"Being godless might be good for your health - study shows

[mentalgymnast]

I think you're falling into the trap of projection here. You are taking your jaundiced view of atheists and projecting it on to me.

That’s an interesting line of defense, Rep Ipsa. We’re getting immersed in Freudian psychology now are we? So what is this shadow side of my personality residing in my unconscious that I’m unwilling to accept and I’m projecting it on to you?

So I’m the one who is jaundiced, etc. Well, and there we have it. It’s settled.

The thing is, I don’t see it that way or agree with you at all. And the problem is, on a board such as this where we don’t REALLY know each other we can throw accusations all over the place without having to take personal responsibility for doing so. Or being correct at the end of the day.

It is unfortunate that the online world had accentuated the potential of false innuendo and other maladies to become the norm. Wala! Facebook, Instagram...and message boards.

I can sit here and tell you that I’m not projecting and that, in my opinion, I’m close to the truth when describing what I see in you and others...but I too may only get a glimpse or partial view of the truth, whatever that may be. I readily admit that.

And so it goes.

So we/you can throw out the accusation of ‘projection’ and pretty much avoid any responsibility for what others may conclude/surmise about us.

At the end of the day I can only say and express things the way I see it, and you the same. But to engage in pop psychology as a defensive mechanism without adequate evidence simply derails the conversation. Realistically, however, that may be all that we can expect in an online forum.

Anyway, as much as you might think your atheism is a danger to me or others, I disagree. Your beliefs or non beliefs only add to the diversity of opinion that add to the mix in the marketplace of ideas. If you were my next door neighbor, that would be cool. I’d rather have conversations with you than my LDS friends on a given day.

But alas, here we are.

How about this. We could change the header of this thread so it says, “Being godless may not determine your health.” I’d be fine with that. But the way it is currently it sounds as though atheism gives some kind of advantage to health and happiness. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case.

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

I think you're falling into the trap of projection here. You are taking your jaundiced view of atheists and projecting it on to me.

That’s an interesting line of defense, Rep Ipsa. We’re getting immersed in Freudian psychology now are we? So what is this shadow side of my personality residing in my unconscious that I’m unwilling to accept and I’m projecting it on to you?

So I’m the one who is jaundiced, etc. Well, and there we have it. It’s settled.

The thing is, I don’t see it that way or agree with you at all. And the problem is, on a board such as this where we don’t REALLY know each other we can throw accusations all over the place without having to take personal responsibility for doing so. Or being correct at the end of the day.

It is unfortunate that the online world had accentuated the potential of false innuendo and other maladies to become the norm. Wala! Facebook, Instagram...and message boards.

I can sit here and tell you that I’m not projecting and that, in my opinion, I’m close to the truth when describing what I see in you and others...but I too may only get a glimpse or partial view of the truth, whatever that may be. I readily admit that.

And so it goes.

So we/you can throw out the accusation of ‘projection’ and pretty much avoid any responsibility for what others may conclude/surmise about us.

At the end of the day I can only say and express things the way I see it, and you the same. But to engage in pop psychology as a defensive mechanism without adequate evidence simply derails the conversation. Realistically, however, that may be all that we can expect in an online forum.

Anyway, as much as you might think your atheism is a danger to me or others, I disagree. Your beliefs or non beliefs only add to the diversity of opinion that add to the mix in the marketplace of ideas. If you were my next door neighbor, that would be cool. I’d rather have conversations with you than my LDS friends on a given day.

But alas, here we are.

How about this. We could change the header of this thread so it says, “Being godless may not determine your health.” I’d be fine with that. But the way it is currently it sounds as though atheism gives some kind of advantage to health and happiness. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case.

Regards,
MG

Your (mis)understanding of projection is dated. But note that you can’t seem to support any of your claims or insinuations about how I view believers. Go on. Show me my jaundiced eye or describing believers as dupes. And then we can review your negative, stereotypical statements about atheists. It should be fun.

If your quibble was only over the wording of IHAQs headline, why the whole tap dance about atheists and their impoverished range of emotions?

[mentalgymnast]

If your quibble was only over the wording of IHAQs headline, why the whole tap dance about atheists and their impoverished range of emotions?

Sometimes the circuitous route bears the most fruit. You’ve never experienced that?

Family vacations. Perfect example.

It’s the journey, brother!

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

If your quibble was only over the wording of IHAQs headline, why the whole tap dance about atheists and their impoverished range of emotions?

Sometimes the circuitous route bears the most fruit. You’ve never experienced that?

Family vacations. Perfect example.

It’s the journey, brother!

Regards,
MG

So, you can’t put your money where your mouth is... changing the subject is all you got.

[mentalgymnast]

Sometimes the circuitous route bears the most fruit. You’ve never experienced that?

Family vacations. Perfect example.

It’s the journey, brother!

Regards,
MG

So, you can’t put your money where your mouth is... changing the subject is all you got.

I’ve asked questions and brought up topics of potential conversation which you passed over or deflected.

Are you referring to those? What specific point or concern do you believe is worth the effort of continuing this conversation?

I’ve pretty much said all I’ve wanted to at this point. Change the thread header, and I’m good.

Money where your mouth is? That’s rich, coming from the ‘projection man’.

What point of argument is it that you have a need to win/settle at this point?

Regards,
MG

[Lem]

And that’s how a troll trolls.
—-——-

Back to the topic:

...When you equate "religion" with emotional support, you are significantly overgeneralizing. Religion does not provide emotional support for everyone. And, in particular with Mormonism, that support can be highly conditional. And if the conditions aren't met, it can be exactly the opposite, with devastating effects on the individual. As for time invested in finding support, I've never spent a minute actively seeking out a support system, but I've always had sufficient support. And I've had believers tell me lots of stories about changing congregations or flavors of religion because their current one wasn't meeting their needs.

I suspect that what you see religion as providing in terms of emotional support is due more to how humans tend to behave than to anything special about religion. But you'd have to pay attention to how the unchurched interact with their fellow humans and form networks and groups almost organically. Not everyone, and within every group there will undoubtedly be people who are not receiving the support that they need. Even regular churchgoers. That the majority of us receive support in churches does not mean the churches are necessary.

"We need religion" is a silly statement when we know we can't run the counterfactual and compare. I'm firmly convinced that the piece of religion that we don't need right now is the tribalism that too often is part and parcel of religion.

Yes. As I noted earlier, there are literally thousands upon thousands of groups with a 'belief' structure that has nothing to do with religion that bring people together and provide emotional support and social cohesion. People find what they love and what motivates them, and then they find other people who feel similarly. It may or, more often, may NOT be what they were born into. But it is what they love, think about, care about, and it provides them with a group of other people who love, think, and care similarly. Religion is one example, but it is in no way unique. Stating that atheists don't have this because a god of some type is not involved really misses the point of human interaction.

[mentalgymnast]

And that’s how a troll trolls.

If there may not be a point to carrying on a conversation are you suggesting that it continue? I believe that there really wasn’t anywhere worth the time/effort to go at this juncture. Rep Ipsa apparently did. More often than not in a discussion there may be one party who feels as though they’ve not reached closure.

I’d said about as much as I had to say.

No trolling at play. Wild accusation on your part maybe?

Regards,
MG

[mentalgymnast]

...When you equate "religion" with emotional support, you are significantly overgeneralizing. Religion does not provide emotional support for everyone. And, in particular with Mormonism, that support can be highly conditional. And if the conditions aren't met, it can be exactly the opposite, with devastating effects on the individual. As for time invested in finding support, I've never spent a minute actively seeking out a support system, but I've always had sufficient support. And I've had believers tell me lots of stories about changing congregations or flavors of religion because their current one wasn't meeting their needs.

I suspect that what you see religion as providing in terms of emotional support is due more to how humans tend to behave than to anything special about religion. But you'd have to pay attention to how the unchurched interact with their fellow humans and form networks and groups almost organically. Not everyone, and within every group there will undoubtedly be people who are not receiving the support that they need. Even regular churchgoers. That the majority of us receive support in churches does not mean the churches are necessary.

"We need religion" is a silly statement when we know we can't run the counterfactual and compare. I'm firmly convinced that the piece of religion that we don't need right now is the tribalism that too often is part and parcel of religion.

Yes. As I noted earlier, there are literally thousands upon thousands of groups with a 'belief' structure that has nothing to do with religion that bring people together and provide emotional support and social cohesion. People find what they love and what motivates them, and then they find other people who feel similarly. It may or, more often, may NOT be what they were born into. But it is what they love, think about, care about, and it provides them with a group of other people who love, think, and care similarly. Religion is one example, but it is in no way unique. Stating that atheists don't have this because a god of some type is not involved really misses the point of human interaction.

I actually agree, on the whole, with everything you’ve said here.

Celebrate!

Regards,
MG

[Res Ipsa]

My apologies, MG. If I you think I failed to respond to a question you asked me, please let me know and I’d be happy to respond. But I can see why, after getting in your digs at atheists in general and at me in particular, you’d much rather get out of Dodge than back up what you said with any facts.

At this point, because I expect that all you’ll contribute going forward is dodge, distract and dissemble, I’m happy to leave the conversation right here.

[Res Ipsa]

And that’s how a troll trolls.
—-——-

Back to the topic:

...When you equate "religion" with emotional support, you are significantly overgeneralizing. Religion does not provide emotional support for everyone. And, in particular with Mormonism, that support can be highly conditional. And if the conditions aren't met, it can be exactly the opposite, with devastating effects on the individual. As for time invested in finding support, I've never spent a minute actively seeking out a support system, but I've always had sufficient support. And I've had believers tell me lots of stories about changing congregations or flavors of religion because their current one wasn't meeting their needs.

I suspect that what you see religion as providing in terms of emotional support is due more to how humans tend to behave than to anything special about religion. But you'd have to pay attention to how the unchurched interact with their fellow humans and form networks and groups almost organically. Not everyone, and within every group there will undoubtedly be people who are not receiving the support that they need. Even regular churchgoers. That the majority of us receive support in churches does not mean the churches are necessary.

"We need religion" is a silly statement when we know we can't run the counterfactual and compare. I'm firmly convinced that the piece of religion that we don't need right now is the tribalism that too often is part and parcel of religion.

Yes. As I noted earlier, there are literally thousands upon thousands of groups with a 'belief' structure that has nothing to do with religion that bring people together and provide emotional support and social cohesion. People find what they love and what motivates them, and then they find other people who feel similarly. It may or, more often, may NOT be what they were born into. But it is what they love, think about, care about, and it provides them with a group of other people who love, think, and care similarly. Religion is one example, but it is in no way unique. Stating that atheists don't have this because a god of some type is not involved really misses the point of human interaction.

And I’m late in saying that you made the point more eloquently than I. The trick, I think, is to facilitate the formation of these groups without turning them into tribes. And perhaps encourage existing groups to become less tribal. I dunno.