Health and Religion

[BADecker]

According to our current understanding, there is doubt. It's a possibility only. But the multitudes of observable C&E facts of billions of people daily, completely destroys the idea of pure random, scientifically. Even science knows that they are at a point of odds where pure random doesn't exist... by the odds.

It's like, "I know I just might win that lottery... because somebody has to win." But in pure random, nobody knows that there will ever be a winner.

We have discussed this extensively, the ''odds'' are not in your favor. How many things do you know that have a cause for sure? How many things are in the universe? Why do you think those are great odds? Just because some things have causes it doesn't mean others don't and in the atom level, it seems that they don't.

Is it material/matter that is breaking down in radioactive elements? Or is it that there is radioactivity from an undefined source that is simply passing through the material, causing it to "half-life" into something that we haven't determined yet?

Matter is made up of energy particles... the subatomic particles of electrons, protons, and neutrons. These particles are energy and matter. They are made up of other particles/energy-waves... as far as we can see. They are "glued" together so strongly that it takes something like CERN to break them apart.

Why are there machines like CERN? Because we don't know enough to even say factually how the energy/matter subatomic particles came together. The suggestion that there is pure random in the breaking down of radioactive materials is almost the same as saying that there is pixie dust. We don't know.

The idea of pure random in that way, can be applied to everything, including the way a leaf twists and turns in the breeze. But we know what it is that makes a leaf twist and turn, without being able to track any of the energy waves or molecules that hit the leaf. Similarly, the fact that material movement has been caused by material and energy, shows that there is cause and effect in everything.

It is not scientific to say that there is pure random without knowing it, and in the face of only C&E being observed anywhere.

[BADecker]

We will progress despite religion slowing us down.

Religions will be completely obsolete in 100 years, and people who will still suffer from these delusions will be diagnosed and properly treated.

Sounds like you envision a future world where the Marxist or a variant thereof take over. The only way to implement such "diagnosis and treatment" is via an all powerful state that forced it upon the religious. I imagine entire cities such as those of those of the Amish would need to be taken into police custody and "properly treated".

Such a future is very possible I will give you that.

In the future, the religious people will be the Amish of today.

How many Amish are working at IBM or Apple?  How many are professors at universities and colleges?  How many are politicians working in Washington?  How many Amish people work at NASA?

Religious people might continue to subsist in some small, closed communities.  Religions, however, will lose all the influence they have today as more people actually read the holy scriptures after they graduate from high-school.

Secular education will eradicate religions.   Religions will be studied in Anthropology, Psychology, or History classes.

Nobody will be doing anything by force.  Why would anyone want to do it?  These people need help, not to be prosecuted.

Mental illness is a serious issue.  When someone sees or hears things (God), or thinks the universe was created in 6 days by an invisible spirit they need immediate medical attention.

Why are you trivializing this?  
 

Everything you are saying is simply part of your religion, which is probably different than the formal religions that existed for a long time.

[Astargath]

According to our current understanding, there is doubt. It's a possibility only. But the multitudes of observable C&E facts of billions of people daily, completely destroys the idea of pure random, scientifically. Even science knows that they are at a point of odds where pure random doesn't exist... by the odds.

It's like, "I know I just might win that lottery... because somebody has to win." But in pure random, nobody knows that there will ever be a winner.

We have discussed this extensively, the ''odds'' are not in your favor. How many things do you know that have a cause for sure? How many things are in the universe? Why do you think those are great odds? Just because some things have causes it doesn't mean others don't and in the atom level, it seems that they don't.

Is it material/matter that is breaking down in radioactive elements? Or is it that there is radioactivity from an undefined source that is simply passing through the material, causing it to "half-life" into something that we haven't determined yet?

Matter is made up of energy particles... the subatomic particles of electrons, protons, and neutrons. These particles are energy and matter. They are made up of other particles/energy-waves... as far as we can see. They are "glued" together so strongly that it takes something like CERN to break them apart.

Why are there machines like CERN? Because we don't know enough to even say factually how the energy/matter subatomic particles came together. The suggestion that there is pure random in the breaking down of radioactive materials is almost the same as saying that there is pixie dust. We don't know.

The idea of pure random in that way, can be applied to everything, including the way a leaf twists and turns in the breeze. But we know what it is that makes a leaf twist and turn, without being able to track any of the energy waves or molecules that hit the leaf. Similarly, the fact that material movement has been caused by material and energy, shows that there is cause and effect in everything.

It is not scientific to say that there is pure random without knowing it, and in the face of only C&E being observed anywhere.

Nothing is ever known 100% factually, your argument is bad.

[BADecker]

Is it material/matter that is breaking down in radioactive elements? Or is it that there is radioactivity from an undefined source that is simply passing through the material, causing it to "half-life" into something that we haven't determined yet?

Matter is made up of energy particles... the subatomic particles of electrons, protons, and neutrons. These particles are energy and matter. They are made up of other particles/energy-waves... as far as we can see. They are "glued" together so strongly that it takes something like CERN to break them apart.

Why are there machines like CERN? Because we don't know enough to even say factually how the energy/matter subatomic particles came together. The suggestion that there is pure random in the breaking down of radioactive materials is almost the same as saying that there is pixie dust. We don't know.

The idea of pure random in that way, can be applied to everything, including the way a leaf twists and turns in the breeze. But we know what it is that makes a leaf twist and turn, without being able to track any of the energy waves or molecules that hit the leaf. Similarly, the fact that material movement has been caused by material and energy, shows that there is cause and effect in everything.

It is not scientific to say that there is pure random without knowing it, and in the face of only C&E being observed anywhere.

Nothing is ever known 100% factually, your argument is bad.

No argument. Only explanation. Since nothing is known for a 100% fact, and since there are all the billions of observations of C&E, and since the matter behind radioactivity has been caused to exist, all that the radioactivity is, is the effect of the matter that is behind it.

Maybe this time it will work differently - whatever it is - even though billions of times it worked by C&E. LOL.

Since your religion is destroying your mental health, why don't you come over to Christianity so you can be saved?

[CoinCube]

In the future, the religious people will be the Amish of today.

How many Amish are working at IBM or Apple?  How many are professors at universities and colleges?  How many are politicians working in Washington?  How many Amish people work at NASA?

Religious people might continue to subsist in some small, closed communities.  Religions, however, will lose all the influence they have today as more people actually read the holy scriptures after they graduate from high-school.

Secular education will eradicate religions.   Religions will be studied in Anthropology, Psychology, or History classes.

Nobody will be doing anything by force.  Why would anyone want to do it?  These people need help, not to be prosecuted.

Mental illness is a serious issue.  When someone sees or hears things (God), or thinks the universe was created in 6 days by an invisible spirit they need immediate medical attention.

Why are you trivializing this?  

I am not trivializing anything. This opposite is the case I think the situation is very serious.

There are two issues here:

1) You view scientific advancement as an absolute good when it is not. Science is just accumulated practical experience and knowledge. Ultimately science is the grasping of power, power over ourselves, power over our fellow man, and power over the natural world. A breakthrough in science is no more good or bad than any other other concentration of power like the gathering of a large army under a general. The rapid accumulation of power can be used for good but it can just as easily be used for evil.

2) You trivialize religion as mental illness when a proper understanding of religion ensures sanity. Of course there are religious people who are mentally ill but by and large the worst human insanity manifests when you sever the bonds of religion and justify your actions with "the greater good" and "science". This guy springs to mind.

Joseph Stalin's Interview With The First American Labor Delegation in Russia
Questions Put By The Delegation and Stalin's Replies
Pravda September 15, 1927

STALIN:  The Party cannot be neutral towards religion and does conduct anti-religious propaganda against all and every religious prejudice because it stands for science, while religious prejudices run counter to science, because all religion is something opposite to science... Have we suppressed the reactionary clergy? Yes, we have. The unfortunate thing is that it has not been completely liquidated. Anti-religious propaganda is a means by which the complete liquidation of the reactionary clergy must be brought about. Cases occur when certain members of the Party hamper the complete development of anti-religious propaganda. If such members are expelled it is a good thing because there is no room for such "Communists" in the ranks of our Party.

The Amish are far wiser than is commonly understood. They understand that power is not equivalent to progress and are very cautious. If the rest of humanity had their wisdom our development would be much slower but also less likely to end in horror and disaster. I agree with you that secular education can weaken and even eradicate formal religious beliefs. The secular religion attacks others and typically teaches dependency on an all powerful government.  

 

[af_newbie]

In the future, the religious people will be the Amish of today.

How many Amish are working at IBM or Apple?  How many are professors at universities and colleges?  How many are politicians working in Washington?  How many Amish people work at NASA?

Religious people might continue to subsist in some small, closed communities.  Religions, however, will lose all the influence they have today as more people actually read the holy scriptures after they graduate from high-school.

Secular education will eradicate religions.   Religions will be studied in Anthropology, Psychology, or History classes.

Nobody will be doing anything by force.  Why would anyone want to do it?  These people need help, not to be prosecuted.

Mental illness is a serious issue.  When someone sees or hears things (God), or thinks the universe was created in 6 days by an invisible spirit they need immediate medical attention.

Why are you trivializing this?  

I am not trivializing anything. This opposite is the case I think the situation is very serious.

There are two issues here:

1) You view scientific advancement as an absolute good when it is not. Science is just accumulated practical experience and knowledge. Ultimately science is the grasping of power, power over ourselves, power over our fellow man, and power over the natural world. A breakthrough in science is no more good or bad than any other other concentration of power like the gathering of a large army under a general. The rapid accumulation of power can be used for good but it can just as easily be used for evil.

2) You trivialize religion as mental illness when a proper understanding of religion ensures sanity. Of course there are religious people who are mentally ill but by and large the worst human insanity manifests when you sever the bonds of religion and justify your actions with "the greater good" and "science". This guy springs to mind.

Joseph Stalin's Interview With The First American Labor Delegation in Russia
Questions Put By The Delegation and Stalin's Replies
Pravda September 15, 1927

STALIN:  The Party cannot be neutral towards religion and does conduct anti-religious propaganda against all and every religious prejudice because it stands for science, while religious prejudices run counter to science, because all religion is something opposite to science... Have we suppressed the reactionary clergy? Yes, we have. The unfortunate thing is that it has not been completely liquidated. Anti-religious propaganda is a means by which the complete liquidation of the reactionary clergy must be brought about. Cases occur when certain members of the Party hamper the complete development of anti-religious propaganda. If such members are expelled it is a good thing because there is no room for such "Communists" in the ranks of our Party.

The Amish are far wiser than is commonly understood. They understand that power is not equivalent to progress and are very cautious. If the rest of humanity had their wisdom our development would be much slower but also less likely to end in horror and disaster. I agree with you that secular education can weaken and even eradicate formal religious beliefs. The secular religion attacks others and typically teaches dependency on an all powerful government.  

 

You don't want to go to "the greater good" thingy.

How many people were killed IN THE NAME of science vs religion?  Violence, fear or intimidation is all religions know.

Religion is insane because people believe in irrational ideas and nonexisting objects which leads them to make insane decisions.

If you cannot understand that, you are clearly insane.

PS.  If you care about your children at all, you would stop propagating this ancient blood cult to them.  Stop and think.  Don't just feel something is right, prove it to yourself.

Ask your God to post in this thread.  Do it!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra70O9nps6E

[BADecker]

How many people were killed IN THE NAME of science vs religion?  Violence, fear or intimidation is all religions know.

Barely any in the name of science. But all of them using science. Why? Because leverage of spears, bows and arrows, sling stones, guns and bullets, and whatever other weapons, is all science. The only thing that differs is the complexity of the science behind the weapon.

Since people are religious beings, all that they are doing when they use science weapons, is making science part of their religion. All you are doing is making science part of your religion in a different way. Since your science religion doesn't have Jesus salvation, yet you promote your science religion, you are promoting eternal death.

You are, or are attempting to be, a murderer in the name of science.

[af_newbie]

How many people were killed IN THE NAME of science vs religion?  Violence, fear or intimidation is all religions know.

Barely any in the name of science. But all of them using science. Why? Because leverage of spears, bows and arrows, sling stones, guns and bullets, and whatever other weapons, is all science. The only thing that differs is the complexity of the science behind the weapon.

Since people are religious beings, all that they are doing when they use science weapons, is making science part of their religion. All you are doing is making science part of your religion in a different way. Since your science religion doesn't have Jesus salvation, yet you promote your science religion, you are promoting eternal death.

You are, or are attempting to be, a murderer in the name of science.

I think your post clearly demonstrates my earlier point about religious insanity.

[CoinCube]

You don't want to go to "the greater good" thingy.

How many people were killed IN THE NAME of science vs religion?  Violence, fear or intimidation is all religions know.

Religion is insane because people believe in irrational ideas and objects which leads them to make insane decisions.

If you cannot understand that, you are clearly insane.

There is no science vs religion.

There is simply the tools of science (accumulated knowledge and power) directed towards the goals of individuals and society wielding that power.

Those goals are determined by the religious makeup of said society. Stalin and his fellow Communists thought they were building utopia as they implemented a system that killed millions. Hitler and his Nazi's thought they were doing the right thing as they instigated their Darwinian attempt to conquer and eventually wipe out the cultures and races they deemed subhuman. Many evils have also been committed in the name of formal religion.

Violence, fear and intimidation is all many humans know and are inherent in humanity. No human institution religious or otherwise is entirely free of them for we are fallen creatures and our institutions reflect it.

Belief in God is not an irrational idea. Far from leading one to insane decisions it guides us toward wisdom and away from insanity. A look at the choices that result from individuals and societies that have supplanted God with some other value system is enough to see this.

[af_newbie]

You don't want to go to "the greater good" thingy.

How many people were killed IN THE NAME of science vs religion?  Violence, fear or intimidation is all religions know.

Religion is insane because people believe in irrational ideas and objects which leads them to make insane decisions.

If you cannot understand that, you are clearly insane.

There is no science vs religion.

There is simply the tools of science (accumulated knowledge and power) directed towards the goals of individuals and society wielding that power.

Those goals are determined by the religious makeup of said society. Stalin and his fellow Communists thought they were building utopia as they implemented a system that killed millions. Hitler and his Nazi's thought they were doing the right thing as they instigated their Darwinian attempt to conquer and eventually wipe out the cultures and races they deemed subhuman. Many evils have also been committed in the name of formal religion.

Violence, fear and intimidation is all many humans know and are inherent in humanity. No human institution religious or otherwise is entirely free of them for we are fallen creatures and our institutions reflect it.

Belief in God is not an irrational idea. Far from leading one to insane decisions it guides us toward wisdom and away from insanity. A look at the choices that result from individuals and societies that have supplanted God with some other value system is enough to see this.

I am curious how do you get from a non-religious, scientific world view to economic or racial dictatorships.

Your every argument brings up the evils of communism or nazism.  Are you saying that non-religious people are communists or nazists? 

Jesus fucking Christ, someone really messed you up.

I think a secular society with free-market capitalist democracy will progress humanity faster than any religious, economic or racial dictatorships combined?

BTW, The Jesus character was more of a communist than a capitalist.

[CoinCube]

I am curious how do you get from a non-religious, scientific world view to economic or racial dictatorships.

Your every argument brings up the evils of communism or nazism.  Are you saying that non-religious people are communists or nazists?  

No I am saying there is no such thing as a non-religious human being. If you cut out the formal religion people will just fall into an ideology or philosophy which takes its place.

Communism and Nazism were examples of such ideologies and notable only for their relative early persuasiveness enabling them to be more destructive than the many other bad ideas floating around in the human psyche. Jordan Peterson described such ideologies as parasites living on a fractured religious superstructure which is an apt description.

I think a secular society with free-market capitalist democracy will progress humanity faster than any religious, economic or racial dictatorships combined?

If by "progress" you mean short term rapid scientific advancement then yes I agree that in short term an increasingly secular society with free-markets and democracy will likely maximize such technological developments.

In the long term, however, it is very questionable whether a genuinely secular society can sustain either free-markets or democracy.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg52788011#msg52788011

[af_newbie]

I am curious how do you get from a non-religious, scientific world view to economic or racial dictatorships.

Your every argument brings up the evils of communism or nazism.  Are you saying that non-religious people are communists or nazists?  

No I am saying there is no such thing as a non-religious human being. If you cut out the formal religion people will just fall into an ideology or philosophy which takes its place.

Communism and Nazism were examples of such ideologies and notable only for their relative early persuasiveness enabling them to be more destructive than the many other bad ideas floating around in the human psyche. Jordan Peterson described such ideologies as parasites living on a fractured religious superstructure which is an apt description.

I think a secular society with free-market capitalist democracy will progress humanity faster than any religious, economic or racial dictatorships combined?

If by "progress" you mean short term rapid scientific advancement then yes I agree that in short term an increasingly secular society with free-markets and democracy will likely maximize such technological developments.

In the long term, however, it is very questionable whether a genuinely secular society can sustain either free-markets or democracy.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg52788011#msg52788011

So your argument is that we need religion as the proverbial stick to keep everyone in line otherwise we would fall into anarchy, communism, nazism or some other form of dictatorship?  Have you really thought this through?

Since you agree that secular, democratic society might be good in the short-term to advance humanity, how about we try it and see what happens in the long-term. LOL.

If you stick with democracy you will never descent into dictatorship, religious or secular.

My point was that the religious world view is regressive. 

It not only does not help but impedes our scientific progress.

[CoinCube]

So your argument is that we need religion as the proverbial stick to keep everyone in line otherwise we would fall into anarchy, communism, nazism or some other form of dictatorship?  Have you really thought this through?

Since you agree that secular, democratic society might be good in the short-term to advance humanity, how about we try it and see what happens in the long-term. LOL.

If you stick with democracy you will never descent into dictatorship, religious or secular.

My point was that the religious world view is regressive.  

It not only does not help but impedes our scientific progress.

No my argument is that a society grounded in God is necessary to maintain the vital dynamism necessary to preserve liberty and that without such a foundation any given democracy is unlikely to be capable of sustaining itself. My argument is that a genuinely secular democracy once its abandons its foundation in the transcendent will become unstable. That it will in the words of Froude become:

"the blossoming of the aloe, the sudden squandering of the vital force which has accumulated in the long years when it was contented to be healthy and did not aspire after a vain display. The aloe is glorious for a single season. It progresses as it never progressed before. It admires its own excellence, looks back with pity on its own earlier and humbler condition, which it attributes only to the unjust restraints in which it was held. It conceives that it has discovered the true secret of being 'beautiful forever,' and in the midst of the discovery it dies."

We agree that a secular democratic society is the form a government most capable of rapid scientific advancement over short time periods. We also agree that a society that holds firmly to religious principles will naturally slow the rate of scientific advancement as not all avenues, methods, and implementation of research will be acceptable to said society.

We disagree on the importance of maximizing short term scientific advancement.  

As for a real life trial we only have to wait and observe. Western Europe and especially Scandinavia are pursuing the experiment now.

[BADecker]

How many people were killed IN THE NAME of science vs religion?  Violence, fear or intimidation is all religions know.

Barely any in the name of science. But all of them using science. Why? Because leverage of spears, bows and arrows, sling stones, guns and bullets, and whatever other weapons, is all science. The only thing that differs is the complexity of the science behind the weapon.

Since people are religious beings, all that they are doing when they use science weapons, is making science part of their religion. All you are doing is making science part of your religion in a different way. Since your science religion doesn't have Jesus salvation, yet you promote your science religion, you are promoting eternal death.

You are, or are attempting to be, a murderer in the name of science.

I think your post clearly demonstrates my earlier point about religious insanity.

Of course it does. Since you don't like the idea that you are religious, you try to ignore the part of the definition of religion that says, "something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice," - https://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion?s=t.

In other words, you use your religion as a way to modify the definition of religion for yourself. Why? Just so you, a religious being, can try to convince yourself that you are not a religious being.

It's funny how many people out there try to be something they are not and can't be, just to gain something that they think is beneficial to them. Wake up and realize that being real is the best benefit you can do for yourself.

[af_newbie]

So your argument is that we need religion as the proverbial stick to keep everyone in line otherwise we would fall into anarchy, communism, nazism or some other form of dictatorship?  Have you really thought this through?

Since you agree that secular, democratic society might be good in the short-term to advance humanity, how about we try it and see what happens in the long-term. LOL.

If you stick with democracy you will never descent into dictatorship, religious or secular.

My point was that the religious world view is regressive.  

It not only does not help but impedes our scientific progress.

No my argument is that a society grounded in God is necessary to maintain the vital dynamism necessary to preserve liberty and that without such a foundation any given democracy is unlikely to be capable of sustaining itself. My argument is that a genuinely secular democracy once its abandons its foundation in the transcendent will become unstable. That it will in the words of Froude become:

"the blossoming of the aloe, the sudden squandering of the vital force which has accumulated in the long years when it was contented to be healthy and did not aspire after a vain display. The aloe is glorious for a single season. It progresses as it never progressed before. It admires its own excellence, looks back with pity on its own earlier and humbler condition, which it attributes only to the unjust restraints in which it was held. It conceives that it has discovered the true secret of being 'beautiful forever,' and in the midst of the discovery it dies."

We agree that a secular democratic society is the form a government most capable of rapid scientific advancement over short time periods. We also agree that a society that holds firmly to religious principles will naturally slow the rate of scientific advancement as not all avenues, methods, and implementation of research will be acceptable to said society.

We disagree on the importance of maximizing short term scientific advancement.  

As for a real life trial we only have to wait and observe. Western Europe and especially Scandinavia are pursuing the experiment now.

I think you might be skipping more than a few verses in the Bible.  

Wasn't your God who sanctioned slavery?

And now he is all about liberty and preservation of democracy?

You are just throwing God everywhere and see where it sticks.

Problem is that this 'God' concept is as diverse as the insect family.  Every church or even community uses different verses, interprets them differently, verses from different books, from different publishers, different translations, all coming to different conclusions of what God is wants, allows or disallows.  

A comedy show, really.  And you come along and claim that God is required to maintain democracy or liberty?

You are just like the whites who were saying that Blacks need to submit to their masters because God said so.

Where in the Bible God talks about the preservation of democracy?  More like a dictatorship, with him at the helm.

God and democracy?  You are a funny guy.

[Niya]

I think the most deleterious effect of atheism is depression, often correlated with anxiety and apathy. If you look at suicide rates, you will notice many low-suicide rates countries are very religious. For example, suicide rates in Morocco, Pakistan, Kuwait and even Syria are far lower than Japan, South Korea or Finland (countries with high atheism rate).

[af_newbie]

I think the most deleterious effect of atheism is depression, often correlated with anxiety and apathy. If you look at suicide rates, you will notice many low-suicide rates countries are very religious. For example, suicide rates in Morocco, Pakistan, Kuwait and even Syria are far lower than Japan, South Korea or Finland (countries with high atheism rate).

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/talking-about-men/201812/the-mental-health-atheists-and-the-nones

<sub>"Christmas is approaching, and religious people across the world are preparing with the appropriate prayers, observations, and services. However, a growing proportion of the population is non-religious, and for them, Christmas can be a meaningless, empty, and lonely period.

Indeed, a small but growing body of research continues to explore the relationship between religiosity, non-religiosity, and mental health. Much of this includes broad comparisons between the religious and non-religious.

Who are the non-religious?
The ‘non-religious’ is an umbrella term referring to a heterogeneous group of people, often known as the ‘nones.’ These can include people who are lapsed, non-affiliated, agnostics, the ‘spiritual but not religious’ and atheists.

Interestingly, Pew Research Center surveys indicate a growth in the ‘nones’ as a proportion of the population. A 2014 survey indicated that 23 percent of Americans identified as a ‘none,’ significantly higher than the 16 percent observed in 2007. Within these ‘nones’ are a growing number of atheists.

Indeed, the Pew Research Centre reports that ‘the share of Americans who identify as atheists has roughly doubled in the past several years’, now making up 3.1 percent of the population, compared to 1.6 percent in 2007. Interestingly, young white educated men make up a disproportionate number of atheists.

This rise may be related to ‘the new atheism,’ a social movement created and led by major public intellectuals such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, both of whom wrote best-selling books promoting atheism and atheistic worldviews.

Religiosity and mental health
Much research indicates that religious people as a group tend to have better mental health than the ‘nones’ as a group. This is manifest in various indicators, including lower rates of depression, anxiety, suicide, self-harm, and substance use among the religious.

The protective mental health effects of religiosity have been attributed to various factors. These include social support in religious congregations, a sense of purpose and meaning offered by religions, and moral codes commanding certain behaviors (e.g. abstinence) within religions. These are discussed in the short video below with Dr. Eric Jarvis, a leading authority on religion, atheism and mental health.

However, the studies leading to these conclusions often collapse a variety of different groups (e.g., agnostics, lapsed, unaffiliated, weak atheists, strong atheists) into a single category of ‘nones,’ comparing these to a single category of ‘religious.’ This binary ‘lumping’ approach loses granular-level information about the many specific sub-groups within the ‘nones.’

Examining the ‘nones’
New research has set out to examine the broad mental health differences in the sub-categories constituting the ‘nones.’ Interestingly, a growing number of studies suggest that people possessing strong religious beliefs and convinced atheists tend to share similarly positive mental health. The worst mental health is observed in those with more ambiguous, confused and weaker religious or spiritual beliefs.

For example, a just-published study by Dr. Joseph Baker at East Tennessee State University indicates that atheists have the best mental health among the ‘nones,’ similar to that of the highly-religious. In contrast, ‘non-affiliated theists’ had the poorest mental health.

These findings overlap with a classic British study which found that the ‘spiritual but not religious’ had higher levels of drug dependency, abnormal eating, generalized anxiety disorder, neurotic disorders and use of psychotropic medication, in comparison with both ‘religious people’ and people who were ‘neither religious nor spiritual.’

These results tantalizingly suggest that ‘certainty of belief,’ rather than the content of the belief itself, may be a key determinant of positive mental health in the groups studied. Contrariwise, uncertainty or inconsistency of belief, as sometimes witnessed in agnostics, the non-affiliated and the ‘spiritual but not religious’ may be a risk factor for poor mental health.

Conclusion
Richard Dawkins himself has joked about atheists possibly being ‘despairing neurotics driven to suicide by relentless cosmic angst’ because they lack the emotional and psychological consolations of religion. However, emerging evidence suggests that convinced atheists may derive consolation from a certainty of belief in their own solidly-held worldview, leading to similar mental health to the highly-religious.

Such consolation may not be present for those with more uncertain and ambiguous beliefs, such as the ‘spiritual but not religious’ and agnostics.

All this implies a need for further research examining the psychosocial and mental health differences between the different categories of the ‘nones.’ A ‘splitting’ rather than ‘lumping’ approach is necessary to enrich the scientific literature and avoid false conclusions.

Merry Christmas."</sub>

In the end, it does not matter if what you believed was true or not, you'll rot and decompose the same, atoms in your body will be used to form something else.

What matters to some people is that their genes were passed on to their offsprings.

If a belief in some sky daddy is what makes you happy, go for it.  
Just don't tell me it is the 'truth' because I will have a mirad of follow up questions. LOL.
And don't tell me that I have to do something because of your belief.

[BADecker]

In the end, it does not matter if what you believed was true or not, you'll rot and decompose the same, atoms in your body will be used to form something else.

What matters to some people is that their genes were passed on to their offsprings.

If a belief in some sky daddy is what makes you happy, go for it.  
Just don't tell me it is the 'truth' because I will have a mirad of follow up questions. LOL.
And don't tell me that I have to do something because of your belief.

All you are saying is that whenever you blow your nose or use the toilet, it's simply a dead part of you that is mingling with everything else. Just think! There goes part of af_newbie, into the sewer pipes, into the ground, into the plants and animals that eat him up. That's really the real af_newbie, even though it might be part of the dead af_newbie.

You are absolutely so funny to think that you are limited by death to a hole in the ground, or whatever. And you think that the religion of other people is goofy. Yours has them beat all around.

[CoinCube]

...
Where in the Bible God talks about the preservation of democracy?  More like a dictatorship, with him at the helm.

God and democracy?  You are a funny guy.

Since you clearly don't want to hear it from me I recommend another source. William Barr the US attorney general recently gave an excellent talk on this exact topic. It was superb 100% on point and I highly recommend watching it.

Attorney General William Barr on Religious Liberty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM87WMsrCWM

His speech starts at the 9:00 minute mark of the video.

[af_newbie]

...
Where in the Bible God talks about the preservation of democracy? More like a dictatorship, with him at the helm.

God and democracy?  You are a funny guy.

Since you clearly don't want to hear it from me I recommend another source. William Barr the US attorney general recently gave an excellent talk on this exact topic. It was superb 100% on point and I highly recommend watching it.

Attorney General William Barr on Religious Liberty
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM87WMsrCWM

His speech starts at the 9:00 minute mark of the video.

This 'solution' assumes the society that is already 100% religious.

What do you do with a society that is only 75% religious?  You apply the 'religious liberty' and make them religious anyway so that they can be saved from themselves by themselves, not the rule of law of the secular government?  How?  By setting up religious conversion camps?

The point he is making assumes we don't have empathy for one another and need divine (aka fearsome) moral rules, or else we would be killing our neighbors.  Is he that insane?  Maybe he is speaking from his personal experience as a sociopath or psychopath.  I am not sure.

I never understood this line of thinking.  If you take any religion, and I mean any, you will find that the divine moral rules are reprehensible.

How can he stand there and talk about religious liberty is required to be moral to one another?  He is a pretentious, ignorant fool preaching to the choir.

And you my friend did not answer my question.