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: 5, Funny) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 19 2018, @03:40PM (32 children)
http://epistle.us/inspiration/godwillsaveme.html [epistle.us]
God Will Save Me
A terrible storm came into a town and local officials sent out an emergency warning that the riverbanks would soon overflow and flood the nearby homes. They ordered everyone in the town to evacuate immediately.
A faithful Christian man heard the warning and decided to stay, saying to himself, “I will trust God and if I am in danger, then God will send a divine miracle to save me.”
The neighbors came by his house and said to him, “We’re leaving and there is room for you in our car, please come with us!” But the man declined. “I have faith that God will save me.”
As the man stood on his porch watching the water rise up the steps, a man in a canoe paddled by and called to him, “Hurry and come into my canoe, the waters are rising quickly!” But the man again said, “No thanks, God will save me.”
The floodwaters rose higher pouring water into his living room and the man had to retreat to the second floor. A police motorboat came by and saw him at the window. “We will come up and rescue you!” they shouted. But the man refused, waving them off saying, “Use your time to save someone else! I have faith that God will save me!”
The flood waters rose higher and higher and the man had to climb up to his rooftop.
A helicopter spotted him and dropped a rope ladder. A rescue officer came down the ladder and pleaded with the man, "Grab my hand and I will pull you up!" But the man STILL refused, folding his arms tightly to his body. “No thank you! God will save me!”
Shortly after, the house broke up and the floodwaters swept the man away and he drowned.
When in Heaven, the man stood before God and asked, “I put all of my faith in You. Why didn’t You come and save me?”
And God said, “Son, I sent you a warning. I sent you a car. I sent you a canoe. I sent you a motorboat. I sent you a helicopter. What more were you looking for?”
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @03:53PM
It was a glorious day for religitard rights.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Gaaark on Tuesday June 19 2018, @03:56PM (30 children)
Yup.... (in other words, use your head not the Good Book)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2, Disagree) by RS3 on Tuesday June 19 2018, @04:06PM (29 children)
How about some of both?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Tuesday June 19 2018, @04:18PM (20 children)
Having read the thing extensively, including some of the New Testament in Koine, I have to say I wasn't particularly impressed. Buddhism has better ethics, Jesus comes off as a complete lunatic with the same kind of cultish assholery as the Heaven's Gate crowd, and all those promises about the end of the world happening while some people almost 2,000 years ago were still alive, uh, kinda didn't happen. 0 for 3.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(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.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by BsAtHome on Tuesday June 19 2018, @04:19PM
Yes, I always use my copy of the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, then use my head to ignore most of the bad advice and pray Marvin will recover from his depression and save me in the nick of time.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Gaaark on Tuesday June 19 2018, @04:26PM (1 child)
I guess i look at it as:
I grew up Presbyterian (sort of.... went to a Presbyterian church, anyways).
What i gleaned from all that was "be a good person... treat others how you'd want to be treated".
I don't steal, cheat on my wife, etc etc because that is who i want to be (not because i have the fear of God in me).
I want others (esp. wife, kids, family) to see me in a certain way and want my co-workers to trust/rely on me because ..... me. That is who i am and want to be.
So, i've rejected God and the bible as fact and real, but do not deny the value of it's teachings AS A GUIDE.
I've heard tooooo many people who talk the talk and are VERY RELIGIOUS who don't walk the walk (not even looking at all the priests molesting children and their higher ups covering it up.... talking the talk there BIG TIME).
I walk the walk because that's who i am and who i want to be.
Sooo....long story short: yes, use the bible as a guide, but not as a way for others to brain wash you to strap bombs to yourself. That's just using religion as power.
So yeah, i say basically if you want to talk to god, talk to god but don't let someone else tell you how to talk to god and how to interpret the bible.
So, believe if you want; read the bible if you want; but THINK about it yourself, talk to god YOURSELF and live your life how YOU want to... don't let ANYONE else 'interpret' things for you.
Too much organized religion is just a scam, a money grab and/or a power grab.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 5, Insightful) by LoRdTAW on Tuesday June 19 2018, @05:36PM
FTFY. Organized religion is complete bullshit. Spirituality is what you're after here, not religion which dictates spirituality. God, jesus, buddha, the fsm are creations of religion. You don't need any of that to be spiritual or believe in a higher power(s) to pray, meditate, or talk to.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @04:27PM (4 children)
Speaking of the Good Book, this particular Bible verse seems particularly relevant to these fools:
If God lets you live in a time and place where medical science is so advanced, is it not equivalent to casting yourself down from a pinnacle of the temple to refuse these blessings of advanced medical science when you are seriously ill? And worse yet it if it is their own children whom they are shunning medical science in their misguided faith: they are essentially pushing them from the metaphorical pinnacle, testing the Lord to catch them even as they fall to their deaths. Their hypocrisy is sickening.
Here’s an article from the indefatigable Orac [respectfulinsolence.com] about a related trend.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @04:42PM (2 children)
I wonder if these no-medicine sects are exclusive enough that there is any noticeable evolutionary effect? Probably not yet, as they have only been around a short while AFAIK, and they probably wouldn't consent to having DNA taken or studied, but it would be interesting to see how populations practicing natural selection compare to the whole.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @09:09PM (1 child)
Their fecundity would compensate for excess mortality. Assuming they hang around for long enough and are isolated enough, they would probably end up physically healthier and mentally inferior to the general population. Simple evolution in that direction would be enhanced by the sickest/smartest giving up their religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @01:52AM
(Score: 2) by Arik on Tuesday June 19 2018, @04:55PM
It *might* be. You would really have to examine a specific case carefully and try to weigh a lot of different things to come to an honest decision on that basis, I would think. One of the interesting things about the books of the bible is that if you're trying to use it as a law code you can find contradictory precedents quite frequently. If you view them more as revelations of principle, than of prescriptive law, it's possible to make much more sense of it, but it no longer removes the need to exercise judgment.
Exercising judgement is something most people will go to great lengths to avoid.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Gaaark on Tuesday June 19 2018, @03:55PM (35 children)
.....People With Religious Affiliations Live Longer https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=18/06/19/026219 [soylentnews.org]
Huh....who's right?
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @04:18PM
Easily solved: The infants are not yet religious. So when they die, they actually reinforce that statistics. ;-)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 19 2018, @04:19PM (5 children)
Maybe - both? It's possible that the live longer article is right, AND this article is right. Maybe we need to discriminate between the various religions to get at the truth.
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:30PM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by Dr Spin on Tuesday June 19 2018, @07:37PM (2 children)
If you are going to discriminate, I suggest UK vs USA might be a useful basis to start.
It would certainly be worth mentioning in relation to the studies. Religion in the UK and USA are substantially different.
It is also worth pointing out that Jesus was Jewish - as was the entire old testament (Some peo0ple appear not to have noticed this,
and some even go so far as to deny it. The texts are PARABLES - meaning: as illustrations, and NOT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY.
And Jesus came along and said the Pharisees and Sadducees have messed up by taking this stuff literally!
DO NOT go by the letter of the law - look for the reason and intention behind it. Think, use your heart and mind. That was
Jesus' position on literal interpretations of the Bible.
If you take the bible litterally, then, by definition, YOU ARE NOT A CHRISTIAN.
And Jesis DID NOT speak English as it is in the King James Bible. In fact, he did not speak English at all. English did
not exist till at least 1,000 years after the texts in the Bible were written.
Jesus spoke Aramaic, although there is some reason to believe He could read Hebrew, there is no reason at all to think
He spoke Yiddish.
I OTOH am not American, and the Kingdom of Heaven is NOT like Kentucky Fried Chicken.
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @08:33PM
If you are going to discriminate, I suggest you go after the Protestants, of every flavor. The Jews and the Catholics are cool...
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday June 20 2018, @12:17AM
The Kingdom of Heaven is KFC gravy!
;)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by DeVilla on Wednesday June 20 2018, @01:36AM
Maybe religious folks just have more of a bathtub curve for their mean time time to failure?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Adamsjas on Tuesday June 19 2018, @04:35PM (23 children)
Look at the time line for this submission. It was clearly rushed through the acceptance process simply to counter the prior article that you referenced.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Tuesday June 19 2018, @05:34PM (22 children)
It wasn't 'clearly rushed through' the acceptance process at all. One of our aims is to vary the stories that we publish in any particular timeframe. There are were very few stories that I felt were good enough to be published in the submissions queue when I logged on this morning, and we prefer not to lower our standards simply because they are the only stories left in the queue. We would prefer that the stories come from our community but, when push comes to shove, we have to get new material by whatever means we can. So the first thing I did was run 'Arthur the Bot' to collect more stories. There were only 40 or so stories found for today's date (at 0900-1000 European time) and discarding the duplicates and those that were unsuitable for our site left me with the ones that I added to the submissions queue as 'Arthur'. You will see that a couple of them have been picked up for publication today.
There was no intention to counter the earlier story. I'm sorry if I have given that impression but at that time I hadn't even read the earlier story, although I could see it in the release queue. But I felt that it was worth discussing why medical support and infant mortality should be different based on areas that have a majority of any given religion. It might be that any religion that calls itself 'Fundamental' could have issues that need examining.
And just for information, running the bot at the end of the (European) day has already found more that 300 stories from which I could probably find 25-30% or more worth submitting as stories.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @05:52PM (21 children)
You failed. Twice. Both posts are clickbait choose-your-own-reality trash that make ridiculous conclusions based on small samples and a misunderstanding of correlation and causation.
The people who write this shit, and the people who propagate it without understanding how little value it actually carries, are everything wrong with pop "science".
(Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:13PM (20 children)
No, that is why we have a discussion, so that people can put their views and counter-views forward. Simple suppressing the stories means that we have no discussion. Because you are an AC I cannot tell which comments in the discussion are yours, but I do not see any that raise the issue of correlation and causation, or small sample size. Are you afraid that someone might not agree with your views?
Of course, if you don't like the quality of the stories then we are waiting for your submission to follow soon.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:25PM (19 children)
It is honestly baffling how often I see this idea around here and Slashdot (which this site used to be much better than, but seems to sink closer to that level daily), that the only reason a person might post on the internet without making up a little identity to attach all their thoughts to is fear. Maybe some of us just see going around signing your "name" on everything you type into a keyboard as narcissism?
If posting anonymously is frowned upon here, perhaps the feature should be disabled. Otherwise I intend to continue doing so.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:37PM (15 children)
No, but if you don't use a nickname then it is hard to attribute comments to any specific individual. And you might have already made several insightful comments elsewhere in the thread but it isn't immediately apparent to me if that is the case.
I sincerely hope that you do - we are more than happy to give everyone the ability to express their views.
Now as you seem to have identified several areas in which the study falls short why don't you explain them to us, rather than just say 'it is wrong'? That is the whole point of the discussion. You feel sufficiently strongly on the subject to have made your comment, why don't you explain how the study could be done better and in a way that addresses your complaints about it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:52PM (14 children)
It's been stated a dozen times. If I search the comments of this page for the word "abortion", I get 18 results. If I search the article you posted, I get zero. We're having a conversation about infant mortality and religious fundamentalism. Is the problem clear yet?
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 19 2018, @07:19PM (13 children)
So the only problem is abortion. I said that in far fewer words that you did.
The summary is just that - it is only a summary of the main findings of the full article.
'birth defects' are mentioned as one of the external factors which would suggest that they, and abortions that occur because of fetal abnormality, have already been considered. But it also goes on to say that there are other factors that come into play. Are you discounting all of them simply because of the number of abortions might be different in the areas where Christian Fundamentalists occur in greater proportion than elsewhere. If so, why are you discounting them? Infant mortality is also discussed in the full article (which you will, of course, have read) but it says:
Note that it points out that the figures mirror trends seen in adult mortality rates - so it is clearly not a case of 'abortions' in these cases? The other factors such as insurance, medical advances, religion etc are still applicable. So you seem to be basing your entire discounting of the study on a specific sub-case - which might or might not be valid - and you cannot see a problem with that.?
Is the problem clear yet?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @07:31PM (12 children)
I'm discounting the study because it is impossible to make any sort of conclusion out of it that isn't an assumption of causality. The one that has been chosen, "Christian fundamentalists have higher infant mortality rates" is only one of several dozen equally valid conclusions they could have reached depending on how much data they collected and from where. For instance:
Islamic fundamentalists have higher infant mortality rates
Children with birth defects who aren't aborted frequently die anyway
Large families have higher infant mortality rates
Poor people die more frequently
Medicine helps people live longer
But for some reason we landed solely on "Christian fundamentalists" as the backwards group of science-haters and none of the potential causes of the increased mortality rate are itemized in such a way that they can be separated from one another.
It's almost like this entire study was just an exercise in a bullshit culture war.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @07:34PM
The big disadvantage of posting anon is inability to edit posts, so unfortunately I'll have to assume everyone can just pretend the bullet points are in there.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 19 2018, @08:08PM (10 children)
People living in the USA of other religions appear to have been considered. If you are talking about outside the USA, then your comment is irrelevant - they are re not part of the discussion.
Infant mortality rates were considered and discussed. Adults are not aborted - it is called murder in some countries - but the figures found in the study are equally applicable to them too. You have read the article, or even the summary, haven't you?
You have not provided any evidence that 1. Christian Fundamentalist families are sized any differently than other religions, and 2. Larger families have higher infant mortality rates. But, even so, the mortality rate is higher - all other things being equal - for people living in areas being studied than outside of them.
Let's assume that I accept your claim (most people only die once, but I know what you mean), the article points out that poorer people living in predominantly Christian Fundamentalist areas also die at a higher rate than poorer people in other areas.
The study found that medicine helps people live less long in predominantly Christian Fundamentalist areas than elsewhere.
It cannot all be explained away by spurious claims about 'abortion rates' or some such nonsense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @08:23PM (4 children)
[citation needed]. The article and study abstract mention "fundamentalist christians" as well as protestants and catholics. I see absolutely nothing about any non-Christian religions.
The issue isn't that they weren't mentioned, it's that you can't remove the effect of it from the statistics. Just saying "Oh yeah, some of this might be due to the fact that these people don't believe in abortion" doesn't do *anything* to shine a light on how much of an impact it has. That's the important part, and the part you keep ignoring to say "BUT THEY MENTIONED THAT". Great, now figure out how much it accounts for and remove it from the stats.
Large families correspond to high religiosity. They also correspond to poverty. Poverty corresponds to low life expectancy.
That's weird, because according to the abstract, all their data came from inside the United States.
So tell me again how this was an international study that took into account the mortality rates in Africa and the Middle East and determined things were worse for fundamentalist Christians in the US and not just bait for non-religious people in the US who hate Christianity but love every other religion to pat themselves on the back for being so much smarter than their neighbors.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 19 2018, @09:21PM (3 children)
Which, where I come from, are all different religions. They are Christian but the study does not mention any other religions. That could mean that they were statistically irrelevant and therefore not worthy of special mention. I really don't know how many Taoists, Sikhs or Rastafarians live in the US. You tried to bring in the case of Islamic fundamentalists, not me. I'll assume that was an attempt to start an argument that you thought you could win, rather than the one we were having. The study also doesn't say that Muslims were ignored.
As the figures for infant mortality (where abortion might be a factor) mirror the figures for adults (where abortion isn't a factor) then it would seem to have had very little impact on the outcome. Or are you suggesting that in fundamentalist regions of the US abortion of adults is widely practiced?
I know - "If you are talking about outside the USA, then your comment is irrelevant " - I've tried to keep you on track twice now.
Please tell me where I said that. They compared predominantly fundamentalist regions (of America) with other regions (of America).
I have never suggested that the study did that. It compared regions in America. Why do you think otherwise? I did say "for people living in areas being studied (i.e fundamentalist regions) than outside of them (the rest of the USA)". The parts in brackets are an expansion to explain more clearly to you that this is US study comparing figures collect about one area of the US from another area of the US.
But the study has found:
You have argued that the problem is caused by the abortion rate where I have argued that, as the figures closely correlate to those of adults living in the same areas, the abortion rate cannot be used to explain all of the study's findings. You can scoff all you like, but you cannot convincingly explain why anyone should just discount anything the report says as being wrong. 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.
Now, as it is approaching midnight here, I am going to go to sleep. We can continue tomorrow if you wish.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @09:38PM (2 children)
Dude, the study is grouped by counties. That means it literally only covers three religions. "Fundamentalist Christianity", Protestantism and Catholicism. There is a non-zero number of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, and Atheists in this country, but this study will never have anything to say about them because they do not make up a majority of any county in the country.
So basically, this study says "We checked mortality rates in different US counties, and the ones with more fundamentalist Christians than protestants and catholics have higher rates of death". That's great, but then the implication of cause and effect come without taking into consideration any of the other things that differentiate a fundamentalist majority county from a protestant or catholic one. For instance, the fact that, as mentioned dozens of times already, the fact that the fundamentalist ones aren't going to be aborting fetuses with birth defects. The study might mention it, but it still lumps those birth defect deaths together with the rest, so ultimately the numbers are still tainted. Another important fact being ignored is that poorer people are typically more religious than people with more money, and also lower life-expectancy.
I honestly don't know how to proceed with this argument because you, again, seem to believe that I'm arguing that their conclusions don't match their statistics. I'm actually arguing that their choice in sources for statistics was solely political and if the methodology of their data gathering method were different, the study would say something different. But they didn't, so it says what they want.
Statistics are funny like that, you can pick and choose them and say anything you want about the world with them. The fact that this post was made on the same day as "People With Religious Affiliations Live Longer". The Christians got a study to make them feel good about themselves, you guys got one too. Now if only we had one that told us something useful about the world.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @09:45PM (1 child)
To further drive this point home, because I know you will willfully misinterpret it:
Suffolk County, Massachusetts (Boston) is a Catholic county.
Fairfax County, Virginia is a Protestant county.
Sullivan County, Tennesee is a Fundamentalist Christian county.
If you think the life expectancies in these areas are different because of religion and not because of their economies, you are hopelessly naive about the world you live in.
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Wednesday June 20 2018, @06:44AM
I have not suggested that religion is the main reason, or even the only reason. The study clearly says "such as poverty, lack of insurance, social support networks and religion". I would suggest that 'poverty' probably covers the failing economies in the counties that you have mentioned. The phrase 'such as' also suggests that the authors of the study do not claim that the reasons that they state in that sentence are the sole reasons that have been identified.
I'm not at all sure why you should accuse me of 'willfully misinterpreting' the data. I am merely arguing that, whatever the causes of the differences between the areas being discussed in the study, there is something that you cannot explain to my satisfaction but for the time being we will have to agree to disagree upon.
No matter. This discussion began because you said [soylentnews.org]:
I hope that this discussion between us has also shown the value of the stories we print. If we simply accept them at face value then we are missing out on what is, to me, a very valuable aspect of this site, namely that it gives us all the chance to enter into a serious and intelligent discussion about the stories that we print. I have enjoyed the discussion with you but I fear that we will get no further on this particular topic. There will be other stories today and in the future. Hopefully we will meet again where, who knows, next time we might be in full agreement with each other. Have a good day and keep posting AC!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @08:28PM
I read the study, but maybe you didn't. The data the study used was sourced from the National Center for Health Statistics.
Linked Birth and Infant Death Data [cdc.gov]
Maybe tone back the condescension next time you decide to project so hard.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @08:39PM (3 children)
Additionally, there is no Islamic fundamentalist movement in the United States to be reflected in these statistics and have anything to compare to. "Christian fundamentalists" are the only fundamentalists we have in any sort of significant number, so they're essentially being compared to non-fundamentalist Christians and a handful of non-religious millennials. Expand the dataset to somewhere with a high population of first generation immigrants from a fundamentalist Islamic country like Europe and the picture changes.
You seem to be under the impression that I'm arguing with their conclusion based on their dataset. I'm criticizing the entire concept that studying this dataset can ever tell us anything other than "people who believe the Christian God made the Earth 6000 years ago are better at surviving than people who just believe the Christian God made the Earth."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @08:41PM
worse at surviving*
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 19 2018, @09:38PM (1 child)
We are not arguing about 'first generation fundamentalist Muslims' - you are trying again to change the argument to one that you think you can win. This study is comparing regions in America with other regions in America.
So what? When the comparison is made then there appears to be different outcomes between the two groups being compared. Both groups are in America so the study asks 'Why should there be different outcomes within the one country?". And it has found several contributory factors which it clearly states - religion being just one of them.
No, I am under no such impression. Furthermore, it doesn't matter to me which of the invisible beings that you want to worship you choose. But, if you do make a choice, then the study finds that it can affect the life expectancy in ways that you wouldn't have imagined, and that "that the more insular, anti-institutional culture of fundamentalists can lead to poorer health outcomes." If you feel that this is an insult to your own religion let me assure you of two things. Firstly, I am debating this issue based on the findings in the study and secondly, your right to worship who you choose has absolutely no influence on how I have to respect your religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @09:48PM
Yep, here's the part where you take the factual statement they made and twist it into an implication they only hinted at.
"affect" is a term of causation. Nothing in this study finds anything affects anything. What it finds is a correlation, which scientific illiterates run with and assume causation.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:55PM (2 children)
What would be wrong with that? For me, the big problem is no one can tell the ACs apart. It's frustrating to try to hold a conversation with an AC and then find out that two or three of them have been in the thread and never bothered to tell you till later. Or maybe it's just one AC pretending to be three...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @07:07PM (1 child)
Damn, you might just have to judge each comment on the merits of its own argument. Frustrating indeed.
For what it's worth I don't bother reading anyone's names here when reading comments and manage to get by.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday June 20 2018, @06:43AM
The problem of course, is that they're usually shit when taken in isolation. The whole point of this post-reply scheme is to have conversations not statements.
Not worth much.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:02PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:31PM
Jesus hates babies, but he loves old people.
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Tuesday June 19 2018, @10:30PM
Maybe they live longer because their kids die off...(ducks)...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @12:24AM
Christian parents are culling the weak when they let their children die for lack of medical attention. Naturally this leads to the survivors being stronger than average, so they live longer.
The two studies are perfectly consistent. thanks
(Score: 5, Interesting) by choose another one on Tuesday June 19 2018, @04:07PM (8 children)
Non-fundie: Oh no, health checks show my unborn child is going to be stillborn, fatally deformed or severely disabled, maybe I should have a termination. Guess what doesn't show on the death statistics?
Fundie: Health checks? Pah, baby's gonna come anyway and God will decide if it lives or dies. Guess what does show up on mortality statistics?
Now, what would be really interesting is to add the abortion stats from the relevant areas into these numbers and look again. I bet there is some balancing off, particularly with the deaths before 28 days.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @04:14PM (1 child)
You're a moron.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday June 19 2018, @04:16PM
No, you're projecting. Read the post again, give it some thought, and try again with less partisan trolling.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday June 19 2018, @05:53PM (1 child)
Non-fundie: Oh no, health checks show my unborn child is going to be stillborn, fatally deformed or severely disabled, maybe I should have a termination. Guess what doesn't show on the death statistics?
Fundie: Health checks? Pah, baby's gonna come anyway and God will decide if it lives or dies. Guess what does show up on mortality statistics?
That begs the question of whether the Non-fundies actually have fewer abortions.
I've experienced enough hypocrisy out of those folks that I'd want to see some data on that assumption before conceding it.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday June 19 2018, @05:55PM
Sorry...begs the question that the Fundies have fewer abortions...
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:12PM
A fair number of the anti-vax nutjobs are fundamentalist Christians. And guess what? If you don't vaccinate your kids, they can die of the diseases you didn't vaccinate them against. All because you were scared of modern science with its scary-sounding hard-to-pronounce words based on Latin and Greek.
Not that that's a new problem: People have been refusing medical treatment on religious grounds for decades, and dying as a result.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:42PM (2 children)
Oh really... well, you asked for it.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jan/13/whos-driving-high-abortion-rates-religious-right [theguardian.com]
You see, the more you outlaw abortion and sex education, the more (illegal) abortions you get. If that wasn't the case, we would be extinct by now. Perhaps think long and hard about that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:54PM (1 child)
So, the poster asked for "abortion stats from the relevant areas" in regard to Christian fundamentalists, and you post about Eastern Africa?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @06:35AM
Eastern Africa seems to be quite Christian fundamentalists, no?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Africa#Religious_distribution [wikipedia.org]
It seems easy for people to dismiss inconvenient reality, but it's still reality. Not having access to birth control and making talking about sex as taboo, all you get is more unplanned pregnancies which will result in more unnecessary abortions.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Tuesday June 19 2018, @04:18PM (2 children)
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=18/06/19/026219 [soylentnews.org]
The previous article was data collected from obituaries instead of mortality data, and published by psychologists not epidemiologists.
This article was published by sociologists in the "Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion" which sounds like almost pure bullshit.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @04:24PM
Why do you think religion cannot be scientifically studied? It is a phenomenon occurring in the real world, therefore it can be studied.
Note that studying religion is not the same as theology. A religion scientists may say: "This is the percentage of self-declared Christians who attend church on Sundays." A theologian would instead explain why it is God's will that you attend.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jdavidb on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:32PM
I don't know - I presume there's a huge difference between "the scientific study of religion" and "the religious study of science."
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @04:42PM (3 children)
In addition to the exclusion of abortion which skews the numbers (not only in terms of abortion-as-birth-control, but abortion of a baby likely to die anyway), the direction of causality is being assumed without evidence. Perhaps people who suffer more death for whatever reason need to actually believe in Jesus Christ?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @05:56PM (2 children)
You're treating this like boring *old* science. This is exciting *new* science. You don't have to worry about pesky things like bias, falsifiability, or correlation and causation. Just read three paragraphs in a magazine article at the dentist and refuse to question any of it. Now you're doing science!
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:25PM (1 child)
Ah here's your comment - I must refresh my page more often. But it is hardly a major contribution to the discussion - you have simply made claims about 'pesky things'. How would you counter the bias (which bias?) if it was your study? What exactly do you mean by falsifiability - what is being falsified? Which specific claims do you think are showing correlation rather than causation. How would you resolve this in future studies?
Simply saying 'It is wrong' is pointless. Why don't you explain why it is wrong, and why we should all ignore the claims being made. Offer us insightful alternative theories that will generate more discussions and questions. That would be a much more valuable contribution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:28PM
Falsifiability applies to other "science" posts here. This one is pure correlation, causation, as the first post in the thread which was not me also pointed out. Try running a Ctrl-F on the word "abortion", you'll find more posts than just mine pointing out how worthless this study is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 19 2018, @05:10PM
Evolution happening at a drastically higher scale in Fundamental Christian Areas... OK I admit even that is a bit more ironic.
(Score: 1, Troll) by SomeGuy on Tuesday June 19 2018, @06:42PM
And in further news the study shows the main cause for the infant morality rates in Christian fundamentalists areas were primarily due to rectal/colon failure due to excess penile insertion.
(Score: 2) by crafoo on Tuesday June 19 2018, @11:00PM
Catholic religion is best religion. But yeah. Don't christian fundamentalists reject evidence & science-based medicine where it contradicts their faith? You can do that, but looks like you have to pay the price.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday June 20 2018, @01:37AM
Many evangelicals feel relying on gov't "feeds the beast" in a general sense such that giving them tax money for medical welfare grows the gov't in general so that it allegedly takes over other areas of life.
Therefore, they'll accept a degree of medical risk, including death, to prevent "The Government" from getting too powerful. They tend to view it as one big entity instead of individual services. And/or a form of addiction such that if people rely on gov't for one thing, they'll start crossing over to rely on it for other things.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Wednesday June 20 2018, @03:09AM
Only the strong survive!
(Score: 1) by danuk on Wednesday June 20 2018, @04:22PM
People With Religious Affiliations Live Longer
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=18/06/19/026219 [soylentnews.org]