Are Atheists Mostly Left Brained?

page: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 



My view on Einstein in that particular subject was that he didn't really have a side but was harrassed by members of both sides and just answered honestly and both sides twisted his answers to suit themselves. It wasn't his spirituality he was trying to "sell" after all.


Yes, I read his book. I mean a biography on him. He would get quite frustrated. He definitely had God leanings but I don't think he was sure what that entailed. He was at times confused around his Judaism. More of a peer connection or influence probably.

Later in his life he developed an interest in quantum physics which includes the unknown element of God.




posted on May, 18 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 



Subjects? Nice terminology, curious to see what you mean by that.


I am kinda teasing! Just the work I do. It will come in handy. Sometimes nothing explains things better than hard cover info.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Thank you everyone for your contributions! It is time for bed so I will clock in tomorrow.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
reply to post by Welfhard
 



And most people are to some degree. This "right-brained or left-brained" thing is a false dichotomy, and hence pseudo-scientific for this exact reason.


Based on what? I have read the books pertaining to this, have you? Plus I work in it.


You have read books? Oooo well aren't you just the authority then!


I study neuropsychology at university. One of the major interests in the field is studying Localisation of Function and Lateralisation of Function. We learn all about the structure of the brain and how specific regions perform specific tasks. The suggestion that logic is done on the left hemisphere and creativity is done on the right and that one hemisphere dominates the other is a gross over simplification. It varies greatly from brain to brain.


The more society or a person is an addict or is running, the more they will try to block out their feelings (because they don't want to feel) which are right brain. What better way to do so than to go to strictly the left brain. It has no judgment! Poo poo the right as being clumsy or inept.


Stop projecting.



But that doesn't mean anything. Every environment is different and unique and everyone changes unpredictability. Adaptation is a hit or miss game, which is why larger populations adapt faster and is why you need individuals willing to act without reasoning.


Fact or assumption?


Evolutionary biology.



Trial & error + cause & effect = advancement.


Or some might say: devolving.


Some are morons.



For trial and error to work at peak efficiency, you need a proportion of RB's as explained.

You are reading too much into this.


All left brain. Tell me what bugs you about all of this. Am I striking a cord?


You misrepresentation and misunderstanding of neuropsychology bugs me.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 01:09 AM
link   
reply to post by aeroslag
 


this is your opinion...
and while it may apply to some, it is foolish to believe that all religious people are incapable of thinking for themselves, are brainwashed, or are trying to impose their beliefs on you.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by aeroslag
 


People do not choose atheism - they realise that they have lost their faith and have therefore become atheist because God did not answer their prayers in there time of need. Which happens to everyone at one time or another.

One of the common reasons for this is that people simply realise that (for themselves, at least) better, more complete and coherent explanations about Life, The Universe And Everything can be found outside of religion - the universe just makes a lot more sense without any sort of God involved. We see no evidence of a Creator in cosmology or biology ; nothing is known to exist or happen for which the only possible explanation is Divine Intervention.

Many, if not all, of the answers given by religions range from vague and ambiguous, through incoherent and contradictory, unless you just have "faith" that they are correct , boil down to ad-hoc explanations, which cannot be tested or are easily refuted and demonstrably false pseudo-science.
Many of the rules and regulations laid down by religion tend to be arbitrary or irrational, and those that are not do not appear to be Divinely Revealed anyway. People lose their faith when their religion has nothing substantial to offer, and better answers, philosophies and ways of life can be found elsewhere.
Im not sure if thats a left brain or rigth brain train of thougth... everyone is different.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 01:19 AM
link   
reply to post by MatrixProphet
 


Not necessarily about the left hemisphere overall especially since a lot of famous scientists (such as Albert, Isaac, Galileo) believe in a certain concept of God.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 01:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Darth Logan
 


Your post profoundly confused me, didn't know which side you took part on atheist or religous.

I'm assuming atheist. And disagree that I asked nothing of Yahweh in my christianity, but came to my own conclusion through studying and rationilatiy that it was illogical to think it exist, and to think that something exist that made something comprehend for itself that the creator didn't exist was a paradox for if the person chooses to not believe shall be punished in hell of burning fire for eternity.

Doesn't make sense, can't believe in tinkerbell either guys sorry.


99% tinkerbell doesn't exist, have to side no.
99% god doesn't exist, have to side no.

Say I don't have faith go ahead, but when I merge into traffic, I have no faith I have logic, if a cars there, I don't merge if its not there I merge, requires no faith whatsoever.

If you have enough faith like these people I may have more respect for you and at the same time less.

www.foxnews.com...



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
Its not so much that you people lack faith, its that you lack HEART and SOUL



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


Concept whether it being the unknown, or imaginary realm is susceptible to speculation, people will die believeing Einstein was a proclaimed Christian, but its not certain. So really why die for it!

I'm glad you mention Isaac, although I'm hoping Asimov, but now that I think of it you probably meant Newton.

Asimov was a self proclaimed Atheist who did wonders! That many don't know about, just like Tesla.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 01:32 AM
link   
reply to post by mostlyspoons
 


There is a heart, it pumps blood, very nicely i'll admit, I donated blood the other day.

Soul is well, I assume it to be a interpretation to the fact that we're concious of ourselvese and future. We exist we, manipulate the future. We are concious, ergo we have a 'soul' as religion puts it.

Does it live forever, YES! your thoughts live forever and influence the future, do you personally live forever? NO! Your not immortal, your not a time traverler, you die like everything else.

Maybe your question meant, do we lack compassion and empathy, I have empathy I have compassion, but because I have neurons and such. Each regulating what I do like wires in a computer, but way more complex.

Trust me, If it was my life over anothers I'd choose there life, if it was my life over two others, I'd choose my life be taken. My life over the world definately kill me first.

Thats compassion. Thats empathy, thats a 'Soul'. There need be no god for that to exist, just admitting your human, and act in no such way as an animal, except for breeding, eating, and defecating, other then that, your work life is supernatural to them!



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
You were one of the inventors of Artificial Intelligence, right?

To answer your question: logic in combination with my senses. What feels right, along with my life experience & or references that I trust. I don't mean to brag, but I have high EQ and IQ. But it is the EQ that is the most important. I lean on it far more than my left brain intelligence.


Nah, AI was at one time a personal project of mine, except I didn't want to create "artificial" intelligence, but real intelligence. I gave up on it when I realized it is impossible to create real intelligence, and that at most the best anyone can do is to mimic intelligence and give something the appearance that is is "intelligent", when it is not. It will forever and always be a realm of action and reaction, repeating patterns and so forth and will lack understanding or what it means "to be". Can't program these things in, they are well beyond the realm of logic. In the end, I realized that consciousness(what I could never give the AI) is that which creates logic, can't use logic to create consciousness. But I learned alot in terms of the real world and how our bodies behave and so forth just from thinking about it.

When I ask the above question I am asking in more of a programming/logical point of view, rather than so much as to how exactly we think we come to truth. We do a combination of things. But I was more looking at how to put those things we "feel" are right or wrong into logic. Which means, a bunch of if this, then do that, while this is happening, do this, etc.

For example, lets say we want to use the method of accepting things. Which we all do. We come into this world and we rely on our parents to tell us the truth. So how do we come up with the logic for determing right from wrong? Can't program a "feeling", the best I can do is generate a "random" number and generate a feeling based off that random number, IE: random number between 1-10, if the number is below 4, then 1 feeling, above 4 another feeling which gives you a 40% chance of 1 feeling, or a 60% chance of another. While this would mimic what we do in many ways, it is not actually what we do.

I'm not so much asking for code or the logic in itself. It's more about a thought experiment which will reveal insights into how we determine fact from fiction and so forth.



??? I think I understand what you are asking? Another words; who do I turn to as reference? Or who do I trust? That is a good one!

I have had to walk a lot of rocky roads to answer that one. A combination of many things - also God.


Right, but as I was looking at creating AI, I was looking for a logical way. As I mentioned above, I eventually came to realize it is impossible without consciousness/god. But again the point is the thought experiment which in itself leads to better understanding.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 01:45 AM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


Just the fact that you focused only on the outer, more obvious interpretation of what I said proves the OP's point nicely. But I agree completely that religion is not needed to be a good person. But without a belief in an all-knowing God, that sees all you do, punishing you for wrongs you've commiting sounds like an easier deterrent than relying on the self-accountability of the intellectual mind. All evil is committed with the mind. And don't give me any of that "evil and good are based on perspective, relativity-blah blah" crap (
) because in the eyes of objectivity, there is a true good and evil.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Jazzyguy
 


That ties into the Einstein quote I posted earlier.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Republican08
 


Too bad your judging the concept based off what others have said is possible for the being imagined in the concept and then choosing to put the possiblity for fictionality at such a high number when in fact it is no where near that mark. Or really any mark. After all, how do you generate statistics for an unknown quality?
But, believe what you want and leave me to believe as I want. Just don't call me stupid/illogical/primitive for disagreeing. Or really any number of low blow pseudo-intellectual attack terms on my mental capacity.


[edit on 18-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 02:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Im adding you and mostlyspoons

as friends, because although we may disagree, you both bring upon strong arguements, which you know ILOVE! So I'm adding as friends to keep makng sure I keep up with what you guys have to say.

Thanks and ado.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 03:44 AM
link   
In the past I believed it is only proper to base beliefs on logical facts. But over the years I've learned this kind of belief system is actually impossible and dishonest. Humans are not capable at all of forming beliefs solely on logic nor should they.

The problem arises when you actually start living life solely on logic. Logic suggests we should be selfish, do a lot of stealing, and much worse than that for our own benefit. When it comes down to real life, we have to live together. And logic does not help too much in that regard nearly as much as gut instinct helps. Gut instinct came up far before logical reasoning, and to me that is evidence that in fact gut instinct is more useful and therefore in some cases more correct than logic. The bill of rights is a solid piece of emotional reasoning.

I'm also saying that emotional reasoning in some cases trumps logic. When logic suggests you to do something, a lot of the time emotion is actually more correct in telling a person another course of action is better.

All our rights, liberties, and laws have sound basis in emotional thinking that is in a way based on faith. Our right to free speech has basis in emotional reasoning and not logical reasoning. Yet strict "faith-haters" will delude themself into thinking their believes are based firmly on logic.

Personally I believe in God for highly logical reasons but I believe in the existence of souls for highly emotional ones. My believe in the soul is actually stronger than my belief in God. And of course that means I believe emotional reasoning can be more powerful than logical thinking. There is no logical reason to suggest the soul exists. However there is very powerful emotional reason to suggest the soul exists and therefore I believe the soul exists.

Furthermore, there is logical reason to believe emotional reason can be valid with the evidence that logical reasoning evolved only after and upon the success of the gut instinct of logic-free species. That gut instinct animals have keeps them alive, which is evdidence their gut instinct is correct.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by Aakron]

[edit on 18-5-2009 by Aakron]



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aakron
The problem arises when you actually start living life solely on logic. Logic suggests we should be selfish, do a lot of stealing, and much worse than that for our own benefit. When it comes down to real life, we have to live together. And logic does not help too much in that regard nearly as much as gut instinct helps.


You are quite wrong. You've missed out a rather salient piece of logic, the social investment.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Which cuts both ways.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 05:50 AM
link   
good idea keep in touch





new topics
top topics
 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join