religion and life expectancy

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 12:05 am

there are always complaints about religion and its presence in all cultures. this has been proven true archaeologically as archaeologists have uncovered vast amounts of temples, religious artifacts in all civilizations.

these archaeologists and scientists, who have studied life over theyears say that early man lived for a very short time, yet the following article would bring doubt to their conclusions:

There are many things you can do to increase your life expectancy: exercise, eat well, take your medication and ... go to church.

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology ... _good.html

keeping this argument restricted to archaeological records and discoveries is the goal, it would be interesting to see exactly what has been discovered in digs, hopefully without rhetoric and declatory statements, that pertain to this topic.

granted that if you lived in the aztec, mayan, or the inca realm, religion may have shortened life a little bit but that would be the exception and not the rule.

now i have no intention of bringing in the long lived from pre-noah's days as this is not a topic about the Bible, unless someone decides to brag about the sumerian king's list ,but what has been found in the archaeological record concerning life expectancy and religion.

(notice i said the general word 'religion' and not Christian or the Jewish faith. so this topic is about all religions and their affect onhistorical civilizations. hopefully those that despise religion can edit their comments to make this a meaningful and constructive discussion)

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:28 am

"Religious attendance is not a mode of medical therapy," said study leader Daniel Hall, a resident in general surgery at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. "While this study was not intended for use in clinical decision making, these findings tell us that there is something to examine further."

Hall is also an Episcopal priest.

Tech · Post by **Tech** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:34 am

Is this not an archaeology forum ? JM was bad but since the appearance of one person it has turned into a religeous debate , I am only interested in archaeology not the sermons of some bible basher who cant leave his beliefs at the door and dicuss history with any semblance of coherance

Religeon and life expectancy ???

What the hell has that got to do with archaeology ???

Some posts do not belong here and maybe should be looked at by admin.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:49 am

I agree! This ain't got anything to do do with archaeology. It has no place here. Boooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!! Bad boy!

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 9:52 am

I wonder how those thousands of Aztec sacrificial victims felt about going to church?

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 11:26 am

[quote]I wonder how those thousands of Aztec sacrificial victims felt about going to church?[/quote]

Whatever it was, they didn't feel it for long. Unlike those of us on this forum trying to discuss archaeology and keep getting hit over the head with garbage.

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 1:41 pm

Is this not an archaeology forum ? JM was bad but since the appearance of one person it has turned into a religeous debate , I am only interested in archaeology

I wonder where you people get your brains. if you noticed i pointed out that archaeology has discovered religion in each civilizations, thus religion is an archaeological discussion. i also pointed out that i wasn't just refering to Christianity, so there was no intent on sermons but an exploration ARCHAEOLOGY of the topic mentioned in the original post.

you have so much hatred for religion that you cannot even accept archaeological facts concerning the topic let alone discuss it like normal human beings. get used to the idea that religion is part of archaeology because archaeologists discover temples, sacred writings, worship practices and soon.

thus the problem in discussion lies with you not me. If you want to be objective, to be honest and so on then you must be prepared to talk about ALL areas that touches archaeology. which by the way includes religion.

so by your complaints you have shown you are not objective, not open-minded, not unbiased but have proven you are worse than the christians you complain about.

SO HYPOCRITES, do the forum a favor and remove yourselves because you are not open to any discussion outside of your own pet theories which you cannot prove.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:15 pm

Maybe I'm more tolerant than the others but, if Hall's observations are valid than so is this story from a link on the same page.

NEW YORK (AP)—In the largest study of its kind, researchers found that having people pray for heart bypass surgery patients had no effect on their recovery. In fact, patients who knew they were being prayed for had a slightly higher rate of complications.

I would agree that religion when accompanied by archaeological artifacts is a fit subject for discussion (as when Professor Dever shows by his findings of pagan idols and accoutrements that monotheism was far from deeply ingrained in early to mid first-millenium Israel.)

Even disregarding Hall's apparent personal bias, it can be seen that his preference for religion is the least effective of the three items considered.
One might say that "attending religious services" is 'healthier' than driving fast, drinking a lot, or engaging in unprotected sex.

It's also a hell of a lot less fun.

Frank Harrist · Post by **Frank Harrist** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 2:54 pm

archaeologist wrote:
Is this not an archaeology forum ? JM was bad but since the appearance of one person it has turned into a religeous debate , I am only interested in archaeology
I wonder where you people get your brains. if you noticed i pointed out that archaeology has discovered religion in each civilizations, thus religion is an archaeological discussion. i also pointed out that i wasn't just refering to Christianity, so there was no intent on sermons but an exploration ARCHAEOLOGY of the topic mentioned in the original post.

you have so much hatred for religion that you cannot even accept archaeological facts concerning the topic let alone discuss it like normal human beings. get used to the idea that religion is part of archaeology because archaeologists discover temples, sacred writings, worship practices and soon.

thus the problem in discussion lies with you not me. If you want to be objective, to be honest and so on then you must be prepared to talk about ALL areas that touches archaeology. which by the way includes religion.

so by your complaints you have shown you are not objective, not open-minded, not unbiased but have proven you are worse than the christians you complain about.

SO HYPOCRITES, do the forum a favor and remove yourselves because you are not open to any discussion outside of your own pet theories which you cannot prove.

Say what you will, jerk, this topic still ain't about archaeology.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 3:34 pm

No, no, Frank....he may be onto something.

I remember how it seemed that when some phony, boring-ass, preacher was giving his Sunday sermon about how 'Jesus loves you more if you put more in the collection plate' that it did seem that those people had a way of stretching the time-space continuum. Ten minutes of listening to those assholes rattle on felt like hours.

Maybe religious people don't live longer....it just feels like they live longer?

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 4:48 pm

Say what you will, jerk, this topic still ain't about archaeology.

no i am ot a jerk; i am just pointing out that yo are unwilling to discuss archaeology even when it pertains to religion thus highlighting your own failings and undermining your own intellect.

you sit back and accuse christians of so many things, some warranted and others not, yet you fail to realize you do the exact same thing you accuse us.

you want to discuss evolution, when it is not archaeology but antrhopology withut a hint of complaint but when someone has a belief that goes contrary to your thinking, you howl and raise cain because it means you have to take into account thoughts outside of your 'accepted' theories. Religion has every right to be discussed here as so many archaeologists throughout the world discover religious artifacts, temples and worship practices in every society through archaeological digs. evolution doesn't belong here as it is not archaeological and there really isn't one discovery that substantiates its presence in this forum.

you are the ones who are not willing to discuss or have an open mind but it is easier to point the finger at someone else, than turn it upon yourselves. only honest people ignore censorship and most of you are not honest.

you want to stumble around in the dark, thinking your are intelligent afraid everyone will discover your blindness and lack of intelligence. well too late, we all see it, realist saw it, i see it and those who do not post here see it. you all act like spoiled babies who want to take their ball and run home when someone disagrees with you.

if yo want to play with the grown ups then you must act like the grown ups and not cry whenever someone disagrees with you or holds alternative theories.

Post by **Minimalist** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:07 pm

(I'm with Frank!)

wtrfall · Post by **wtrfall** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:45 pm

guys/gals
I am sooo confused.

I can not begin to count how many documentaries
I have watched/read about on Nova, National Geographic,
history, science etc
that discuss religion and archaeology.

the ancient Egyptians were like

TOTALY religious

How ling did they live?
How long did Israelites live?
Greeks?

and I would like to know the exceptions too.

so can you present some particular examples for
discussion one by one? Arch?

I am interested to learn

wtrfall · Post by **wtrfall** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 6:49 pm

PS; I dont know if biology is allowed?
Isn't biology and archaology used together?

If not I am sorry

Gov studies have confirmed a direct correlation between
state of mind and age.

Leona Conner · Post by **Leona Conner** » Thu Apr 13, 2006 7:03 pm

I am far from being an enlightened one, but it does seem that archaeology and anthropology are closely related fields. When I went to college in the stone age, well at least long before laptops, if you wanted to be an archaeologist you majored in anthropology. Very few colleges had archaeology as a major, you took what you could get and hoped for the best. So yes I think you can discuss religion in a forum of this type but only if you are using scientific findings. To discuss what has been discovered by comparing sites and finds, etc. is one thing, but when all you have to use for your point of view is one book that many consider nothing more than mythology, is asinine. That is what we all have against Arch. Like some 4th century bishop, he holds everything up to one set of beliefs. Only that which matches can be considered as truth. He postings are marked by inexcusable failure to exercise intelligence beyond this.