Great and succinct way to sum it up. If only more people could look at themselves from a distance, they'd see it, too.

Wearing a cross can convey I am a member of the club as well. It is also a silent witness.

They also carried little white leather bound Bibles for good luck. I never saw any of them open those Bibles, though.

Little gold cross necklaces were everywhere in my high school, too.

I would have called that ought with the 7th and 8th graders I taught. Most of my pastors would have as well.

I am no longer an active church member. I still study the Bible as I work through my own faith journey though.

When enough people repeat the same thing often enough, weak mined people will tend to join in.

I was born and raised Catholic, and as old as I am, I didn’t begin to question the tenets until later in life.

This reminds me of George Carlin’s take; Prayer. 50/50 chance. Might work. Might not.

It had a gift shop, which appeared to have medals and pendants of saints, along with holy cards, as its main classifications of merchandise. It also offered a wide variety of crucifixes, suitable for hanging on a wall in your home.

Apparently those things were all hot sellers to visitors.

God, please cure my cancer.
I bet he won't.

Let me win the lottery.
I bet he lets someone else win.

Help me hit a homer.
Help yourself.

Such good points here. One of the most depressing aspects of the 'drumpf' era has been realizing that approximately a third of the US population are seriously limited in thought capacity. Before 2016, I'd have guessed it was around 15-20%.

But the same minds who can't see your logic are very likely the same ones who believe the carnival barker in chief.

culture. To many to those that practice religion, they have no idea about it. Just like cloths, gender norms and other features of culture, they just follow parents and what other members of the tribe do and practice.

They are called "followers".

At least part of the time, it is self-soothing behavior...and I see no harm in that.
It is also for self-reflection and other healthy behaviors.

As long as someone is doing it for themselves and not imposing it on others, what is the harm?

When has that happened, generally?

Christianity has its "Great Commission." Imposing religion on others is a primary goal.

religious institutions LIKE MOST INSTITUTIONS become harmful

I can only speak for myself, but as a practicing Catholic, I don't expect relics to have any sort of mystical or magic properties any more than I expect miraculous interventions to my prayers. I pray (including the rosary) as a way of trying to connect with god - to ask for strength during times of trouble, and to thank during good times.

As far as the St. Christopher medals are concerned, I have one in my car - but I don't believe that it will keep me safe, but it acts more as a reminder to drive safe (to watch my speed, look out for other drivers, etc). In a similar way, my brother used to tape a speeding ticket to his steering wheel to remind himself to watch his speed

Just my thoughts on this - thank you again for posting!

Wishing you well and peace.

Tim

is unique. It can be a mistake to assume that others follow your individual pattern.

Best to you!

Tim

I doubt it is result of the prayers....but it is a result of the observation

I say this as someone who grew up in a religious family and stopped observing in my teens.

Since it is statistically better than no observing, its clearly better than some superstitions..although I'm sure that some superstitions also have benefits.

human activities. I'm not sure that practicing a religion gets any better results, really.

And owning a dog doesn't entail believing silly shit.

who’s a good boy?

Except terriers. Those guys are assholes.

So true!!

Truer words have never been spoken

They love their owners, but ankle-bite everyone else. You have to watch them closely and don't let them get behind you.

My 20-lb tomcat would beat the piss out of a Chihuahua.

The cats are the rulers of our household. They don't take any crap from our dogs, but find them convenient to lie against or on when they need some additional heat. The dogs defer to them, because they understand that cats are not to be messed with. Ancient Dog Wisdom says: "Cats Hurt!"

Cats have staff.

those who attend religious services with people who do similar, but non-religious things, like attend peer group meetings, etc. The control group is relatively uncontrolled, so there's no direct comparison of single-variable others.

The second study has the same issue. Did others who attended groups of non-religious types have similar results.

Studies like this need carefully-selected control groups to limit the number of variables being studied.

even for people with the same starting health conditions and same exercise habits. (PS: exercise habits
Don't see you providing any evidence just stating your opinion.

you gave me an opinion..

where is the summary of the study that disproves these two studies?

you gave nothing.

So, you can provide the links or not. I replied, based on the limited information you offered. It's up to you.

religion is no better than superstition was your claim...
no studies, no links. just pure opinion

this is a place for people to share their opinions so you can but you wanted a response otherwise you wouldn't have put something controversial out there.
but apparently because I don't agree with you, you are not happy

I asked questions. I made no claims. Read the first post again, please.

You are claiming a causal factor when in fact the study only demonstrates a correlative one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

The actual study you are referencing goes on to point out other correlative factors between the two groups like eating patterns, alcohol consumption, smoking, and the use of health screening services.

Many people do not seek spirituality for merely circumstantial outcomes. Sure, some prey for outcomes but there is also a psychological aspect of having faith. In other words, people may feel more protected or more empowered by believing in a God. I see it as some people's way of coping with a scary and difficult world.

Let me give an example. I went with a friend to a disposition hearing for his drug-addicted son who was charged with a felony. While we were waiting for the proceedings to begin, there were two families out in the hallways in front of the court room with us. They were African American and they each also had sons awaiting their hearings as well. From speaking with the families (we were all conversing as a group) it became apparent that both these kids were from poor families who suffered from the usual disadvantages of being a poor black family in Harris County Texas.

In both families, they discussed how hard they tried to keep their kid off the street, how there was no resources to help them and how sad the situation was. Both families, however had very strong faith and it seemed to me that their faith was helping them deal with the hardships of their lives and the frustration of trying to keep their child out of trouble. They prayed together and they found strength in their beliefs and t gave them some hope. In the end, I sensed that there was power in saying "His will be done," a feeling that there is a greater good that gives them comfort that it is not all for naught.

I don't know the outcomes of those two hearings and I don't know that the praying helped the defendants at all. What I did see was a faith that helped them cope, gave them comfort and some hope. It was also their moral anchors and they did not pray for their kid's releases from jail, but rather their sons' redemption. Maybe it is like superstition, but maybe there is something valuable to it.

I'm not sure that's necessarily a good thing.

No one was ignoring reality through faith and prayers. I certainly didn't see a faith harming them, but I did see it help them cope with a situation over which they were entirely powerless.

The placebo effect which may result in some benefit is actually a poor substitute for professional help which uses other methods with proven efficacy.

Not to mention religion quite often tears families apart which paves the way for addiction while simultaneously turning them away from treatments which have a much better chance of improving their condition.

What evidence are you relying on that this involves a "placebo effect which may result in some benefit is actually a poor substitute for professional help"? And in the example I gave, what kind of professional help do think is available to poor black families in Southern Texas? Especially when they may have no psychological diagnosis, just the burden and stress of having to live in poverty under a system of oppression and discrimination.

Also, I am not aware of any evidence that religion somehow leads to addiction and/or family disunity, I would be interested to see such because statement like those you made could easily be influenced by a personal bias, I would think.

Funny how that works.

I described a situation i witnessed first hand in which it was apparent that people were comforted by their religion. I think it is fair to say that religion seemed helpful in that instance. I didn't say it was better than anything else, or that it helps more oftern than it hurts. I don't claim to have an answer to that.

You made a sweeping statement that religion causes addiction and tears families apart. I thought maybe you were relying on something for that statement. If not, and that is simply your opinion, just as I expressed mine (based upon my personal experiences) that is fine, you just didn't seem to present it as such.

I am fine with you having a personal opinion based upon anectdotal evidence, and if you want to share some of your experiences, it may help me and others understand what you base your personal opinion on.

My son is gay which in our household made absolutely no difference to us. Most of his friends have very different experiences some of which faced years of "conversion therapies" and other horrific experiences most of us will never fully understand and in virtually all cases precipitated from fucked up religious false morality. One of them moved into our home after being kicked out of his at the age of 14 by his fundamentalist parents. One of my cousins committed suicide after years of drug addiction caused by her devout family trying to turn her into something she was not. A fundamentalist co-worker has the most dysfunctional family you can imagine all rooted in his children (now adults) rejection of his false morality.

Meanwhile hard data is difficult to come by because people tend not to self-identify LGBT and the strength of religious conviction is hard to quantify. However, it's estimated the suicide rate of LGBT youth is about 5 times higher than their peers. You'd have to be pretty naive to think religion doesn't have a significant role to play in that, and not in a good way.

That's just one aspect of it. You also have "purity" campaigns organized pretty much exclusively by organized religion that fucks up lives in all sorts of ways, not to mention generations of religionists who teach their female children to be subservient to men because the bible tells them so.

although I don't know that many fundamentalists and cannot relate any personal experience with that. They certainly screw up our politics.

On the other hand I have a number of LGBT friends who do attend church (mostly Episcopalian it seems, where I know of an openl gay priest), so maybe those issues are related to a certain type of religion (evangelical/fundamentalist) and not all religions in general?

Are not many of the problems prevalent in religious institutions not also prevalent in the secular world? Nazis weren't particularly religious from what I understand, not was Stalinist Russia or the Cultural revolution unde Mao.

But I also think it is more a matter of human institutions than in a person seeking a Higher Power. I do believe from personal experience there are emotional advantages to faith that do not need to be, and are not, tied to the issues you raise. Religion is not going anywhere soon. I think faith can also be useful - how about Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement?

I believe the key is to educate and to help faith evolve into what it is supposed to be -- a personal experience and a way to mind our own personal actions and not to force it upon others. I don't believe all religion is bad because I have experienced the good. There is no way, nor should there be any way. for people to force religion go away. The solution, it would seem, is the same as any other solution in dealing with human nature and human foibles -- help people look past their prejudices and biases and help them learn to follow their conscience. Patriotism, politics, culture, greed, pursuit of power, etc. (much of which heavily influences the way Religion is approached by a population) are also among the many things that can negatively affect the way people behave and I am not convinced a whole lot would even change in this world without religion. In fact, who knows, things even get worse since many ethics promoted by religion are positive (do unto others, for example).

The reason it was necessary to begin with was because you had people preaching hate from the pulpits and long after 1964 you still had all sorts of Jim Crow that had to be won at the state levels because of the same hate coming out of churches in the South.

Religion isn’t a solution, it’s a problem. It was during the Civil Rights movement and it still is today. The examples are easy to find.

recently about 500+ million native peoples killed by European colonizers? So many that the planet actually cooled. All those murders were done in the name of god and some king or queen. American racism was excused by religion. You can be washed clean of your sins. Nice gig, getting people to believe that.

to illustrate your point. Thanks!

...if you rub dirt on your forehead on Ash Wednesday and on the 40th day after that, the Easter Bunny sees his shadow, you will have good luck until Christmas.

Do I have that one correct?

I took the tradition of giving up something for Lent very seriously, so one year, I gave up Christianity for Lent.

More the Rube Goldberg of superstition.

so maybe if he didn't exist, he couldn't be a saint.
That was a really bogus story anyway, although I am sure there are even more bogus stories for saints that still hold the title.

indigenous religion, based on pantheism and polytheism.

Thus, the multiple saints, symbols, and rituals.

Political, mostly, as well as cultural.

My 2 cents.

Makes the assimilation process that much easier. The Romans were masters of that.

"Why are relics of saints so revered in the Roman Catholic Church? How is that different from wearing a MAGA hat?"

I'm 64 years old, a member of the Roman Catholic Church and a lifelong Democrat who's first vote in 1972 for POTUS was George McGovern and I vote a straight Democratic ticket, always.

To liken relics of saints in churches to wearing a MAGA hat is extremely demeaning and way out of line.

Not all Catholics vote for rethugs, I know I am not the only one. The percentage of Roman Catholics in the USA is 22%, sadly, 16% of Roman Catholics voted for dRump. So please, do not insult he 6% that did not!

I notice too that you always take issue with primarily Roman Catholics, occasionally Protestants as well. I'm guessing that since you're quite aware of the many facets of Catholicism, St Christopher medals, Patron Saints, relics, the Rosary, that perhaps you were once a member of the church as well. If what we, Catholics, practices is mere "superstition" why have you not taken issue with the various practices of Judaism, Muslim, Buddhist etc traditions and practices as you have Roman Catholics?

Would not their belief system, customs and traditions fall into your "superstitions" theory? The answer for me in light of you not doing so is that you do not wish to be deemed anti-Semitic, anti-Muslim etc.

And to presuppose that millions upon millions of Hispanics and people of color are NOT practicing Roman Catholics, that's simply quite naive on yours and others that have the same views as you. Not to mention groups of the LGBTQ community that practice the faith as well. In fact, we have quite a few of them in the parish that I'm a member of. As Pope Francis said when asked about Gay marriage, "Love is love, who am I to judge."

Do I as a practicing Roman Catholic agree with ALL the teachings of the Church? Absolutely not! I am pro-choice, believe that what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their home is none of my business and see no need whatsoever in confessing my sins to another man. When the need arises, I do so in the privacy of my bedroom or anywhere else for that matter.

One last question for you and other atheists that post on DU. You have your own section, "atheism, agnostic", so why post in the religion section?

This is not the Religious Group. It is the Religion Group, where all are welcome to discuss religion, and from any point of view. There are other groups, where discussion is limited to positive posts about specific religions or beliefs. They are protected. The Religion Group is open to all discussions of religion, positive or otherwise.

I said religion, if you look again you'll see that.

1) I notice that you failed to answer two key questions I posed to you Sir; If Catholic practices, holy days and rituals are "superstition", why not then would the same be true of Judaism, Muslim, Buddhist etc. Each have their own rituals, practices and holy days.

2) Since you know so much about St Christopher medals, Patron Saints, relics and the Rosary, were you at one time Roman Catholic as well?

The one question that comes to mind when dealing with atheists like yourself as you mock those that believe in God or a higher being; Are you trying to convince the believers that you're right or trying to convince yourself?

especially accusatory questions.

1. I did not say religion was superstition. My post was a question.

2. No, I was never a Catholic.

3. It's not my job to convince anyone of anything. I ask questions.

So, how about taking a stab at the questions in my original post? I see that you answered none of them.

Again.

Since you gave me no answers, and they were not accusatory, I shall give you none as well.

But, it still begs the question of why you do not mock other monotheistic religions other than Christians?

but I will criticise them. I have been planning to point out the horrendous racism of the Old Testament and the Horrendous Anti-Semitism of the New Testament (The Gospels are a prime example).

Then there is the caste system of the Hindu's. The victim blaming of Karma inherent in those systems that use it. Oh then there is the whole anti-LGBTQI and Misogyny of a great deal of them.

I'm an equal opportunity criticizer. If you are a nasty bunch, then I am going to point out you are a nasty bunch. The truth is however, the thing most posters bump up against every day is Christianity, so why be surprised when most examples that are expressed here relate to Christianity.

One person's religion is another person's superstition, is another person's blasphemy, and so on.

Like anyone else, I have the right to defend my faith/belief system. Whatever you wish to call it.

The implication being the poster has something against Christianity specifically, and that is somehow unfair to you personally.

Christianity is the most popular religion in the country. Christians hold most of the power and influence. What they say and do affects my life in ways Muslims and Jews cannot. So, with all due respect, I'm going to talk about Christianity more than I talk about Islam or Judaism. I'm sorry that gives you the sads, but some people in this country actually *do* suffer for their beliefs (or lackthereof), and in more concrete ways than nasty words on an internet forum.

Rather, I am happy to express and defend my beliefs.

Since you did not answer any of my questions from the initial post, I simply followed your lead in response to you.

You are not obligated to answer my questions, you see, nor did you feel obligated to do so. But, if you then complain that I did not answer yours, there is a word for that. I used that word above.

I simply said; "Since you gave me no answers, and they were not accusatory, I shall give you none as well."

Why I responded to your original post in the first place was this, as I pointed out in my first reply:

"Why are relics of saints so revered in the Roman Catholic Church? How is that different from wearing a MAGA hat?"

That Sir is extremely offensive and inflammatory. To equate a Roman Catholic with a dRump supporter is an insult not just to myself but the number of Catholics that did not vote for that traitorous bastard.

You have yet to apologize for that gross equivocation but I'm the hypocrite? That's just rich.

I compared behaviors. Both the relics and other such things are symbols of something that are often taken as more than that. The MAGA hats, in a completely different area, are symbols of Donald Trump. Both are revered by those who use them. Both are taken to mean more than they do.

It was a parallel structure of language, not a equation. One is similar to the other in one way. The two groups are not the same. You read into my words what you believed I said, but you did not understand what I wrote. Trump fans treat those MAGA hats like holy relics.

That's OK. But, you read what I wrote incorrectly. I'm sorry you did that.

Seeya....

...

To suggest so is an assumption and needs no explanation.

It was this that brought about my first reply to the OP:

"Why are relics of saints so revered in the Roman Catholic Church? How is that different from wearing a MAGA hat?"

Say the OP said the same of a group you're a member of; You would not find that offensive?

There are two separate groups being mentioned. They are not the same groups. They do similar things, like revering things associated with someone. One group reveres relics of saints. The other reveres relics of Trump. Different groups; different relics. Think about it, please.

So that would be more like 12%/10% not 16%/6%. It is still horrible.

Bergoglio was talking about homosexuality, not marriage. He continues to judge marriage to be limited to heterosexuals. He also continues to judge all sex outside of marriage as forbidden.

The numbers I used was the percentage of Roman Catholics in the USA. What is interesting is upon checking polls post election, the Catholic vote was pretty much a split.

"Using data released by the American National Election Studies last week, political scientist Mark Gray discovered that Catholic voters were split 48 percent to 45 percent in favor of Clinton."

"Exit polls aren’t a perfect gauge of which people turn out to vote or who they cast their ballots for, especially when it comes to demographic subgroups. Gray told America Magazine he considered the ANES data more reliable.
Gray’s analysis, released in a series of charts on Twitter over the last week, disrupts the narrative that a united “Christian America” elected President Donald Trump.
Exit polls released by CNN, The New York Times, and Pew Research Center shortly after the election told roughly the same story: A whopping 81 percent of white evangelicals, 61 percent of Mormons, and nearly 60 percent of Protestants backed Trump. Catholics, according to these polls, favored the Republican candidate by roughly 50-52 percent, compared to about 45 percent who voted for Clinton.
The new analysis suggests Catholics were more evenly split between the candidates."

Link: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/new-analysis-finds-clinton-not-trump-narrowly-won-the-catholic-vote-in-2016_us_58e574bce4b06a4cb30f0aaf

And you're right that the Pope was not addressing gay marriage but homosexuality. The exact quote was:

“If someone is gay and accepts the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?… They should not be marginalized. The tendency is not the problem… they are our brothers.”

“Not all Catholics vote for rethugs, I know I am not the only one. The percentage of Roman Catholics in the USA is 22%, sadly, 16% of Roman Catholics voted for dRump. So please, do not insult he 6% that did not.”

It was clear you were talking about the fraction of the total population that is Catholic (22), but your claim that 16 of that 22 voted for Trump is just an egregious maths error on your part, no matter which poll you use.

The numbers I used was the percentage of Roman Catholics in the USA, not the polls post election. I do have those results in another post though.

And yes, religion and superstition are two names for the same thing IMHO.
https://m.