a strong correlation with improved outcomes was church attendance.

- these improved outcomes didn't really happen until the person attended very frequently (around once per week, IIRC).

- the study didn't look at whether attending a non-religious social activity once a week also correlated with better outcomes.


... so what's the conclusion you draw from that? Here are mine:

- regular social activity and having a circle of friends is a good thing.

- generally, people who are well enough to get out of the house once a week are healthier than people who aren't well enough to get out of the house once a week. Any time you divide people into groups based on whether they engage in an in-person social activity every week, the comparison between the groups will be skewed by selection bias.

 

[Nakosis]

The big idea: do we still need religion?

"There are at least two reasons, however, why religions persist. One is the fact that, on average, religious people are generally happier, healthier and live longer. For better or for worse, they also have easier deaths when the time comes. The other is that religious people are more likely to feel that they belong to a community. In a survey I ran, those who reported attending religious services were depressed less frequently, felt their lives were more worthwhile, were more engaged with their local community, and felt greater trust towards others. These enormous benefits mean not only that religion has enduring appeal, but that religious practices make you “fit” in the evolutionary sense – and thus they tend to stick around."

We?

I don't need religion however, I suppose it is useful for those who fear uncertainty.

I don't need to belong to a community, I am part of a community. No need to tribalize this to those who get to be included in my community and those who don't. Being a halfway decent human being is the only requirement.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The Facebook survey, you mean.

It's actually more than one study. I've been following this for years. I have a lot of respect for Pew Research, the Mayo Clinic, etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's actually more than one study. I've been following this for years. I have a lot of respect for Pew Research, the Mayo Clinic, etc.

So by "a scientific study," you meant "more than one study"?

Which other studies?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So by "a scientific study," you meant "more than one study"?

Which other studies?

Try googling religious congregations healthier happier scholarly articles and see what comes up.

This is something I've followed for years and years. I could never reproduce all that I've read in a mere forum post.

 

[rational experiences]

If humans claim my mother father is the same human mother father of everyone a human not an ape.

Then science a human theist claiming my thinking time travels is considered dangerous.

The human just a hu man first.

So gathered in groups for family support moral protection.

As family became designers science rich man human slave.

So says the human historical spiritual teaching.

Morality unlike him we won't murder.

History natural family versus science rich man controls.

So community family groups gathered to be moral like minded. Found comfort praying to mother father.

As we are their children. We relive their life. We are family.

Sadly drug euphoric human brain conditions persist. Humans don't need drink or drugs we biologically live the experience naturally.

Gather expressing mutual feelings. Which heightens change in vibrational music singing. A relief a change.

We knew it was. If you needed comfort you sought it. Knowing most of the congregation didn't judge. So sick suffering or poverty stricken sought help of moral humans.

Was a community standing.

If you honour God humans said it wasn't to change God the earth or it's heavens. Observation natural human as science term natural only.

To honour each other humans is just a choice. As the human.

That choice exists in any human organised gathering human morality.

How does science preach it's morality in its organisation? By machine destruction isn't the moral organisation actually.

 

[night912]

Read the opening post. It states the results of scientific research, which is that participation in religious communities is very beneficial. So you can't really say you go by science and yet advocate the abolition of religion, eh?

I read the OP before I posted my first comment. Your response to what I said is the part where I'm not sure what you're trying to say. And your response above made it even more confusing as to what you're trying to say.

For clarification, here's the content/context of what I'm talking about:

You quoted part of what I said, "If the goal is wellbeing for the overall of humanity, we eliminate religion over night,"

Then you replied by saying, "Not if you trust science."

 

[rational experiences]

I would quote men humans natural spiritual intelligent first are observers. Are the natural human scientist who constructed religion in society versus occult nuclear human practiced science.

For healing brain entrainment family unity purpose originally. But the science organisation took back control.

After witnessing what the practice machine being occult AI artificial choice had caused.

So it taught no man is God.

It's nuclear theists that quoted God a nuclear dust reaction created human life when it ended life in nature.

As in earth without a nature earths mass was being nuclear converted position one. Isn't a machine.

In fact it was a scientists confession I converted all things by science.

A human thought human thesis human choice human practice is the statement science.

Natural man natural science said no man is God advisor.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I read the OP before I posted my first comment. Your response to what I said is the part where I'm not sure what you're trying to say. And your response above made it even more confusing as to what you're trying to say.

For clarification, here's the content/context of what I'm talking about:

You quoted part of what I said, "If the goal is wellbeing for the overall of humanity, we eliminate religion over night,"

Then you replied by saying, "Not if you trust science."

Right. If you go by science, which says that religion is very beneficial, then you cannot be for the elimination of religion.

 

[Heyo]

Right. If you go by science, which says that religion is very beneficial, then you cannot be for the elimination of religion.

I think you might be comparing apples to oranges here. The benefits the studies are talking about are health benefits for the individual. At the same time religion has a detrimental effect on societies. It is a source and tool of division and often used as a motivator for people to go to war. It will be hard to calculate a net benefit.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I think you might be comparing apples to oranges here. The benefits the studies are talking about are health benefits for the individual. At the same time religion has a detrimental effect on societies. It is a source and tool of division and often used as a motivator for people to go to war. It will be hard to calculate a net benefit.

Health benefits and mental health benefits. Basically -- healthier, happier, longer lived, and a buffer against anxiety and depression. That's my summation of all the various studies I have read about through the years. That makes religion a positive influence over all. Can it be abused and cause harm? Sure. But that doesn't mean it isn't basically a good healthy thing. Thus, if you accept the scientific results of the studies, you cannot also advocate for the end of religion.

 

[Heyo]

Health benefits and mental health benefits. Basically -- healthier, happier, longer lived, and a buffer against anxiety and depression. That's my summation of all the various studies I have read about through the years. That makes religion a positive influence over all.

Well, if you only sum up the positives, of course you come to a net positive.

Can it be abused and cause harm? Sure. But that doesn't mean it isn't basically a good healthy thing. Thus, if you accept the scientific results of the studies, you cannot also advocate for the end of religion.

What about all the wars fought in the name of religion or where religion was used as excuse and a rally cry? The crusades, the thirty year war, ISIS? They weren't exactly healthy.