SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Researchers report in areas with greater numbers of Christian fundamentalists, infant mortality rates are higher than in areas with more mainstream Christians. The study reveals external factors such as lack of social support, birth defects, poverty and lack of insurance, in addition to religious conviction, are the main reasons for the increased mortality rates.
The odds of an infant dying before their first birthday are higher in counties with greater proportions of conservative Protestants, especially fundamentalists, than in counties with more mainline Protestants and Catholics, according to a new Portland State University study The study, published online in May in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, supports the idea that the more insular, anti-institutional culture of fundamentalists can lead to poorer health outcomes.
Ginny Garcia-Alexander, a sociology professor in PSU's College of Liberal Arts and Sciences and the study's lead author, examined the influence of religion on postneonatal infant mortality rates, or the number of deaths from four weeks through the first year, using data from 1990 through 2010. Garcia-Alexander said a leading cause of infant death in the first 28 days is birth defects, which can be heavily influenced by advances in medical knowledge and technology. By contrast, deaths in the next 11 months of life are more often linked to external factors such as poverty, lack of insurance, social support networks and religion.
Garcia-Alexander said the findings mirror trends seen in adult mortality rates, where areas with more mainline Protestants and Catholics had better health outcomes than areas with more conservative Protestants.
The study's findings build on previous research that says that Catholicism and mainline Protestantism are civically minded, externally oriented faiths that emphasize community-level care. For example, church-affiliated hospitals and social-service providers such as Catholic Charities can bolster the health infrastructure of local communities.
Source: https://neurosciencenews.com/infant-mortality-fundamentalism-9165/
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:20PM (19 children)
I thought I just got done debunking this a week or two ago? Show me where in the Bible *anybody* gives a date (or let's say a range of a couple decades) for the Second Coming. All Jesus ever says is "Soon"; it's the disciples and early church that went all crazy and said "in our lifetimes."
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 5, Informative) by SomeGuy on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:56PM (1 child)
Fuck the bible. The entire fucking bullshit filled thing. And flush it down the toilet where it belongs.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Tuesday June 19 2018, @10:16PM
Oh come now. The Bible is an Iron Age history, with, sadly, a whole lot of religious propaganda baked in. However there are reasons for that. As a tool to aid religious leaders in maintaining and spreading the faith, it was a brilliant success. The problem is that today there are still millions of people who eat up the propaganda. The writers obviously had not a clue how the world came to be, but to satisfy the fundamentalists of those times who were demanding just such a story and other knowledge and miracles to "prove" the divine provenance, they made up all that stuff in Genesis about 6 days to create everything, and resting on the 7th day, playing upon vague memories of far older traditions and superstitions. In these times, we know much, much more, so that it should be obvious to all that the creation story in Genesis is a load of made up fiction.
Why 7 days? A week could have just as easily been 8 days, or 6 days, or some other length. It's because the Sumerians thought 7 was special, a lucky number. And also, because 7 days fits closely with a quarter of the lunar cycle and the menstrual cycle.
The whole thing is calculated to wow the sheep. Don't blame the Bible for there still being science deniers around today. If it didn't exist, they'd merely seize on something else. Wanting to flush it down the toilet is no better than wanting to hold a book burning.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 19 2018, @07:59PM (11 children)
Matthew 10:23 for a start, and there are parallel passages in Luke and Mark. And I didn't even need to fuckin' look that one up. Don't go toe-to-toe with me on the Bible, Tango; you will not win.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday June 19 2018, @08:47PM (9 children)
If you're taking this literally, I guess? Jesus said a hell of a lot of stuff that the disciples took literally and looked like idiots because of it. I'd interpret this as saying "you won't convince everyone in Israel to follow your faith before Judgment Day comes," which is more a comment on human nature than a timetable.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @10:19PM (1 child)
How about https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matt.+24%3A34%3B+Mark+13%3A30%3B+Luke+21%3A32&version=NRSV [biblegateway.com]
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday June 20 2018, @03:53AM
Bingo. And for bonus funsies, anyone who reads Koine knows the word for "generation" here means a literal generation, here and everywhere else it's used :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday June 20 2018, @03:52AM (6 children)
You would interpret it as saying that because you want to protect your faith. That's cowardly. Let Jesus speak for himself, even if he's wrong.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday June 20 2018, @03:35PM (5 children)
A) No, I'm not. I've just gotten into the habit of explaining things when people post "Christianity is so dumb, none of it makes any sense" and post an out-of-context quote that looks bad at first blush.
B) How the hell does that make any sense? Definitionally, how is defending something cowardly?
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2, Funny) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 21 2018, @07:39AM (4 children)
Your explanations don't work. And you're apparently too afraid to look at your religion with a critical eye to examine them, hence why it's cowardly. Face it, your God is a complete genocidal lunatic and the religion itself is a crazed death cult. I would have been a better God than Yahweh at age 5.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday June 21 2018, @03:50PM (3 children)
Go take a chill pill, Azuma.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday June 22 2018, @05:46PM (2 children)
No. I'm not going to "chill" when it comes to this unholy trinity of genocidal lunacy, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. I can't think of any ideology other than Communism that's killed so many people and made so many suffer. Stop spreading this shit. For someone who "doesn't follow that stuff anymore" you're weirdly quick to defend it.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday June 22 2018, @06:04PM (1 child)
I don't think "defend" means what you think it means.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday June 23 2018, @03:57AM
Oh yes it does. I think it doesn't mean what *you* think it means. This is not difficult.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday June 20 2018, @05:05AM
That would be more impressive if you'd come up with a better proof text.
I'm not sure what translation you're thinking of, but in the KJV it looks reasonably good;
"But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come."
But even here it seems like an alternative interpretation might save it. He might just be saying that they will still be running, and won't run out of places to run. In some other translations this seems more reasonable.
A much better verse to throw out would have been Mark 13:30. Short of postulating one man of that generation was cursed to wander unable to die until the end (an interesting premise for a piece of fiction but a bit out of place otherwise) that one leave less wiggle room.
Anyway, it's clear that there was an expectation of an imminent return among at least some of the early Christians, wherever that particular line was originally penned. Time went on, there was no return, the original generation died out, and you can look at much more recent examples to see what tends to happen in that case. Look at Joseph Smith and his church, how it splintered after his death (and these splinters go on to splinter again) and how in times of crisis new understandings, new 'revelations' were embraced - and then projected backwards over time. Or for perhaps an even better parallel, look into the Millerites. This was an incredibly vibrant, creative movement for a time. They also expected the eschaton to arrive imminently. They set a date, it came and went. They went back over everything, set another date, it came and went. And so of course it's written off as a failure, in a sense it was, but it was also a center of creativity and activity and many ideas and many groups that are important today came out of that.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday June 20 2018, @12:55AM (3 children)
I seem to remember you doing a little goalpost-shifting and some appeals to authority (Jesus in this case) but debunking? No.
So 2,000 years or so is not "soon" yet? Apart from the Biblical quotes others have posted that show how wrong you are.
To be fair, arguing about what Jesus may have said is a little like arguing about what Hercules may have said. He may have existed and said those things, but frankly the evidence is so thin that sensible people take the view that he's just another myth.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @03:20AM (1 child)
Also consider "soon" in relation to the proposed cosmology. From the creation to the birth of the savior was 5,000 years, right? (It's been a /very/ long time since I cared to study the bible.) The birth of the savior is our calendar epoch, so we easily know how long it's been. 29% of the supposed lifetime of the universe (assuming the world ends tomorrow) has been spent waiting for "then" to become "now"... "soon."
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday June 20 2018, @04:30AM
The short answer is "no."
The Bible does not contain a chronology or timeline, and nowhere does it give the number you seek, nor any combination of numbers that can be reliably used to generate that number. Many biblical scholars have tried very hard to extract such a number, and the truth of the preceding sentence can be seen in the fact that they have come up with many different numbers (1CE is variously reckoned as 3644, 4004, 4164, 4244, 4991, 5199, or possibly another date, depending on who you ask.) Each of those numbers is based on combining numbers from selected biblical texts with unwarranted assumptions that cannot be proven (and are likely incorrect.)
Remove the assumptions and you're left with a fact - the number you are looking for simply is not there.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Wednesday June 20 2018, @03:46PM
Well after that "0 for 3" comment Azumi dropped, I thought I'd take a crack at the one falsifiable statement of the three. Turns out I was wrong, interestingly. Well, at least I got a few minutes of Internet research done to occupy my time.
Not if you buy the whole billions of years or whatever that evolution says, which most Christians these days do, I would think.
Usually when these arguments come up, I'm not so much trying to convert anybody as set the record straight. If you're going to criticize religion, at least make sure you're criticizing something that the religion in question actually believes. There's a book here that pretty much every Christian accepts as authoritative,* so that seems like a good place to start.
Yes, I was raised Lutheran, but I don't follow that stuff anymore. I've just got most of the knowledge from way too many years of private school stuck in my brain.
*yes, infallibility is another issue, but at least it's better than "some cardinal five hundred years ago said so"
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @02:26PM
The kingdom of God began in 33AD, when the centurion says Uh oh.
The kingdom of a god (there where god rules) is more general than a second jerusalem coming from the sky as described in the apocalypse, so, maybe, it is not the books who are the problem.