Help to de-convert!

[RozKek]

ayy correct, maybe I was a bit biased there. Sorry if I offended any theists.

lol no it's not that

Correlations about people and health more often boil down to other factors, like socioeconomic status.

For example, a correlation will show that people living next to power lines get cancer more than others.  If you think that means power lines cause cancer, you're almost certainly wrong.  It's because poorer people live near power lines (because they're ugly and nobody wants to have a power line in front of their window).  Poor people tend to have bad health care, to eat a worse diet, etc.

So with religion/IQ/longevity, I can pretty much guarantee that the religion itself has nothing to do with anything.

okok  when I said I was biased I meant e.g that if a study showed up saying atheists were less intelligent I probably would've searched for the sides of the study that are in my favor or in other words the faults in the study however. In this study, claiming that theists are in general less intelligent I didn't look for any faults in the study in order to be unbiased. The correct thing I should do next time is to to criticize both types of studies i.e studies in my favor and studies against my favor. Generally I am good with doing so and most of the time do, however this time, I for some reason did not.

[bennyboy]

It's not even that the study is faulty. It's perfectly plausible that they DID find a correlation. And this is why I think, for the most part, non-scientists should never be allowed access to correlation studies-- they are cancer to those who don't understand what they are and how they work. They'll draw false conclusions about causation and then ACT on them. And this is very, very dangerous.

[Aractus]

You seem to think this is a one-off. It isn't. You'll find countless examples in the PubMed database. Here's a systematic review (basically the highest level of evidence within peer-review). Depending on what is being studied (in that case dementia) religion either comes out well in front, or doesn't make a difference. You can pretend that it's not the case, or do your own literature search and see for yourself.

[robvalue]

Still moot, you can't make yourself believe something. It's irrelevant because it's not a choice.

Unless you're suggesting joining a religion even when you don't believe in it has benefits.

Or are you suggesting that deconverting someone will reduce their lifespan? That is absurd.

[bennyboy]

You seem to think this is a one-off. It isn't. You'll find countless examples in the PubMed database. Here's a  systematic review (basically the highest level of evidence within peer-review). Depending on what is being studied (in that case dementia) religion either comes out well in front, or doesn't make a difference. You can pretend that it's not the case, or do your own literature search and see for yourself.

That's not a systematic review.  That's an abstract ABOUT a systematic review.  Based on what you link, there's no evidence that having a religion benefits you-- there's evidence that religious people tend to do better, but they haven't demonstrated a causal link.

There's a whole world of difference there-- because there are many things that are different about religious people.  For example (and I'm just assuming) it may be that religious people use less drugs, drink less, stay up late partying less, etc.  They may have more aid when they're sick-- church members willing to take care of them, etc.  It may simply be that in the case of age and dementia, getting out of the house and having people to talk to will help one stay mentally engaged longer in life.

Herein lies the rub, though.  In ALL those things I just mentioned, someone could find a secular equivalent, and both maintain their mental health AND avoid religious bullshit.

And back to the value of correlations. It often happens that biased reviewers will collect maybe dozens of studies, and treat that data like a truth score (9/10 researchers agree that X). But it takes only one really good research result to make a proof. If you need dozens, it's likely that there ISN'T proof, and that we're back to juggling numbers.

[Bunburryist]

I wonder to what extent he was searching for "solace"?  Perhaps it was his way of distancing himself from something he couldn't/wouldn't handle on some basis.  You don't want to be tied to a guy whose way of dealing with life tribulations is to run to the nearest church.  Who knows - he might have made this transition anyway.  Better now than after you get hitched, have a couple of kids, and THEN have him decide to "find the lord."  (Divorce court - "Your honor, my client is a God-fearing Christian father who wants to lead his children down a path of morality and righteousness.  He has his church community to support him as a father.  His wife - an evil, godless atheist, lacking the moral compass found in God's word - is no fit mother.")  

He may not the be person you "fell in love with," but he is the same person he was when you fell in love with him.  Sounds to me like you just dodged a bullet.  Leave this guy behind.  There are plenty of agnostic/atheist fish in the sea.  Find out what kind of Meet-up groups there are in your area.  Become active in organizations whose beliefs match with yours.  You'll meet other people and have less down-time to dwell on this guy.

[robvalue]

Religion can certainly be a coping mechanism, for sure. Sadly it's one with a lot of inherent problems, and it requires blurring the lines between reality and fantasy. It's not that different to getting pissed all the time, so as not to have to deal with the stark nature of reality.