Does Childhood Religiosity Delay Death?

[Algor]

It's not that my reading comprehension is the problem.

On the evidence, it is.

It's that I see from a perspective that you don't see.

Well, you demonstrably tell whoppers, so maybe that's an issue too, but it isn't mine.

 

[SteveB]

On the evidence, it is.

Well, you demonstrably tell whoppers, so maybe that's an issue too, but it isn't mine.

Why on earth would I want your perspective?
It's quite clear to me that your perspective is why you have been mocking Jesus, the bible, claim that Paul perverted the gospel of Jesus, and numerous other fraudulent views.

So, yeah. I have no problem whatsoever with the fact that your perspective is not a perspective I'd want, or say is anything remotely close to rational, logical or reasonable.

 

[Algor]

Why on earth would I want your perspective?

That's something you would have to answer for yourself.

It's quite clear to me that your perspective is why you have been mocking Jesus, the bible, claim that Paul perverted the gospel of Jesus, and numerous other fraudulent views.

I haven't claimed that Paul perverted the gospel of Jesus. That's yet another whopper.

So, yeah. I have no problem whatsoever with the fact that your perspective is not a perspective I'd want, or say is anything remotely close to rational, logical or reasonable.

Nobody cares, SteveB.

 

[SteveB]

That's something you would have to answer for yourself.

I already have. Decades ago.

I haven't claimed that Paul perverted the gospel of Jesus. That's yet another whopper.

Yeah. Uhuh.... ok.

Nobody cares, SteveB.

Yep. Noticed that a very long time ago too.

You guys scrape the bottom of the dumpster and then proclaim it superior.
And when shown a 5 star banquet, mock it as garbage.
So, yeah. Saw that a long long time ago


Scripture doesn’t limit its reasons against sin to “just because it’s wrong.” It also includes “because it’s stupid” since sin’s consequences are so severe. “For the simple are killed by their turning away, and the complacency of fools destroys them; but whoever listens to me will dwell secure and will be at ease, without dread of disaster” (Proverbs 1:32-33, ESV).


As the fear of God is the beginning of knowledge, and you think it's the end of knowledge, evidencing that you despise wisdom and understanding, I figured out that your perspective is not something I'd consider as valuable.

 

[Algor]

I already have. Decades ago.

(Yawn)

Yeah. Uhuh.... ok.

Yep. Hard to know why you lie so readily about others, but you do.

 

[SteveB]

(Yawn)

Yep. Hard to know why you lie so readily about others, but you do.

Well, considering that Jesus said we'd be falsely accused of numerous things, I'd say that you have demonstrated that he is right.

 

[Algor]

Well, considering that Jesus said we'd be falsely accused of numerous things, I'd say that you have demonstrated that he is right.

SteveB: (Posts obvious lie)
Algor: You shouldn't tell lies.
SteveB: Jesus said we'd be falsely accused!

 

[SteveB]

SteveB: (Posts obvious lie)
Algor: You shouldn't tell lies.
SteveB: Jesus said we'd be falsely accused!

To you Jesus rising from the dead is an obvious lie, so I'm not actually bothered with your claim.

 

[Algor]

To you Jesus rising from the dead is an obvious lie, so I'm not actually bothered with your claim.

I’ve called it untrue, but not a lie. That’s because I don’t think it is a lie.

Sone of the stuff you come out with, OTOH....

 

[Furion]

From:
Journal of Religion and Health volume 60 , pages 420–443 (2021)

Abstract
This study explores the potential long-term health effects of religiosity in the childhood home. Analyses use retrospective childhood data from the MIDUS survey linked to National Death Index records from 1995 to 2014. Findings from Cox proportional hazard models suggest that children brought up in highly religious households have a higher risk of mortality than those socialized in more moderately religious households, this despite such individuals having better overall health profiles. The surprising link between high childhood religiosity and mortality was confined to those who downgraded their religiosity. Those who intensified from moderate to high religiosity, in fact, seemed to be most protected. We call for future research to more clearly specify the intervening mechanisms linking childhood religion with adult health and mortality over the life course.

Reasonable study, with a reasonable sample size after a response rate of >60% to survey.

From the discussion "A seeming paradox makes our central finding all the more surprising: People raised in highly religious homes were at an increased mortality risk despite fitting the profile of overall health and well-being. Indeed, ancillary analyses showed this group to have a lower risk of smoking and heavy drinking, lower depression scores, and lower risk of several major illnesses relative to those raised in moderately or non-religious homes. People raised to be highly religious also visited a doctor with more regularity and reported higher self-confidence and optimism than peers raised in less religious homes.

The surprising mortality penalty associated with high childhood religiosity, however, had an important contingency: It was confined to those who downgraded their religiosity and not observed among those who remained highly religious over time. Growing up in the highest quantile of religiosity necessarily means that one has the farthest possible range of religious decline (i.e., a ceiling effect), and prior research documents that any form of drop-off is most common among those raised most devout . This pattern was also found in our data. Indeed, for those with highly religious childhoods, 44% reported a decrease in religious importance in adulthood, compared with only 26% of individuals raised in moderately religious homes. Experiencing the downward path from a religious ceiling can carry negative health implications ). One potential pathway for this process is the social support linked to church attendance and other collective expressions of religiosity . That is, a decrease in religiosity over time may portend the loss of important social ties that eventually exact a toll on health. Another potential pathway from declining religiosity to health is the loss of a totalizing worldview to make sense of and effectively address life problems. Losing religion could wipe away some of the cognitive resources that people once depended on for dealing with stress."

TLDR: raising children with high levels of religiosity is associated with an increase in their age adjusted mortality if their religiosity declines as adults.

?

This is kinda stupid, no offense. I don't have any clue the difference between "highly religious" and "moderate religious" is.

I suppose highly would be in a compound, say in Texas.

In which case long life may not be an immediate worry.

If you mean to tie it to loving Christ, well then you would be a true ahole. There are many around

 

[SteveB]

I’ve called it untrue, but not a lie. That’s because I don’t think it is a lie.

You might actually want to look at the definitions of both.

Something that is promoted as objectively true, but is not true, is a lie.

And if you actually believed that the resurrection of Jesus is objectively true, you'd stop playing games and get serious with Jesus.

Sone of the stuff you come out with, OTOH....

That's your opinion.

Your actions to date show that you don't actually believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[Algor]

You might actually want to look at the definitions of both.

Something that is promoted as objectively true, but is not true, is a lie.

A false statement presented with intent to deceive is a lie. An untruth is not necessarily a lie. In ordinary usage, occasionally an untruth that is overtly pernicious is called a lie, even if it is advanced in good faith, but I do not think either sense of the word “lie” applies to Christianity or its doctrines.

And if you actually believed that the resurrection of Jesus is objectively true, you'd stop playing games and get serious with Jesus.

Sure.

That's your opinion.

Unfortunately it is supportable by reference to what you say here, on this board. I do not know why you tell whoppers, but you do, even after you have been told you are in error. It is very easy to show the truth of this.

 

[SteveB]

A false statement presented with intent to deceive is a lie. An untruth is not necessarily a lie. In ordinary usage, occasionally an untruth that is overtly pernicious is called a lie, even if it is advanced in good faith, but I do not think either sense of the word “lie” applies to Christianity or its doctrines.

If Jesus isn't raised from the dead and we spend our lives telling others that God raised Jesus from the dead to make them right with God, that's a lie.
Due to the magnitude of the promise of the gospel, and the benefits included, that makes it a pernicious lie.

So, the fact that we've been testifying for the past 1988 years that Jesus is raised from the dead, and hundreds of millions of people have died believing that he is risen, and that upon their death they will immediately be ushered into God's Kingdom, and countless people have dedicated their entire lives to telling others about Jesus....

If Jesus is not raised..... it'd be the most pernicious lie ever promulgated in the history of the human race.

Even Paul says as much.

1Co 15:15 WEB Yes, we are also found false witnesses of God, because we testified about God that he raised up Christ, whom he didn’t raise up, if it is so that the dead are not raised.

Sure.

If Jesus is in fact raised from the dead, this is the most powerful and profound truth and event that has ever taken place in the history of the human race.

Unfortunately it is supportable by reference to what you say here, on this board. I do not know why you tell whoppers, but you do, even after you have been told you are in error. It is very easy to show the truth of this.

As stated, as long as you question the veracity of the resurrection of Jesus, your opinion is erroneous.

 

[Algor]

If Jesus isn't raised from the dead and we spend our lives telling others that God raised Jesus from the dead to make them right with God, that's a lie.
Due to the magnitude of the promise of the gospel, and the benefits included, that makes it a pernicious lie.

To you, not to me, and as you have told me what I am thinking, I can tell you no, I do not think it is a pernicious lie. You are wrong, yet again.

So, the fact that we've been testifying for the past 1988 years that Jesus is raised from the dead, and hundreds of millions of people have died believing that he is risen, and that upon their death they will immediately be ushered into God's Kingdom, and countless people have dedicated their entire lives to telling others about Jesus....

If Jesus is not raised..... it'd be the most pernicious lie ever promulgated in the history of the human race.

To you, not to me.

Even Paul says as much.

1Co 15:15 WEB Yes, we are also found false witnesses of God, because we testified about God that he raised up Christ, whom he didn’t raise up, if it is so that the dead are not raised.

Even Paul? You managed to convince Paul too? Truly impressive. But you have communicated this much before. It doesn't make me more likely to agree.

If Jesus is in fact raised from the dead, this is the most powerful and profound truth and event that has ever taken place in the history of the human race.

That opinion, and $2.50, will get you a nice hot fancy coffee.

As stated, as long as you question the veracity of the resurrection of Jesus, your opinion is erroneous.

Srsly? If I don't believe in Jesus' resurrection, my opinion that you are telling whoppers is erroneous. LOL. You could not have stated the self-serving vacuity of your mindset more clearly. Thank you. It's a keeper.

 

[Algor]

?

This is kinda stupid, no offense. I don't have any clue the difference between "highly religious" and "moderate religious" is.

I suppose highly would be in a compound, say in Texas.

In which case long life may not be an immediate worry.

If you mean to tie it to loving Christ, well then you would be a true ahole. There are many around

Well, you can't offend me with this. Its clinical epidemiology, so if one invests any personal meaning in it, one is being really silly. It's a study in a Journal: you're SUPPOSED to treat it critically. And in a couple of ways, it is kind of stupid. It's crude data: what you do is you ask people "would you say your upbringing was highly religious, moderately religious, etc. Opinions on what is what are going to vary a lot. The effect of people disagreeing on what "highly religious" means is moderated (usually, and not at all necessarily eliminated) by a large sample size: the idea is that while people will vary on any given estimate, on average they will vary from each other in many different ways, so in general the errors even out when you look at any given category if you use large numbers of people. The idea isn't so much that it is accurate, but that all your groups will generally show similar biases. Now, that doesn't always work, but the way the math works, it usually does, if the sample size is large enough and the sample is representative. No guarantees. I may not be explaining that well, but I'm not an epidemiologist.

You can't tie it to any form of Christianity. Firstly, it's too crude, as you note. Secondly, it's just religiosity, not any specific religion, that was recorded, so there are going to be Jews, Muslims, Christians, whatever. Religiosity doesn't correlate perfectly with belief, either. The other thing to remember is that in general, religiosity does all kinds of good things for people and from a rational public health POV, religion in general should be encouraged, like exercise and good diet. No institution is perfect, and religions do have their downsides (from a pubic and personal health POV) but in general, they are very socially constructive, and epidemiologists tend to recognise this fact. The authors expressed their surprise at the result a couple of times.

But the thing here is that when you look at the data they present, the statistical effect seems consistent, and so maybe it is real. But it isn't the religiosity that is linked to a higher death rate: it's that a DECREASE in religiosity is linked to a higher death rate. Now, that isn't so stupid: its actually plausible. When people leave the religion of their childhood, that's a big personal stress for them, so it shouldn't surprise that maybe there's something going on with them that isn't so great. Maybe they get sick, and if they hadn't left, they wouldn't die. Maybe both people who stay and people who leave get sick equally often, but people who leave are more stressed, or more isolated. maybe maybe maybe nobody knows. But it might be worth giving the topic a closer look. I just found the article and thought people might be interested.

 

[Furion]

Well, you can't offend me with this. Its clinical epidemiology, so if one invests any personal meaning in it, one is being really silly. It's a study in a Journal: you're SUPPOSED to treat it critically. And in a couple of ways, it is kind of stupid. It's crude data: what you do is you ask people "would you say your upbringing was highly religious, moderately religious, etc. Opinions on what is what are going to vary a lot. The effect of people disagreeing on what "highly religious" means is moderated (usually, and not at all necessarily eliminated) by a large sample size: the idea is that while people will vary on any given estimate, on average they will vary from each other in many different ways, so in general the errors even out when you look at any given category if you use large numbers of people. The idea isn't so much that it is accurate, but that all your groups will generally show similar biases. Now, that doesn't always work, but the way the math works, it usually does, if the sample size is large enough and the sample is representative. No guarantees. I may not be explaining that well, but I'm not an epidemiologist.

You can't tie it to any form of Christianity. Firstly, it's too crude, as you note. Secondly, it's just religiosity, not any specific religion, that was recorded, so there are going to be Jews, Muslims, Christians, whatever. Religiosity doesn't correlate perfectly with belief, either. The other thing to remember is that in general, religiosity does all kinds of good things for people and from a rational public health POV, religion in general should be encouraged, like exercise and good diet. No institution is perfect, and religions do have their downsides (from a pubic and personal health POV) but in general, they are very socially constructive, and epidemiologists tend to recognise this fact. The authors expressed their surprise at the result a couple of times.

But the thing here is that when you look at the data they present, the statistical effect seems consistent, and so maybe it is real. But it isn't the religiosity that is linked to a higher death rate: it's that a DECREASE in religiosity is linked to a higher death rate. Now, that isn't so stupid: its actually plausible. When people leave the religion of their childhood, that's a big personal stress for them, so it shouldn't surprise that maybe there's something going on with them that isn't so great. Maybe they get sick, and if they hadn't left, they wouldn't die. Maybe both people who stay and people who leave get sick equally often, but people who leave are more stressed, or more isolated. maybe maybe maybe nobody knows. But it might be worth giving the topic a closer look. I just found the article and thought people might be interested.

That was a lot to write, I appreciate it. One could easily look at high levels of anti-religion in a household. How much damage does a mocking atheist parent cause to the child?

I don't understand the purpose of this flawed "study."

It seems like a boredom study, destined to shed no light. Not blaming you it's just there is a lot of junk science out there.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

You might actually want to look at the definitions of both.

Something that is promoted as objectively true, but is not true, is a lie.

Ummm...wrong. A lie requires intent to deceive. If you say (or 'promote') something that is not objectively true that you believe is objectively true, that is not a lie; it is an error.

 

[Algor]

That was a lot to write, I appreciate it. One could easily look at high levels of anti-religion in a household. How much damage does a mocking atheist parent cause to the child?

I don't understand the purpose of this flawed "study."

It seems like a boredom study, destined to shed no light. Not blaming you it's just there is a lot of junk science out there.

It seems to me that you probably had a researcher looking at the data set who thought to themselves something like “hey, there’s never been a prospective look at how religiosity affects mortality. Lets use this one to take a look.” My bet is that they anticipated lower mortality with increased religiosity (as in most studies) and they probably wanted to know which disease groups or risk factors helped explain it, but they got a different sort of result than they anticipated.

Anti religion would be an interesting study. The relatively low population prevalence makes it a bit difficult, but I would guess that people who spend a lot if time with their kids dumping all over other people have other issues as well: that alone would be interesting. I’ll see if there’s anything on that.

This sort of stuff is common in other fields, but objective data driven study of religion is pretty low status in medical sciences, so it is rarely well-funded. Its a pity.

 

[SteveB]

To you, not to me, and as you have told me what I am thinking, I can tell you no, I do not think it is a pernicious lie. You are wrong, yet again.

Then what's your excuse for not following Jesus?

To you, not to me.

I'm not the one who doesn't believe God raised Jesus from the dead.
I've believed that Jesus was raised from the dead for decades.

Even Paul? You managed to convince Paul too? Truly impressive. But you have communicated this much before. It doesn't make me more likely to agree.

🤣
Actually, he wrote it 1960 years ago.
So, this took place long before I was born.

That opinion, and $2.50, will get you a nice hot fancy coffee.

You must drink cheap coffee.
As Jesus said that freely se have received, so freely give, I'm good.
It's your eternity you have to deal with.

Srsly? If I don't believe in Jesus' resurrection, my opinion that you are telling whoppers is erroneous. LOL. You could not have stated the self-serving vacuity of your mindset more clearly. Thank you. It's a keeper.

The question is whether I'm actually lying or not. As you refuse to follow Jesus, yours is a far greater issue.

Scripture doesn’t limit its reasons against sin to “just because it’s wrong.” It also includes “because it’s stupid” since sin’s consequences are so severe. “For the simple are killed by their turning away, and the complacency of fools destroys them; but whoever listens to me will dwell secure and will be at ease, without dread of disaster” (Proverbs 1:32-33, ESV).

 

[ferengi]

Well, you demonstrably tell whoppers,

Oh the hypocrisy