Religiosity attributed to vitamin deficiency

[narcimund 0]

  Quote

So what is your position on this study?

What a thoughtful question! Of course I'd love to participate now that a polite person has posed a question to me.

Here's my mind wandering over some of the issues:

I don't know enough about the original data to conclude anything. A couple of the early posts in this thread posed excellent questions (like sundevil's "What is meant by "certain" enthusiasms?") I don't know if the subjects were average, church-going, bake-sale-holding christians or raving schizophrenics imagining mystical voices.

But let's stipulate that it's the former -- just to be contentious. If researchers happened to actually discover that there was some significant correlation between a relatively low blood level of some vitamin (say vitamin L) and people who attended church, that would be interesting.

Does it qualify as "disease"? Probably not unless other disease factors were identified. One could easily turn it around and proclaim that relatively high levels of vitamin L caused atheism. If either high or low levels of vitamin L were also correlated with early death or crippling pain, then we would know objectively if lower or higher levels were more desirable.

Wouldn't it be interesting (in a purely hypothetical way) if this were the case? Either direction would be fascinating.

Think of it as a science fiction story if you like: A vitamin/potion/treatment is discovered that will triple your body's lifespan, increase vigor, erase wrinkles, restore peak sexual function, and make your breath fresh ... but the side effect is it turns worshippers' religious convictions OFF. (Or just as interesting, imagine it turns atheists' religious convictions ON.)

And here's my mind wandering over your actual questions:

  Quote

What about religiousity should be cured by vitamin deficiencies? Why would this be an important finding?

Can you accept that from my position, christianity (and the other religions) are really no different than any other superstition? So let's switch it over to those so we can see it the same way for a second. If there were a group of people who believed vigorously in the Tooth Fairy, cited Tooth Fairy morals, and caused mayhem to people who didn't also believe, and in extreme cases even murdered and waged wars over over the Tooth Fairy, but a vitamin pill would pull them back to reality and get them to stop fighting, it would be nice to know about it, wouldn't it?

  Quote

I'd be very clear if they said "vitamin deficiency can be correlated to MS," as that's a disease...but to consider religiousity a disease is a stretch.

Yes, that is a stretch. But one could imagine identifying blood chemistry changes correlated with all sorts of non-disease conditions, some of which have been mentioned by less civil people than you, Michele. They'd all be equally interesting to note.

Does identifying a blood chemistry change identify a disease or establish a desirable state all by itself? Hardly. People have different blood types but nobody argues that Type A+ people should be cured to be Type O people. But it would be academically productive to find a correlation between blood types and other qualities even if they weren't diseases.

  Quote

So what is your position on this study?

I think it's fascinating for all the reasons I stated above.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Michele 1]

Thanks for the response, Narcimund.

For me, knowing what the parameters of the original study, as well as control groups, and the numbers tested is important. That way, you have far more of a base to draw from, and to make conclusions about, pro or con. But then, you indicated it was a preliminary study at best, so we'll let it go.

You know me. I have a chemical imbalance in my brain not dissimilar from diabetis and the pancreas' inability to produce insulin. I am a firm believer in correcting that imbalance, and of living my life as productively as possible. If we found that vitamin Q was responsible for the lack of chemical balance in my brain, I'd be the first at the store getting it.

But see, this is where you and I diverge. I don't see religiousity as an illness. I don't see it as something which needs correcting. I realize, recognize, and respect your position that for you, it's all a bunch of hooey, but I also don't agree with that in the least. While I can see your point, I can't qualify religiousity as a disease.

So then it becomes, I'd guess, what actually qualifies a disease? For years - decades, centuries even, my illness was not understood. What happened was that finally someone studied people who had the symptoms I have, and those without those symptoms. They discovered that seratonin (among others) in those without the symptoms were X level, and for those who had the symptoms, the seratonin levels were at Y levels. The conclusion was that seratonin depletion/non-production is the cause of an illness.

That discovery set into motion a whole slew of things, including coming up with medications which help restore normal levels of seratonin, and relieve/alleviate the symptoms.

In the original case, religiousity, there was no study that I know of that demonstrated religiousity is, in fact, an illness; that is, there was no control group of non-religious people who had higher levels of vitamin L, and no studies done to see what happens to those people when they are deprived of vitamin L. Therefore, the premise of the study was already there - a hypothesis, if you will - but with a predetermined set of factors; i.e. only those with a clear religiousity (according to the studier...again, not something which had been previously established as "higher than normal," I gather), and ran some panels looking to prove that hypothesis.

The difference between the schitzophrenic and a religious person is easily measured; the schitzophrenic has an imbalance in known brain chemicals. I'd bet you a dollar that the religious person does NOT have the same imbalance, which is why we don't call them schitzophrenic. However, discovering a certain lack of a vitamin which has not been previously established to be at a normal level in a different population renders the entire study null, imho....especially as the study set out with pre-existing hypothesis that there is something "wrong" with religious people.

How about this....

We continue with the study of vitamin L, and discover that in fact, a lower than average level is existant in religious people. But we also discover that "normal" or higher levels of vitamin L in people shortens their lifespan. It has slight, but real, negative effects on brain function, which can't be found in religious people. It operates by effectively making them have more stress, thus a higher rate of heart attacks and inability to survive major illnesses like cancer. Does that make religion a cure for a disease?

No...

Simply put, imho, religion is a personal lifestyle choice. Are all religious people good? Oh hell no. One just has to look at the other thread about that lady (the one with video) to see that. Or look at the 9/11 hijackers. or...or...or...et cetera. But does religion make a person more prone towards violence? That has not been my experience; as a matter of fact, the opposite is true in my experience.

So we're back at the basics...is religiousity a disease which needs correction? No, I really don't think so. Nor, frankly, is homosexuality a disease which needs correcting...and that's the point people are making.

Well, all that made sense when I was writing it. I hope it makes sense to those who read it! LOL!

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~

[narcimund 0]

  Quote

Thanks for the response, Narcimund.

So far as I can tell, you've basically restated all the same things I said.

It's really nice -- for once -- to read a post in response to something I said where I wasn't falsely accused of saying and believing things I never said or believed.

I think I'll be smiling for a while over that.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[sundevil777 102]

  Quote

Can you accept that from my position, christianity (and the other religions) are really no different than any other superstition?

And then in the same paragraph you make an analogy to the tooth fairy!

I think there is good reason to believe about 2000 years ago there was a guy named Jesus, and some extraordinary things were happening around him. We don't have the archives of the Jerusalem Times newspaper to confirm it, and you can certainly argue that he wasn't the literal son of God, but do you deny he existed?

To compare religions to "any other superstition" shows the mindset that I think existed in the researchers that went looking for a connection of vitamin deficiency and religious faith. It is a mindset of extreme intolerance, hostility, and prejudice toward people of faith.

Once again, I ask, what kind of a group sponsors research to find the 'reason' why people are religious within vitamin deficiencies? This kind of conclusion doesn't just 'pop-up' during the course of research to find the best vitamins to help those with cancer. I think a group that has an agenda against those that are religious is the kind of group that would seek to find such a correlation, and if you look hard enough, correlations can be found/made/created.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[narcimund 0]

I'm tired and feeling generous so I'll indulge your thread hijack for exactly one post.

  Quote

I think there is good reason to believe about 2000 years ago there was a guy named Jesus, and some extraordinary things were happening around him. We don't have the archives of the Jerusalem Times newspaper to confirm it, and you can certainly argue that he wasn't the literal son of God, but do you deny he existed?

I don't know enough to deny or affirm that somebody approximately 2006 years ago had the name "Jesus" but since lots of people have that name now, it's hardly implausible.

At the same time, I will not affirm or deny that Saint Nicholas of Myra existed 400 years later. However, I'm reasonably confident that he doesn't still hang out in the frigid north, ride flying reindeer, and stuff christmas oranges and nintendos down chimneys in the middle of the night.

And that's as far as I'll go with that nonsense here. Like I told those straight boys who can't stop obsessing about my sexuality, if you want to change the topic, please start a new thread, ok?

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[sundevil777 102]

Thread hijack? You brought up the comparison to "any other superstition".

Not just any guy named Jesus, but a guy that claimed to be a prophet named Jesus. This question is not even close to whether you believe Santa Clause exists.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[Muenkel 0]

Your agenda is so transparent. It amazes me that you are the only one who doesn't see it. Well....maybe not the only one.

Chris

_________________________________________
Chris

[Gravitymaster 0]

  Quote

Your agenda is so transparent. It amazes me that you are the only one who doesn't see it. Well....maybe not the only one.

Chris

Shhhhhh........ It makes him feel better when we pretend we don't see the agenda.

-

[MC208B 0]

Ya gotta admit, it was nice of him to have an audience with Michelle tho

[billvon 3,036]

>My point was that I find it funny when on group wants to say
>something like, "Vitamin deficiency causes a person to be religious".
> But they will not accept that the same disorder could have other
> effects such as homosexuality. And refuses to even discuss the
> possibilities.

>That is hypocrisy, would you not agree?

It would be, if that's what he were doing. But he isn't. Just as you are saying "but it's stupid to say the vitamin thing is valid and the gay thing is invalid!" he is saying "it's stupid to say the gay thing is valid and the vitamin thing is invalid." You're making the same arguments.

[narcimund 0]

  Quote

It would be, if that's what he were doing. But he isn't. Just as you are saying "but it's stupid to say the vitamin thing is valid and the gay thing is invalid!" he is saying "it's stupid to say the gay thing is valid and the vitamin thing is invalid." You're making the same arguments.

Thank you, Bill. It's refreshing to see SOMEBODY has eyes to see.

I'll repeat it so the challenge of ignoring this is a little more profound for them: It would be hypocrisy if I believed the things you guys accuse me of believing BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THOSE THINGS. No matter how many posts you guys make announcing that I believe those things, IT'S JUST NOT TRUE.

Now that we've rubbed their noses in their own smelly effluent, we can be sure that they'll all either:

* Repeat the same accusations as if we weren't here
* Switch to some other non sequitur such as "Narcimund is an angry person" or "cornholing is icky"

Arguing with these people is a lot like lifting weights. You don't actually accomplish anything, but the repetition keeps you from getting lazy.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[Gravitymaster 0]

  Quote

>My point was that I find it funny when on group wants to say
>something like, "Vitamin deficiency causes a person to be religious".
> But they will not accept that the same disorder could have other
> effects such as homosexuality. And refuses to even discuss the
> possibilities.

>That is hypocrisy, would you not agree?

It would be, if that's what he were doing. But he isn't. Just as you are saying "but it's stupid to say the vitamin thing is valid and the gay thing is invalid!" he is saying "it's stupid to say the gay thing is valid and the vitamin thing is invalid." You're making the same arguments.

I think both arguments are pretty dumb.

-

[billvon 3,036]

>I think both arguments are pretty dumb.

Both arguments above are valid, I think. I agree that the two propositions contained therein (i.e. "vitamin deficiency causes faith" and "mental dysfunction causes homosexuality") are pretty dumb.

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

Nobody said I'm unwilling to discuss it (except you.)

Well thats because you have not discussed it, only made emotional arguments about how "people" are out to get you.

I asked if this can be attributed to a person being religious, could it also be attributed to a bunch of other things. One of them was homosexuality, but there was a list of others. I choose homosexuality since it is a topic close to you. I was wondering if you would think logicly and answer, or spout emotional crap and claim to be persicuted.

I got my answer. You only want to be able to attribute things that are in your favor to things that can be fixed.

You would not even consider anything else could be attributed to a vitamin deficency, only the things you want to be attributed to it.

So, I'll ask again (so you can ignore it again).

If religion can be attributed to vitamin deficiency, what else do you think lack of proper vitamins could cause? Or would you even admit that other things could be attributed to it?

  Quote

One might wonder why. Maybe I'll look at your posting history to see if you redirect other topics to homosexuality. Maybe that's an interesting clue in itself.... hmm....

Yes, it is a clue that I see how you wave being gay as a badge of honor. Your sig line reflects your desire to be seen as a martyr.

I played on that to see if you would be willing to have an open mind. The answer was no.

I do infact think that a good number of things could be attributed to vitamin deficiencies, up bringing, biological make up...ect. I am willing to grant that religion might be one of those. You are the one that is getting upset since I asked if your holy grail could be one of the things as well.

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

It would be, if that's what he were doing. But he isn't. Just as you are saying "but it's stupid to say the vitamin thing is valid and the gay thing is invalid!" he is saying "it's stupid to say the gay thing is valid and the vitamin thing is invalid." You're making the same arguments.

The difference I see is that I have admitted several times that religion could be attributed to a vitamin deficiency. He never answered any questions till two posts ago, and never answered if he thinks that a deficiency could attribute to anything else.

[narcimund 0]

You know what the disconnect is here? You're assuming that I'm the appointed defender of your extreme interpretations.

I posted an interesting tidbit that I hoped might generate thought in others. But instead of giving it thought, you decided to put me on trial instead.

Now everything you're posting is: "Narcimund! Defend yourself!"

No. I won't defend myself. Your attack is misplaced and ridiculous.

If you're hankering for a fight, go down to a pub and pick a fight. I'm just here to have a nice, thoughtful discussion with the occasional smart person -- when I can find one, that is.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[DaVinci 0]

  Quote

You know what the disconnect is here? You're assuming that I'm the appointed defender of your extreme interpretations.

I think the disconnect is you posting something but unwilling to discuss it. Just like you avoided answering my question again.

  Quote

Now everything you're posting is: "Narcimund! Defend yourself!"

I think you have me wrong. I asked you a question and you avoided it. You have responded to two people and only one after they challenged you on it.

  Quote

No. I won't defend myself. Your attack is misplaced and ridiculous.

No attack, I just wanted to know your take of what you posted and if it applied to other things. My first question was, "OK, so....Who is correct, or are they both correct in your opinion, or both wrong? Or are you just wanting the one that supports you to be correct?

If you are willing to support that religion can be "a mental disfunction caused by poor eating habits". Are you willing to say the same about homosexuality, being a Republican/Democrat, prefering blonds over brunettes...ect, or support how some have the right to think that way? "

I asked two questions. Both were really the same. If you are willing to attribute one to vitaim deficiency are you willing to attribute other things as well? If you had answered that I would have quit posting along time ago. But you avoided it and considered it an attack.

  Quote

If you're hankering for a fight, go down to a pub and pick a fight. I'm just here to have a nice, thoughtful discussion with the occasional smart person -- when I can find one, that is.

Hey, you want a smart person to talk to you? How about you answer questions and not just lump everyone into a "They hate me"club?

I don't hate you, I don't know you. I'd really like to know your thoughts.

I already gave my thoughts. I think that there may be something to this study. Just as there may be a genetic link to homosexuality. I base that off of my friends who say they were born that way. Some claim to having tried to be straight and just not liking it.

So how far do we take that? Does genetics or vitamin deficiencies determine if you like your mates tall or short? Blond or Brunette?

I don't claim to know the truth, only to having an opinion.

[rehmwa 2]

  Quote

Hey, you want a smart person to talk to you? How about you answer questions and not just lump everyone into a "They hate me"club?

Narci has some really good posts. here's the trick.

read it all except for the last sentence or half sentence - try it - it works (the gratuitous insults at the ends i don't think are even on purpose, just habit)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[skydyvr 0]

  Quote

I posted an interesting tidbit that I hoped might generate thought in others.

The first thought I had is that I've never known any Christians that will turn away any kind of food offering.

So I don't see where the deficiency would come from.

. . =(_8^(1)