problems with God

[_canpakes]

The irony of how Gunnar and DrW make unsourced (and unsubstantiated) claims and you swallow it like a fat catfish lying at the bottom of a muddy creek called "your intellect"....all the while making the case that the opposite is actually true.

You and Amore are stuck trying to make an impossibly wide claim look valid when the reality shows that there are many finer divisions within the subject to examine (as is provided with my reference to the study that shows that belief in a punitive God exacerbates general anxiety, social anxiety, paranoia, obsession, and compulsion, as compared to belief in a 'non-punitive' God). And I'm not sure why you are so bothered about Gunnar's and DrW's 'unsourced and unsubstantiated' claims given that your first attempt at bolstering your own side of the argument was the insertion of a fabricated quote and source.

Your inclusion of the reference to the paper about autism and atheism smacks of desperation, as if the latter were a cause of the former. This is not what the paper explores or posits. In any event, its conclusion offers the following interesting tidbit:

"An extreme type of cognitive style is high functioning autism. The 2 studies reported here found that individuals with HFA have a higher rate than neurotypicals of endorsing atheism and agnosticism. HFA individuals thus resemble another group of high-systemizers (scientists), who also reject religious belief at a relatively high rate."

http://csjarchive.cogsci.rpi.edu/procee ... er0782.pdf ('Conclusions')

[Guest]

DrW,
While I see some truth in that a substantial cases of mental illness are rooted in religious cognitive distortions, it seems that many fail to realize such cognitive distortions are as prevelant if not more common in herd mentalities like Atheism and Liberalism. Check it out for yourself and you'll see.

Amore,

I saw what you did there. Gunnar referred to mental disorders, while you cleverly referred to cognitive disorders. If one does a search of the literature using these as separate search strings, there is some overlap in the literature retrieved. Overall, however, there is a greater divergence than one might expect. (And here I am talking about peer reviewed scientific literature, and not religionist websites, blogs, or magazine articles.)

Gunnar's <mental disorders religiosity> brings up any number of journal articles that describe a close and often complex clinical relationship between schizophrenia and religiosity. As one example, see [Siddle, et al., (2010) Mental Health, Religion & Culture pp 267-284]

There are dozens of other easily accessed papers that are relevant, including this review; [Mohr and Huguelet (2004) SWISS MED WKLY134:369–376].

Bottom line; religiosity is closely associated with schizophrenia. Religious practice or ideation are often a trigger for schizophrenic episodes and religious delusions are practically a hallmark of frank schizophrenia. They are prevalent in other forms of psychosis as well.

On the other hand <cognitive disorders religiosity> tends to return literature having to do with the general decline of cognitive function with age, Alzheimers, etc. In this case, the community support that is often associated with religious groups is clearly of benefit, as compared to those who do not have such supportive social networks. [Coin et al., (2010) Curr Alzheimer Res. 7(5):445-52.]

Bottom Line: Religious delusions are closely associated with mental illness. They are often exacerbated by, and can be a contributing factor in, several forms of this disease - especially schizophrenia.

Religious delusions lie along a spectrum; from those commonly expressed by TBMs and evangelical fundamentalists, to those elaborated by the institutionalized and chronically ill. And it is sometimes difficult to determine a bright line between the yellow and the red.

[Guest]

The irony of how Gunnar and DrW make unsourced (and unsubstantiated) claims and you swallow it like a fat catfish lying at the bottom of a muddy creek called "your intellect"....all the while making the case that the opposite is actually true.

subgenius,

Not sure why I am responding to you, given that you were apparently trying to insult canpakes* (and not Gunnar or me directly) in your post quoted here.

However, considering that fact you seem incapable of writing a complete sentence in English (and should really be working on that), I thought I would at least let you know (as demonstrated in my post immediately above) that the claims made by Gunnar and me can be readily sourced and substantiated, as you would have known had you taken a few minutes to look it up for yourself.
_____________________

*Edited to substitute canpakes for Amore.

[_subgenius]

The irony of how Gunnar and DrW make unsourced (and unsubstantiated) claims and you swallow it like a fat catfish lying at the bottom of a muddy creek called "your intellect"....all the while making the case that the opposite is actually true.

subgenius,

Not sure why I am responding to you,

my guess: because of your ego

given that you were apparently trying to insult Amore (and not Gunnar or me directly) in your post quoted here.

However, considering that fact you seem incapable of writing a complete sentence in English (and should really be working on that), I thought I would at least let you know (as demonstrated in my post immediately above) that the claims made by Gunnar and me can be readily sourced and substantiated, as you would have known had you taken a few minutes to look it up for yourself.

1. It is not my burden to source and/or substantiate your outlandish claims. Either CFR or concede that you cannot.

2. "Qualify your message by posting references to actual published works or data to back up what you are saying. If it is just your opinion then make sure to say so otherwise your message may be taken as fact and cause unnecessary disagreement. ..."
(reference - http://www.bordeglobal.com/foruminv/ind ... #entry2519
via
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=26)

3. Is your "just take my word for it" policy applicable on all posts? or just the ones from you?

[_DrW]

1. It is not my burden to source and/or substantiate your outlandish claims. Either CFR or concede that you cannot.

2. "Qualify your message by posting references to actual published works or data to back up what you are saying. If it is just your opinion then make sure to say so otherwise your message may be taken as fact and cause unnecessary disagreement. ..."
(reference - http://www.bordeglobal.com/foruminv/ind ... #entry2519
via
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=26)

3. Is your "just take my word for it" policy applicable on all posts? or just the ones from you?

It would have taken you a lot less time just to read the post I referred to above (Posted: Tue Dec 09, 2014 12:54 pm - in which I included three references to peer reviewed literature) than it did to write your wholly unnecessary and now irrelevant request for information already provided.

[_Amore]

my wife, (D W)
Subgenius was referring to canpakes, not me, but nice try.

If you want to insist on polarized (bipolar) thinking - that religion's all bad and Atheism is all good, that's your choice, but it is a cognitive distortion.

Canpakes,
I don't like dysfunctional herd mentalities (Atheism, Theism, Liberalism etc), but I don't pretend to reinvent the wheel & I do appreciate those who have something to teach.

[_DrW]

my wife, (D W)
Subgenius was referring to canpakes, not me, but nice try.

So he was. Thank you. I will go back and fix the post.
____________________________________________

by the way, my wife means Dear Wife on some of these boards. I'm sure that is not what you intended.

If you want to insist on polarized (bipolar) thinking - that religion's all bad and Atheism is all good, that's your choice, but it is a cognitive distortion.

What makes you think that I "insist on polarized (bipolar) thinking"?

Do I detect the slight degree of paranoia here, or are you claiming that I am bipolar? Hard to tell.

If you read what I wrote, you would have seen that I provided literature references to support the original assertions of both you and Gunnar. Hard to be more even handed than that.

[Guest]

Oops - dble post.

[_Amore]

DrW,
I wasn't calling you bi-polar, but simply pointing out such thinking in a polarized notion like "all religion is bad & atheism is good."

There are a lot of cognitive distortions that are so common they are accepted as fact... And then it makes things seem hellish or otherwise dysfunctional, simply for inaccurate interpretation.

[Guest]

DrW,
I wasn't calling you bi-polar, but simply pointing out such thinking in a polarized notion like "all religion is bad & atheism is good."

There are a lot of cognitive distortions that are so common they are accepted as fact... And then it makes things seem hellish or otherwise dysfunctional, simply for inaccurate interpretation.

Amore,

Let me suggest that you re-cast religion as what it really is; an expression of faith, or belief, in that for which there is no evidence. Atheism then becomes simply the absence of such unfounded and irrational belief.

If religion really does make one "feel better", perhaps that individual should try to figure out why this is the case. What is missing in their lives that causes them to actually feel better when they think of their imaginary parent?

When it comes to real life, evidence based decision-making will result in more predictable and better outcomes, on average, than faith-based decision making.

While I would not argue that religion cannot make life feel better for certain temperament types, having witnessed first hand entire cultures decimated by the practice of religion, and the ignorance it breeds, I must admit that religion makes me a bit nervous. In my experience, people on the whole are generally a lot better off without the burden of false and unfounded belief.

How can people who believe in the foundational claims of Mormonism, or that the Earth is less than 10,000 years old - and was created in six days by magic - really be trusted to make good decisions otherwise?

by the way; if you don't mind my asking; are you LDS?