This sounds like relatively orthodox sociology of religion, actually. See for instance Stark and Bainbridge's 1987 A Theory of Religion, and specifically the idea of "compensators". For an overview, see Bainbridge's "Sacred Algorithms"; to quote:
In the absence of a desired reward, people will often accept algorithms that explain how to get the reward in the distant future or in some other context that cannot be immediately verified. These algorithms are compensators, in that they compensate the individual psychologically for lack of the reward. Typically, they are promises that the reward can be obtained.
Rewards vary in terms of how specific or general they are. Correspondingly, some compensators are relatively specific, for example promising cure of a particular disease or providing compensatory status for low status in society. Other compensators are more general, such as the hope for eternal life. Stark and I found it useful to distinguish magic from religion in terms of the specificity of the compensators they provide.
Magic is defined as specific compensators that promise to provide desired rewards without regard for evidence concerning the designated means (Stark and Bainbridge 1987:105). As noted earlier, religions are systems of general compensators based on supernatural assumptions. Thus, the defining difference between magic and religion, in the New Paradigm Theory, is the generality of the compensators they offer. There is no categorical dividing line between the two, and they blend into each other. Indeed, one of the chief variations among religious movements and organizations is the degree of magic (specific compensators) they offer in addition to the general compensators that define their religiousness.
That still doesn't say anything about cursing the name of God versus praising him, when in the face of adversity, which is what I'm interested in.
populations that would have commonly practiced the cursing of the LORD
Blasphemy is ridiculously common in Italy. While the most religious people frown upon that, there are people who call God names or curse saints about every other sentence, and lots of people find it hilarious to listen at them. Some people have even become minor celebrities because of that. (On the other hand, you don't usually hear that in television -- and a couple contestants in reality shows have been banned for that, and it used to be illegal until a couple decades ago.)
Its rather common for individuals to deal with adversity by blaming a higher power, but i dont think most societies would condone such beliefs. It would probably make things difficult for priests, for one thing, and If God existed beyond a reasonable doubt then anyone with a sense of self preservation would be unlikely to challenge Him. Most People would suck up to Him like they think they've been doing for centuries, no matter how much of a prick He was. People tend to only tell God to go fuck Himself when they're in a troubled emotional state and thing the universe is out to get them anyway. A society is not prone to such fits of emotional turmoil, but individuals decidedly are. Noticing just how unfair nature can be while asserting the existence of a higher power tends to lead to serious depression. Just watch Welcome to the NHK.
This can also be seen on the time axis of a single individual's existence when, young, they care little about sin and the afterlife, and, old, they do nothing but pray all day to make up for all the awful stuff they did
I'm pretty sure this isn't how humans work. This post feels like you were aiming for a certain feel, or appearance, or tone, but not pursuing a goal. And so you ended up with a bunch of stuff thrown in not because it was useful or particularly well-supported, but because it fit. That's bad. To do better I think you have to figure out what you want from this, and pursue that.
I'm pretty sure this isn't how humans work.
This is pretty much exactly how every single male Muslim I knew planned and acted out their lives, at least outwardly. I don't know if it doesn't work with devout Christians or Jews, but Muslims seem to condone "drkinging, smoking, whoring (or at least extramarital sex, though in their minds it might be near-equivalent), and evil rutheless business practice while young, and then doing nothing but praying and having God constantly in one's mouth when Death's on your doorstep". That doesn't mean they've become nicer, though: pricks tend to remain pricks, except now they're terrified pricks wo nevertheless manage to act Holier Than Thou and tell everyone else how they should run their lives, from a position of superiority!
And no, I don't have statistics for that, who's going to dare make and publish that sort of inquiry? I simply thought it was common practice everywhere else.
This post feels like you were aiming for a certain feel, or appearance, or tone, but not pursuing a goal.
From what I've seen, this sort of thing is a bit of a cardinal sin in these places. You're aware that properly formulating the question mean most of the work is done in finding the answer. I don't know precisely how to ask the question, that's why I seek help. If every time I have a doubt, I keep silent until I've found out exactly what it is I'm doubting, then asking about it becomes a little superfluous. I'm looking for information, not peer review.
Same for goals, how am I supposed to have a goal, other than information-gathering, when I don't have the information?
The structure is very clear: 1. This song brought this paradox to my attention. 2. This is the standard behavior I have seen until now. 3. I have been unable to find (proof of the existence of) data on people who behave otherwise. Maybe there is, but I do not know where to begin looking for it. 4. I exhort anyone who know anything about this to share their knowledge here.
I was wrong, sorry. What you wanted (both goal-wise and what information you were asking for) was not clear to me, and I leapt to the wrong conclusion.
I don't know the histories of that many old people, and most of them are family, but by about six to two I know of more who became less religious in old age. The effect of young adults being less religious is real, but if they "come back," I think it's more likely that they come back around the time they have kids, which I've seen a lot of.
What is the "paradox?" What needs to be explained, and why does it seem difficult to explain? Could you explain more clearly? Just wanting information about something is an okay goal, but there's a lot of information out there, and if you just wanted all of it you'd use google. So presumably your goal is a bit more specific.
I don't know if it doesn't work with devout Christians or Jews
While I can't think of any specific examples, it doesn't sound unusual to me for Catholics to do roughly that.
Hasa Diga Ebowai (["Does it mean "no worries for the rest of our lives?"" *"Kinda"*](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&NR=1&v=AhxChl9bGl0)) is a song from Trey Parker and Matt Stone's "The Book of Mormon", an affectionate parody of religion in general. A lot of the comedy in that song is drawn from the unexpectedness of the reaction to adversity displayed within. Do listen to it before proceeding.
The stereotype is that, when troubled and in a position of weakness, where they have no power over their fates, humans tend to turn towards the LORD for consolation. Especially if the religion promises a good afterlife to the patient, meek and submissive, and a bad one to the defiant and insolent. Even when it doesn't (such as in most denominations of Judaism, AFAIK), people are encouraged to not "curse His rotten" name when everything goes wrong for them and they can't do anything about it (see book of Job).
The other side of the stereotype is that, the more powerful, confident and knowledgeable humans become, the less religious they become. This can also be seen on the time axis of a single individual's existence when, young, they care little about sin and the afterlife, and, old, they do nothing but pray all day to make up for all the awful stuff they did (and there might be some genuinely awful behavior in there).
So I've been trolling Wikipedia for examples of demographics and populations that would have commonly practiced the cursing of the LORD, but I only found reference to vikings doing that, in a "I won't believe in you, but I will believe in me, and live by my own strength" kind of way, which isn't exactly what I'm looking for.
Does anyone here know anything about these different ways people react to adversity, and what they mean from a rationalistic standpoint?