Religouse Believers More Depressed than Atheists

This was on a site I visit this morning.

This is a article on the same study with a few different observations.link

Recently, an international survey was led by researchers from the University of London to figure out if doctors could predict depression from their patients’ worldview. Family doctors from different countries questioned nearly ten thousand people. The study encompassed Great Britain, Spain, Slovenia, Netherlands, Portugal, Chile and Estonia. - See more at: blog.ut.ee...

In addition, the link between strength of faith and depression risk was discovered. The more religious people thought themselves to be, the greater the risk of severe depression. Individuals usually have a rather stable worldview. 27 percent of participants measured their viewpoint towards religion and spirituality after six months had passed. This had little impact on becoming depressed. Religiousness did not influence the onset of depression in these people who had recently undergone hard times either. The data did not indicate that religiousness and spirituality could protect mental health and alleviate the hardships of life; rather, getting caught up in spirituality can be harmful for mental health. - See more at: blog.ut.ee...

reply to post by Grimpachi


Uhhhhh . . . I'd have thought it was self-evident. Sorry.

I agree with the research I posted about the distinguishing differences

between

INTRINSIC RELIGIOSITY VS EXTRENSIC RELIGIOSITY

and the behavioral and psychological factors that go with each.

Extrinsics of every label are far worse of in a list of ways. The research I posted is just the tip of the iceberg.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Again . . . your study cited is meaningless

WITHOUT THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN

INTRINSIC VS EXTRENSIC RELIGIOSITY.

Being intensely caught up in EXTERNALIZED RELIGIOSITY IS STILL ASSOCIATED WITH NEGATIVE FACTORS, CONSEQUENCES, BEHAVIORS, PSYCHODYNAMICS.

The OPPOSITE is true for INTRINSICS.

The data is clear over the last 40 years.

Given the availability of extensive data . . .

and any study failing to take it into account

I'm left with the conclusion

that such flawed studies had an agenda from the beginning . . . to blackwash and trash particularly Christian religiosity in general . . . prepping toward the day when the globalist oligarchy will try to exterminate it totally.

The whole exercise with such studies is a sham from the git-go. The study's whole purpose is to blackwash and trash current religious groups, patterns, beliefs, practices.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


There's a flaw in such a postulation . . .

IF

THERE IS ONE PERSPECTIVE THAT IS DEMONSTRABLY TRUE OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME

THEN

DENIAL

OF SUCH TRUTHS

IS FOOLHARDY.

reply to post by BO XIAN

IF

THERE IS ONE PERSPECTIVE THAT IS DEMONSTRABLY TRUE OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME

THEN

DENIAL

OF SUCH TRUTHS

IS FOOLHARDY.

What if it is demonstrably false or indifferent?

reply to post by BO XIAN


OK well please read this from the source above.

An English study found that persons who see themselves as spiritual but do not follow any specific religion are more restless and depressed. This could have many possible reasons. Those with a diagnosis of depression may be more interested in self-help and spiritual movements than the average person. Soul searchers of fragile mental health can do poorly when there’s no support from a church or congregation.

- See more at: blog.ut.ee...

The study covered a lot. I get the distinct impression that no matter what they covered you will call it flawed because you don't like the findings.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


TRUE, AUTHENTIC, TESTIBLE, TRUSTWORTHY, HISTORICALLY SOLID . . . TRUTH AND REALITY

is a MUCH better foundation for life and choices

than illusions, misdirections, misinformation, disinformation, hoaxes, shams, etc.

However . . . as George Kelly presented so masterfully, we are all Jr scientists forming hypotheses about life and dealing with the consequences of our hypotheses and their related predictions. Some do better at that than others. Some do horribly. Most muddle about in the middle.

It's clear that rigid, narrow, horribly biased, willfully blind perspectives and CONSTRUCT SYSTEMS do NOT foster good hypothesis formation nor good hypothesis testing nor good conclusions from the results of same.

This is the best site for exploring one's construct system and its characteristics:

WEBGRID 5:

gigi.cpsc.ucalgary.ca:2000...

BO XIAN
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

There's a flaw in such a postulation . . .

IF

THERE IS ONE PERSPECTIVE THAT IS DEMONSTRABLY TRUE OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME

THEN

DENIAL

OF SUCH TRUTHS

IS FOOLHARDY.

Well that would require proof of that perspective being true. There isn't any substantial proof for any religion in the world or atheism so I don't need to alter my position. Until proof can be uncovered demonstrating that one religion or atheism is more correct than the others than, my point still stands. Until then, you might as well roll a die with all the religions on the separate sides. You have the same chances of being correct.

Also I know that you are trying to indirectly talk about Christianity here, but it has the same amount of proof of it being true as Islam or any other religion for that matter. So I'm not being foolhardy here. If I'm wrong, prove it.

reply to post by BO XIAN

TRUE, AUTHENTIC, TESTIBLE, TRUSTWORTHY, HISTORICALLY SOLID . . . TRUTH AND REALITY

is a MUCH better foundation for life and choices

If I pray to a god, then pray to a grapefruit, the rate of efficacy will be virtually identical. If I replicate the experiment with a jug of milk, an Elvis bobble-head, or a condom, the results will be in the same ballpark.

Need I say more?

Actually, I will say one thing more. The vast majority of your beliefs and practices come from the same place Christianity did: paganism. In fact, there are some here who call themselves Christian mystics, which is another way of saying that they have embraced the source of their Christian beliefs, but will not admit that their Christian beliefs are actually pagan.

How can Christianity claim any historical accuracy when it won't even acknowledge its own roots?

reply to post by Grimpachi



I read your referenced article.

IT IS A VERY FLAWED STUDY EXACTLY AS I NOTED

REGARDING

INTRINSIC VS EXTRINSIC.

IT IS FLAWED--REGARDLESS OF THE PROCLAIMED FINDINGS.

I don't have any trouble believing the findings as stated. They are quite plausible.

They simply CANNOT MEAN what seems to be the implications desired by the authors . . . and you . . .

BASED ON THAT research.

That's just a fact. The research does NOT SUPPORT THE CONCLUSION THAT

those persons classed as VERY RELIGIOUS are

AS A GROUP

RELIABLY PREDICTED

TO BE MORE DEPRESSED

THAN THOSE NOT VERY RELIGIOUS.

Such assertions are NOT ACCURATE BECAUSE

"VERY RELIGIOUS" IS A CONFABULATED MIXED VARIABLE

WHEREIN

THERE IS NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE INTRINSIC VERY RELIGIOUS VS THE EXTRINSIC VERY RELIGIOUS.

THEREFORE,

The contaminating factors from the EXTRINSICALLY VERY RELIGIOUS CLEARLY TRASHES TO WHATEVER DEGREE

THE BENEFICIAL CORELATES OF THE INTRINSICALLY VERY RELIGIOUS.

Wishful thinking trying to make such studies into a wholesale trashing of the benefits of INTRINSIC RELIGIOSITY

IS SIMPLY INACCURATE, UNTRUE . . . . at some point, when faced with the contrary data . . . it may be disingenuous or even dishonest.

This is a 40 year old topic with me. I have no trouble with solid research and the accurate findings of solid research.

Much that goes for religiosity IS destructive.

THAT'S just NOT the WHOLE story.

This is NOT THAT difficult to understand. Sigh.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


NOPE.

NOT BY A LONG SHOT.

However, I've not observed your perspective; your attitude nor your posting to indicate any remotely fair-minded ability to assess the history and facts of such issues.

So, I don't see any likely fruitfulness in trying to dialogue with you about such.

It's not even clear that we share a sufficiently common dictionary to make such possible.

The truth is available. And, it's not all 'leaps-of-faith' types of truth. There is solid foundation for truth.

Your assessment of the Biblical text and origins of Christianity are . . . more than flawed . . . mostly off the wall, to me. I do NOT accept the Vulcan mind-melded propaganda you appear to have swallowed on such scores.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Christ refused to comply with such demands for proof.

He provided abundant proof . . . but not in the face of such an attitude or such demands.

I'd best follow His example.

There is plenty of proof via the sources I've cited repeatedly on ATS.

reply to post by BO XIAN


So are you just going to continue vehemently denying the findings of the study without addressing or refuting any of its points? Or can we expect a rational response from you at some point?

reply to post by BO XIAN

However, I've not observed your perspective; your attitude nor your posting to indicate any remotely fair-minded ability to assess the history and facts of such issues.

That's funny, given all I've seen you contributing is a dozen different versions of the same petulant rant. I have no argument with the study. If someone has a problem and makes a good case, I'm more than willing to take it into consideration. You, however, haven't done any such thing.

So, I don't see any likely fruitfulness in trying to dialogue with you about such.

See above.

It's not even clear that we share a sufficiently common dictionary to make such possible.

Are we not speaking the same language?

The truth is available. And, it's not all 'leaps-of-faith' types of truth. There is solid foundation for truth.

Of course there is. Unfortunately, you don't seem to be providing any.

Your assessment of the Biblical text and origins of Christianity are . . . more than flawed . . . mostly off the wall, to me. I do NOT accept the Vulcan mind-melded propaganda you appear to have swallowed on such scores.

I am not the topic. The topic can be found at the top of page 1 of this thread, if you've forgotten what it is. In the meantime, you may desist your veiled attempts at ad hominem. Particularly as you've not even begun to formulate a decent rebuttal to this thread.

reply to post by BO XIAN


Christ (if he existed) was alive 2000 years ago. The stories of his exploits could have been greatly exaggerated. It's really not that far fetched of an idea. The child's game of telephone proves that a story can't even make out of a room after several repeats without being vastly different then it started out as. The gospels were written after Christ died. Even if they were written the day after that occurred the stories still aren't fresh in the author's minds. People tend to look back on their own stories and exaggerate them. It's not really surprising that they'd exaggerate the story of their "Lord and savior."

So I need proof that is going on RIGHT NOW. Not 6000 years ago, not 2000 years ago. Right. Now. Show me a miracle where God has come down and spoken to a large body of people or did something that cannot be explained by science. One witness isn't good enough, because of liars.

God is all powerful yet for some reason deems not to show himself within the last 2000 years and expects people to continue to blindly worship. No He needs to throw a bone to his followers every now and then. Humans live a small fraction of that 2000 years. Jesus' time is many generations removed from every living person on this planet. God also claims to love us unconditionally. He also created humans and has watched over them for thousands of years so he should know human nature. If he loves us so much he should know that humans need to at least be given a sign that he is still up there. Instead he supposedly just lets evil run amok throughout our world and has decided to just damn us all. I'm not buying any of it.

Again post the proof.

reply to post by AfterInfinity


I posted plenty of studies documenting my points of quibble with such research.

I can present the information. I cannot FORCE UNDERSTANDING.

It's not totally simple but it's far from rocket science. It should be comprehensible by folks of average IQ.

Conflating INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC as not significantly different or as the same thing

is INACCURATE, UNTRUE, DISTORTED, . . . at some point, a lie.

THERFORE claims, conclusions, findings based on such conflated information

are a farce.

I don't know how to say it more simply.

The research supporting my assertions above has already been posted by me above.

Again, I cannot FORCE understanding.

AfterInfinity
Particularly as you've not even begun to formulate a decent rebuttal to this thread.

Thanks for another brazen falsehood.

I cannot FORCE COMPREHENSION of the data I've posted from a number of solid research studies above.

Interestingly you've so far refused to deal with the findings of any of them. Yet you rant on !DEMANDING!

MORE

"proof."

Sheesh. Must be a new low in disingenuousness.

@ op..... The thread title might be somewhat true. Mohammad said ''the world is a prison for believers and a paradise for unbelievers'' (and the hereafter would be a prison for the unbelievers and a paradise for believers) ...................................,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I don't mean to generalize, but religious folks do tend to hold a rather grim outlook towards the world. They do spend more time contemplating spiritual matters and the eternity, as opposed to living for the moment and indulging in material enjoyments.... Which are obviously euphoric experiences.

reply to post by BO XIAN


Well I have to disagree with you because I just don't see where you disproved anything. But that is fine we don't have to agree.

I can say this you are a bit hard to understand because of the way you post.


This

kind

of

makes it

hard

to

follow.

reply to post by sk0rpi0n


What you are saying is possible. There is no way for me to prove or disprove that. They would have needed to survey each person asking them on whether the contemplated things deeply or not. In my sig there is one for 10 wonders you should check out I think many would put that on par with contemplating spiritual matters.