It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Are Atheists Mostly Left Brained?

page: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 18 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by sotp
 



See now I would consider my self an athiest, with slightagnostic leanings. I can't believe that there's any deity watching over us that should be worshipped, but there's so much beauty and order (I believe what appears to be chaos is actually ordered in a way we cannot yet comprehend) in the universe that I can't fully reconcile that it would come from NOTHING...

"There was a big bang"

"Really? What was there before it? Why did it happen? Where did all the matter that makes up the universe appear from? What created all that matter in the first place? What created the thing that created the matter? What created the thing that created the thing that created the matter?"



Star for you!!

See, I can respect this! This is common sense. I don't care how much infinite regression we have to do, there was something that created life. End of argument.

Now, what WE want to determine that to be, is up to us, and perhaps context shifts in our beliefs. That is a big difference between what I am saying in this thread vs. religion (I include atheism in that), which is decided for us.

I am not looking for conformists to agree with everything I am saying. I would be a hypocrite. You don't have to agree with my whole philosophy or any of it. I am comfortable on my own two feet - alone. But I appreciate someone who comes along and talks sense.

Thank you!




posted on May, 18 2009 @ 11:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 



I am not so sure it is a can't thing so much as it is a won't thing. It's easier to shove box in the same box and call it done. Which is rather telling when someone simply takes the easy path.


Yes, but I am allowing in my statement for a variable that could alter it. I would agree with your comment almost 100%. Conditioning, and abuse, could alter a persons mental capability to change.

In 12 Step programs we call it: constitutionally incapable of getting honest with oneself.



posted on May, 18 2009 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Just because motives count, doesn't mean that actions can't be wrong, even if done under good intent.

For instance my parents indoctrinated me with Christianity. They were doing what they believed at the time was right even though it wasn't, hence remorse.

Evil done with good intentions isn't made acceptable.


But that is without the obvious fact that without some sort of emotional or physical pay-off *no matter how small or bittersweet* no one would do anything.


This is no fact, good sir, because not only do we pursue pleasure and reward, we avoid pain and misery. Two pressures that act on us. For this reason, we eat to avoid hunger, drink to avoid thirst, clothe to avoid the cold, etc.

Plus we are not guaranteed to get a reward every single time, but one reward can reinforce the behaviour leading to many many repeats.

A lot of our behaviours are inplace or developing from birth - even blind people will smile when happy even if they've never seen a smile before - our urges that control a lot of our behaviour seem to be just ones that will increase the likelihood of getting what is beneficial. You'll notice that a lot of what is beneficial for us (in a social context) is enjoyable - a built in reward system for reinforcing beneficial behaviour.

Then all that goes into a thing called conditioning (ie training animals to perform certain behaviours on a reward basis). It's all very fascinating.


And what is with this petulant tone? I remember you being more agreeable then this.


I am a man of (at times extreme) contrasts.

[edit on 18-5-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Yet you have stated, repeatedly, that a good deed done with less than good motive is somehow not as good. I merely took it to it's logical extent. If motive less than honorable somehow taints a good act then it is logical that a evil act done with good intentions should somehow be less evil. If you want to be at all consistant.
And it is a fact. I should have added that sometimes the "pay-off" isn't immediate.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Zephias
 



And if you think indoctrination doesn't happen and you think teacher's don't try and weaken student's faith, you've got to open up your eyes, because it's there.


Boy is this true! Especially if a doctrine is being pushed by academia on a higher level. Some teachers are being forced to teach that which they don't believe in themselves.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:03 AM
link   
reply to post by MatrixProphet
 


Made me think of a line from a song:

Don't be naive enough to think you're unaffected
The conversion has already begun....

Good band Disturbed.


[edit on 19-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 



Don't be naive enough to think you're unaffected
The conversion has already begun....


Oh, very good. Otherwise known as denial? Am I getting it right? Hard to tell from two verses. I am older and am not familiar with this band.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   
Good night one and all!




posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:16 AM
link   

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


Yet you have stated, repeatedly, that a good deed done with less than good motive is somehow not as good. I merely took it to it's logical extent. If motive less than honorable somehow taints a good act then it is logical that a evil act done with good intentions should somehow be less evil.


Well firstly you are going to have to go through and verily state exactly what "good", "evil", "honourable" and you're going to need to say how a actions become "tainted". I say this because there is so much grey area in between these dichotomies.

I said motives count. You said

Ah, so evil done with good intentions are acceptable?
No, not necessarily. I can't imagine any situations where "intentions" make evil "acceptable."


Yet you have stated, repeatedly, that a good deed done with less than good motive is somehow not as good.
I don't actually remember saying this. In my mind, a so called "good" action is not less so if the intentions are somewhat or completely "selfish". It makes them different.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by Welfhard]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


Once again, yet you assert that selfless deeds done for selfish reasons are somehow less than otherwise, so thusly the opposite must be true with lessening the impact of bad deeds. I say it doesn't matter, even gave you examples. A good deed is a good deed regardless of why you do it. The only reason those who call themselves atheist dicker about this particular thing is an attempt to somehow lessen the impact of good deeds done by those they deem their enemies and whom they wish to attempt assert some sort of moral dominance of, or seem to be dominant in morals. Nothing more. And I talked about the emotional and physical pay off for actions to show even more so how silly that whole argument is.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by MatrixProphet
 


This may help, the full lyrics:

"Haunted"

You're broken, so am I
I'm better off alone
No one to turn to and nothing to call my own
Outspoken, so am I
Explosive words that your world wouldn't understand
Turn away again

You're beaten, so am I
I've got a heart of stone
No medication can cure what has taken hold
You're hurting, so will I
When I awake and remember why I've been running from your

World
Dishonored by your world
Your world
I'm haunted by your world

My blood is cold as ice
Or so I have been told
Show no emotion, and it can destroy your soul
Another sacrifice
To a tormentor your world wouldn't understand
Turn away again

You're angered, so am I
A thousand fires burn
A land of darkness from which I cannot return
You're aching, so will I
When I awake and discover that I have been damaged by your

World
Dishonored by your world
Your world
I'm haunted by your world

(Never will I be welcomed
Amongst the heartless monsters you surround yourself with
Feeding off the pain and misfortune of others
A maniacal unit of sub-human parasites
Warped into a feeding frenzy with the smell of fresh blood
Open your eyes and see the creatures for what they are
A swirling mess of hatred and envy
Don't be naive enough to think you're unaffected
The conversion has already begun...)

You're frightened, so am I
A world of demons wait
Watching the movements and filling my heart with hate
You're burning, so will I
When I awake and discover how I have been ravaged by your

World
Dishonored by your world
Your world
I'm haunted by your world



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:35 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


Oh, forget it.

I can't be assed having this conversation anymore. Plus it's detracting from the thread.

Why don't you post on my other thread about it, and I'll argue with you tomorrow.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 12:37 AM
link   
reply to post by Welfhard
 


I've stated my case, attempts at distortion aside *not by me*. You did bring it up after all and the OP doesn't seem to be bothered.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:23 AM
link   
MY GOD that is so American! Im sorry but why does christians always want everyone to think what they think? Why can't you just give up your bedtime stories and accept that the only God in the world is James Hetfield from Metallica?

Im sorry if its a little offensive, but i really hate Catholism. REALLY!

The Catholic Church is a bunch of money hungry assholes, and if someone controdicts them, then they are hethens and infedales and what not.
Well guess wha - I am the hethen king!

Once again i apologize, but religion makes me so angry!
I myself is not really an atheist, but more a Satanist. And not the "im gonna drink your babys blood"-kinda Satanist, but as in antichurch (satan is latin for opposite/menace/enemy). You see i was a christian for a long time but jesus or god never did anything for me.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by benzon
 


You a Left-hand path Satanist, then? (I think that's what I mean, I may have it mixed up)



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by benzon
 



Um, Satan is based in Hebrew and it means to be hostile or to accuse.
SOURCE:en.wikipedia.org...

And that is a large chunk of humanity. Not just those groups that consider themselves christians.

[edit on 19-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by MatrixProphet

Awfully lonely! If you can withstand a concrete and glass outlook, then more power to you. But there are gray areas to life, also.

I prefer searching out the unknown that man cannot create. If we limit ourselves without the function of a higher consciousness (God). Then - how boring! To have our lives depend so much on man and his knowledge. Even if you would call my outlook delusional, then fine by me!

Atheism is far too dim and narrow. Come out of the box and search for a new understanding. You may actually find it will make you happier.



I am not sad about being atheist or weak agnostic, though... so come out of the box and reinvent a god to believe in and that woudl make me happy? "search out an unknown that man cannot create"? Well you're creating it yourself in that case... and yes it sounds delusional. There is simply no evidence that there is anything out there not subject to physical law. There is no evidence for the supernatural. That is the crux of the matter.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:07 AM
link   
atheists appear to be missing something that wont even allow,for example,5% of the 'possibility' door to remain open.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:11 AM
link   
when an atheist claims 'we cant see evidence for design or the supernatural',it only proves them illread.



posted on May, 19 2009 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Belief in any form is a left brain activity.

Left brain function;

Data > Truth > Belief


Right brain function;

Data > Knowledge > Understanding


Some quick definitions -

Data, any info coming into the senses - what you heard or were told, what you read or saw, what you touched etc.

Truth - A decision to ascribe veracity to a piece of data, to change it from data to 'truth' - also the reverse process, to discard a piece of data as 'false'.

Knowledge - to accept a piece of data as neither true nor false, but to ascribe a possibility to it - some value or percentage might be mentally used - usually it is attached to the source of the data.

Right brain thinking does not file data as true or false, it simply accepts it as knowledge, this means something that has possibility - no data is discarded as false, ever. Incoming data for a left brain is filtered BEFORE it even gets to be sorted as true or false. The left brain is easily stuck in a rut. The more beliefs it has - the more incoming data is either filtered or discarded as false, because it does not match the existing framework of belief.

Masses of knowledge is discarded by left brain first pass approaches everywhere in the world - they are simply not going to accept info conflicting with their beliefs. Religious persons are the most notorious in my personal experience, discarding any evidence that conflicts with their faith as being false.

You made a statement saying "A truly intelligent person uses both sides of their brain." I think it is a bit simple to say that, all people use both sides of their brain - whether they are intelligent or not. It is not so much the AMOUNT of thinking done by either side of the brain, but the ORDER in which it is used that creates a division in modes of thinking.

If you approach everything firstly with the right side brain, ACCEPTING knowledge and then you waste no data by filtering. Then you could logically ORGANIZE the knowledge so it can be used to both communicate and analyze. Then when you have gathered a body of knowledge you can SYNTHESIZE a theory or explanation to give it meaning or create understanding - this is not a belief, its simply an idea. Then TEST that theory using left brain analysis. However to avoid belief - you go back to the right brain and REVISE what you know and allow that it is a picture that creates meaning, however it is subject to new incoming data - either to revise or even discard the theory entirely.

The pattern of thinking that I have developed for myself (arising from my own philosophical and analytical thought);

ACCEPT (right) > ORGANIZE (left) > SYNTHESIZE (right) > TEST (left) > REVISE (right) > back to the beginning, ACCEPT through to REVISE

Nowhere do you find 'truth' or 'belief' in this framework of thought - as I consider both concepts to be the enemies of enlightenment. Sometimes testing isn't possible - this doesn't mean it should be discarded - simply that it is untestable, so it cannot be used in a practical sense. where something is untestable, then alternative theories are just as valid.

Left brain thinking prevents people from breaking paradigms - if you include 'faith' then breaking a paradigm is impossible unless they go back and discard the underlying belief.

I am strongly right brain dominant - however I am an engineer. I prefer to be called an atheist rather than an agnostic, although the latter is actually correct - I am opposed to organized religion due the requirement to form beliefs - then again I am opposed to organized science due to its dogmatic approach and reliance on 'peer review' which is another way of saying, a panel of people 'smarter' than you who hold inflexible beliefs which you are not allowed to challenge.


Most atheists are left brained only. Which explains why they can't see a pattern in actions and events. This is a skill from the right brain which, if missing, causes them to contradict themselves and not even notice it. – From: Sketchy


As I stated, I am right brain dominant - your inference here is that there are a bunch of patterns and so on that can only be explained by God - I contest this approach. There are many possibilities - to grasp onto a "God" explanation is pure left brain thinking, creating a belief instead of trying to understand.

An interesting question which arouses much thought and debate is how did the universe begin. Well, it may have been created by a divine mind, or or may have just popped out of nowhere - this is untestable - so both theories have the same validity, because we can not put either theory into practice.

While you might think a purely right brain approach might lead to a sort of wishy-washy no opinion person, that does not appear to be the case. Right brain dominants can be quite opinionated (self as case
).

As I have said - although everyone has a natural preference in either right or left brains - I believe if you always try a right brain approach to something new, then you have a much better chance of developing a new understanding - if your first approach is left brained - then you may be unwittingly discarding pearls of wisdom.

Finally the left and right brain thinking trees when expanded looks like this;

Left brain function;

Data > Truth > Belief > Intolerance > Conflict > Death


Right brain function;

Data > Knowledge > Understanding > Tolerance > Enlightenment > Life

However, your right brain will be content to sit around all day thinking happy thoughts and never get anything done - it will forget we are hungry, not notice when you are about to knock something over or forget a date. Our left brains keep us honest and aware of ourselves and surroundings - and it will actually get us off our asses and get things done, but never forget it can throw away a wealth of knowledge without us even knowing it.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join