Are Atheists Mostly Left Brained?

reply to post by badmedia

I posted an analogy which is meant to give an understanding. You choose to ignore that understanding and attack the credibility. And now you have done nothing more than that here.

You didn't even bother to show why you thought it was a bad analogy or anything else. You just labeled it and attacked it.

Sorry, but that stuff "does not work on me". If you ever grow the balls to move past your own dogma and talk on a level of understanding let me know.

Ditto!!

You said it better than I could! This applies to my adversaries also and I didn't have to expend the energy!

Thank you!!



[edit on 22-5-2009 by MatrixProphet]

Anyone who has studied psychology would know that phrases such as "Left-brained" and "Right-brained" are very misleading. Saying somebody is "mostly" one of these is thus unfounded because that's not how the brain works. Sure, people may display behaviour that is favourable to one side of the brain, but even then BOTH hemispheres are involved in almost every function.

E.g A scientist who excels in compiling data and drawing inferences from the results might be classified as having a stronger left hemispheric functioning brain.

The same as a gifted artist that excels in painting portraits might be classified as having a more effective right hemispheric functioning brain.

Nevertheless, both of these people will need to utilise both hemispheres of the brain in order to excel fully in their respective fields.

Having studied psychology myself, I would answer your question by saying NO, because many atheists excel within the arts/entertainment industries. I don't believe that belief in a religion, no god or no religion has anything to do with which hemisphere you tend to utilise more effectively.

[edit on 23/5/2009 by Dark Ghost]

reply to post by Dark Ghost


That's exactly what I was saying!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by The Killah29

The "God Spot" you are talking about, MatrixProphet, is the pineal gland right in the center of the brain. It releases a neruo-chemical called 'Melatonin'

Ha. I take melatonin supplements to help me sleep. I believe it just regulates your circadian cycle. Are you implying this hormone increases your spirituality?

reply to post by Welfhard


Sorry about that. I obviously didn't get to see your post before I made mine. Good to see we are in agreement at least

P.S. I can see the G-man! Why is he so darn mysterious?

Originally posted by badmedia


It's not a Strawman or a red Herring if it is true. If I had give you a dogmatic point of view, then you would have said something about that. You aren't debating what the people say, you are attacking the people. As what I said is obviously true, it doesn't meet any such requirements.

I am not attacking you, I am attacking your claims and arguments which are laden with logical fallacies. It is difficult to get to the meat of your argument as a result because most religious thought centers around quite a few logical fallacies, then when confronted with what they are doing people generally get ugly. It is a common problem. You assume I am attacking you when I have said nothing of the sort. I do not care what you believe. I care when you or anyone makes generalized statements weaving in science when it suits them using god of the gaps fallacy. Your analogies were weak, that cannot be defended very well, so you created another imaginary argument that has not even occured to refute me, and you are still doing it. This is typical. Stop doing it. I am not making claims, you are. If you wish to make dogmatic statements then do so, if you do not then don't. Debating takes up a lot of time.

Originally posted by badmedia
I posted an analogy which is meant to give an understanding. You choose to ignore that understanding and attack the credibility. And now you have done nothing more than that here. ou didn't even bother to show why you thought it was a bad analogy or anything else. You just labeled it and attacked it.

Ok... the analogies are weak and coverall for the following reasons... The evidence of all your comparisons existance lies within recorded, verified human knowledge from multiple sources. Direct evidence that da vinci existed that can be historically linked to him still exists today, for example. Secondly your analogy itself can be used for *anything* you claim. You can substitute the tooth fairy or santa in there instead of god if you like.... arguably with a better result as at least they leave expected physical evidence behind even if it is deceptive.

Originally posted by badmedia

Sorry, but that stuff "does not work on me". If you ever grow the balls to move past your own dogma and talk on a level of understanding let me know.

No desire to post here anymore. This takes too long because you cannot debate the issues, just the fallacies and then defend yourself yet again from judgemental language . If you do not care to clean up your own communication there's little I can even talk about.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by Welfhard

 

Sorry about that. I obviously didn't get to see your post before I made mine. Good to see we are in agreement at least

Indeed. I'm a psychology student. We even did some experiments recently on lateralization of function so I know something about the brain organisation and how it doesn't reflect pop-psychology.

P.S. I can see the G-man! Why is he so darn mysterious?

Because his motives are never revealed to the player, is he good or is he evil? Nobody knows....

reply to post by Dark Ghost

Anyone who has studied psychology would know that phrases such as "Left-brained" and "Right-brained" are very misleading. Saying somebody is "mostly" one of these is thus unfounded because that's not how the brain works. Sure, people may display behaviour that is favourable to one side of the brain, but even then BOTH hemispheres are involved in almost every function.

Yes, I did, and thank you for your post.

I totally agree with much of what you are saying and I actually explained throughout the thread that I am explaining the dumb down version. Also, I never said anywhere that people don't access both sides of the brain. But people who, due to trauma, or addiction, etc., will shut down their feelings as much as they can as they don't want to feel! Or they will misdirect them so as to not have to deal with the trauma: shutting down feelings happens in numerous ways. We can rage in areas that don't match the problem, so we misdirect our rage rather than try to identify what is really wrong. We can block the real issue and not deal with those emotions at all. So they will operate through the information side of their brain to survive. This is not debatable.

I have people who come to me who have gone to numerous Psych's and mental hospitals who have said they get more out of working with me than all the many years of psychotherapy. Psych's only deal usually with neuro psychology or organic chemical issues and not so much behavioral.

If we have an individual who has resentment against God and in their eyes - both God and religion are connected and cannot be separated, this becomes an inability to distinguish the difference, hence, a right brain issue. They will use only facts and left brain computer knowledge to justify the non-existence of God, and not be able to distinguish conscious experiences.

However, not everything can be explained through neuro psychology or textbook information. The study of human behavior requires understanding a person outside of medical studies and medical research. It is the problem many have in their diagnosis, and why they aren't as solution oriented as those who work in the recovery fields.

Pop psychology is demeaned within the mental health community because it accomplished from the 70's on, what mental health has failed to do. In essence what pop psychology/field of recovery has done is; left mental health in the dust! It is far more progressive.

How mental heath essentially gets around this is; by relabeling disorders in order to keep it fresh and to help the pharmaceutical companies to further their interests. It is not to say that they are totally inept (there are many who get willingly out of the box and are quite good), but they are not abreast of human behavior as the more advanced recovery fields.

It is ironic that the video of UmbraSumas posted about how the right brain influenced the reality of the left brain creating denial, etc. to the point where the individual actually believes his allusions, was known as far back as the 70's in the recovery fields. Hence, why John Bradshaw made a killing in the field with his books and seminars. You may be too young to know of him?

If one looks at this whole subject through neuro psychology then it would seem confusing. I used the left brain and right brain as an illustration to establish the differences in how humans process life. An understanding of recovery and pop psychology helps in this, where mental health often fails (ie, very little understanding of addiction, for example).

To repeat what I have said over and over; it matters not how much a person feels his strength lies in either the right or left brain, it matters how we process information through our logic and senses. If someone shuts down their senses or feelings, this would force the person to act strictly from the logical side of the brain and diminish the right.

If you understand anything about alcoholism, depression, sexual abuse, religious control, etc. and how these can affect a person's outlook and the use of feelings, verses how this same person may use the left brain information center to block the right brain feelings, and senses, you would understand what it is I am saying. I realize it is complicated.




[edit on 23-5-2009 by MatrixProphet]

[edit on 23-5-2009 by MatrixProphet]

Originally posted by miragezero
I am not attacking you, I am attacking your claims and arguments which are laden with logical fallacies. It is difficult to get to the meat of your argument as a result because most religious thought centers around quite a few logical fallacies, then when confronted with what they are doing people generally get ugly. It is a common problem. You assume I am attacking you when I have said nothing of the sort. I do not care what you believe. I care when you or anyone makes generalized statements weaving in science when it suits them using god of the gaps fallacy. Your analogies were weak, that cannot be defended very well, so you created another imaginary argument that has not even occured to refute me, and you are still doing it. This is typical. Stop doing it. I am not making claims, you are. If you wish to make dogmatic statements then do so, if you do not then don't. Debating takes up a lot of time.

If you would like to have a discussion about how science is un-equipped by it's very nature to deal with consciousness and anything which does not follow the laws of action and reaction or logic, then we can do that. The fact of the matter is, science requires things be repeatable in a lab over and over. This means that things like choice and free will are completely out of the realm of science because they are not repeatable in a lab over and over.

Consciousness creates logic, not the other way around. You can not logically create a choice. The most one can do is use a random number to give the appearance of choice. And guess what? You can't even actually generate a random number with logic. It is impossible to generate a truly random number, because random doesn't fit into logic. The random numbers computers generate are random enough for our purposes, but completely predictable because they are generated with logic.

So all you really do is replace the "god gap" with a random number. Random mutations and so forth. Of which is in itself impossible to generate in the world of logic and a universe of action and reaction. This is why science ignores consciousness and mentions of it in quantum physics has been taboo.

As such, there are 2 basic realms here. 1 is the realm of action and reaction, the realm of the universe, the realm of creation. In this realm science and logic are best suited to help us.

The other realm is the realm of consciousness. Otherwise called soul in religion. This is the realm of understanding, knowing what it means to "be", having free will and so forth. As these things do not follow the laws of action and reaction, they are not of this creation/universe. The entire "game" in politics and manipulation is to try and get people into a level of action and reaction so those with control can introduce the actions required for the reactions they want. No different than using the right actions in a rocket to get the reactions you want. To turn people into slaves and robots.

This is also what this thread was generally about. The inability for some people to see beyond the physical and so forth.

It is a pity when people cling to 1 or the other. There is a proper place for each, and that is something that should and will have to be balanced and dealt with if "humanity" wants to get much further.

Ok... the analogies are weak and coverall for the following reasons... The evidence of all your comparisons existance lies within recorded, verified human knowledge from multiple sources. Direct evidence that da vinci existed that can be historically linked to him still exists today, for example. Secondly your analogy itself can be used for *anything* you claim. You can substitute the tooth fairy or santa in there instead of god if you like.... arguably with a better result as at least they leave expected physical evidence behind even if it is deceptive.

Actually, that those people are real and have been recorded was the entire point of the understanding. I was not trying to use them as "proof" as you seem to be claiming. It was in regards to people who look for god in the creation itself. And it being like those who would look for di vinci inside his painting. AKA not very smart. It was an understanding, geez.

No desire to post here anymore. This takes too long because you cannot debate the issues, just the fallacies and then defend yourself yet again from judgemental language . If you do not care to clean up your own communication there's little I can even talk about.

Again, another baseless attack saying I can't debate the issues. When all you have done is labeled things.

So I guess everyone with an opinion who states the end result of their opinion without taking the time to write a book stating the reason for that purpose is using judgmental language, even though you really never even bothered to ask what the opinion was based on, just assumed I was just another christian and your normal attacks would apply.

But guess what? I don't think the bible is the word of god, nor is it an authority. I'm not a christian and think all organized religions are by their nature false.

Communication is a 2 way street. You aren't communicating with me when you just through stereotypes and labels on me, you are communicating with your own assumptions.


[edit on 23-5-2009 by badmedia]

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by Amagnon

 

And even if they did claim such things, would that mean Bill Gates did not exist?

The claims would conflict with others experience and knowledge on the matter and person of Bill Gates - to such an extent that they be left wondering how people could make such claims and produce no evidence.

This post is also part in answer to another poster (who's name eludes me).

I don't say God doesn't exist - I just say that religion makes a lot of claims about the person of God and his activities, and the evidence is not to be found.

When I was younger I was very religious - and I 'felt' God in my heart and life, and had powerful religious experiences. Then I 'woke up' and realized that it was all emanating out of me - it was nothing to do with the 'lore' or religion - and God was not required.

I can certainly meditate, and have powerful feelings, collation of knowledge, and energy arising from this meditation. I don't ascribe any of it to god - its purely tapping into the power of your right brain, identifying outcomes or relationships with strong positive emotions - its also the ability to judge your past actions or failures objectively, then to discard any negative emotions associated with them - in other words to totally forgive yourself for any screw up and move forward in a completely positive way.

Sometimes problems pile up on people, and they feel they want external help, but in reality they know that the people around them are not able to give them the emotional support they need, often these have feelings of guilt, despair, confusion, powerlessness and the most common is powerful feelings of loss - these are very often the people who claim they have found god.

My experience is that they are just looking for help. God becomes a positive relationship fantasy - the fail-safe relationship that you can always rely on, no matter how much you screw up - someone who will never let you down, and is able to understand you completely.

Its a seductive fantasy construct, in reality we can overcome these negative feelings by ourselves - with no need for any external help - though it may make it easier to construct a fantasy relationship, I don't see it as empowering, neither does it deal with the issues at their heart.

[edit on 24-5-2009 by Amagnon]

reply to post by Amagnon


Oh, I know and I never said you made any such claim. I guess I should have clarified, I do apologise. I was merely seeking to make a point aimed at no one in particular that what people say about a thing does not effect whether or not something exists.

[edit on 24-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

To many of us God is not a threat. He is an enhancement to our search.

If one leaves out the conditioning regarding a higher power, leaves the issues of religion behind, this MAY open a door to understanding the cosmos and consciousness more.

GOD extends the search through science. He doesn't inhibit it. Only our projections regarding him limit our thinking and our search.

It is not to be in fear of limiting science to God, it is limiting God to science! -MP

stanford prof(left brained) performs experiments on Buddhist monks(right brained)


My opinions:

there are realms of knowledge which can only be known by experience alone. Discovering the true nature of the right brain is one of them.
Psychologists should be performing more psychological experiments on these so called enlightened beings/ gurus , or people who claim another nature of reality, as consciousness being our true nature instead of the physical body and senses, or the egositic separating thoughts.

There was another thread on ATS about a harvard brain scientist who survived left brain stroke and experienced only a working right brain. That should throw more stuff into the discussion

Check out Michael Shermer and Frank Sulloway's 'The search for god in an age of science'.

The good doctors found that there is an intrinsic link between intelligence and whether an individual is religious.

While I wouldn't want to make definitive statement (after all, this is ATS, everything is open to examination), the study states that the more intelligent a person, the less likely they are to be religious.

reply to post by mithrawept


Ah, yes. Accept a biased study from two biased as can be individual as fact. Thanks but no thanks.

reply to post by skywalker_


Thank you for the video. What came up was actually "Quantum Energy," from Prof. William Tiller, Ph.D, and not the operation article that you posted.

But...this is really good and still fits well with this thread, but I would love the one that you are talking about!

The whole left brain and right brain science is very complex but widening. The information I am talking about on this whole thread is not new, but as far as I know, I am the only one verbalizing the correlation between those who operate primarily from left brain logic, and the inability to access more of the feeling area of the brain, to connect to God consciously.

I am sure there are others thinking it and privately talking about it. It may be like the 100 monkey theory. One says it, while 99 others are thinking it at the same time.

Thank you for your contribution!

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by mithrawept

 

Ah, yes. Accept a biased study from two biased as can be individual as fact. Thanks but no thanks.

What makes you say that the study is biased. Did it make it through peer review?

reply to post by Welfhard


It was a study who's only purpose was to attempt to justify the people who did the studies preconceptions. And I am very sure it was set up in that manner *there are any number of nasty dishonest tricks that can be used*, especially in light of who did it.
If I wanted to I could produce a plausable sounding study that connected potatoe consumption with achne.

[edit on 24-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


OK sure, but you're just speculating. Either that or you have some real reasoning and evidence behind the claim that it's a bollocks study, which you haven't produced.

Personally my own observations go with this, where the most intelligent people are atheist-agnostic and the least refuse to crawl out of their church and would sooner rely on their own faith feedback loop.

[edit on 24-5-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard


Surely you have noticed the human tendency to think that those that share our views are brilliant while thinking that those that don't are stupid.

I would warn you that I do not attribute to nature, either beauty or deformity, order or confusion. Only in relation to our imagination can things be called beautiful or ugly, well-ordered or confused.
— Baruch Spinoza

For laughs:

Most people seem to take pleasure in feeling superior to someone. I'm not like that, which pleases me because it makes me feel superior.