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.

 

Religious Experiences Cause Brain Damage

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


religion is mind control
mind control is damaging to the brain.
religion is fear
so in that you are constantly afraid
causing stress
damaging the brain.


religion is not on to anything,
and a bunch of those people that guy earlier were not religious.




posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
[/yvid]reply to post by Lionhearte
 


very interesting thread and i think
pink floyd sings it all....


]
edit on 2-6-2011 by alphaMegas because: (no reason given)
youtu.be...
edit on 2-6-2011 by alphaMegas because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 12:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


You wrote:

["His observations led to him forming the theory which later became generally known as the Big Bang theory; a theory which is still almost universally accepted amongst leading physicists today ( universally ? Big Bang ? I made a funny ! )."]

Yup. But not in the earlier watchmaker version, which makes quite a difference.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
It's religious experiences, not religion, which is referred to here.


Yes, and no.

Everyone in the study was asked about their religious experiences and beliefs. Their answers were then graded to form the participants into 5 different religious/irreligious categories: Protestant, born-again Protestant, Catholic, other and non-religious.

Their brains were then MRI scanned every two years, over the next 10 years.

The ''born again'' category was largely defined as those who had claimed that they'd had a ''life-changing religious experience''.

Considering that the subjects of this experiment were all in the age range of 58-64, then is it not reasonable to assume that those who adhered to a religion, must have had a religious experience by that time of their lives ?

The damage to the hippocampus among the non-religious in this study was second only to those who were deemed to be born again Christians. In fact, the level of damage to this region of the brain amongst the non-religious was closer to the born-agains than it was to the mainstream Protestants !

There seems to be a lack of distinction between ''religious experience'' and ''life changing religious experience'' amongst some who are arguing against religion or a religious person's experience.


In addition, the main flaw with study is the fact that the deterioration of this region of the brain was analysed after the religious experiences of the subjects had been ascertained. Only two participants had a ''life changing religious experience'' within the 10-year period of this study.

To say that someone who has experienced a ''life exchanging religious experience'' has, on average, a more shrunken hippocampus, is both inaccurate and dishonest.

A more reasonable study about this subject would request volunteers who had only recent converted to Christianity, following what they may describe as a personal epiphany, to let their brains be physically examined, and any hippocampal damage recorded over the subsequent 10 years.


Originally posted by bogomil
But in any case the survey group is too small to give significant results.


I agree. I think it was something like 284 people taking part, and they were originally going to take part in a study which was attempting to assess whether any link between depression and damage to the hippocampus could be found.

In one of the earlier threads on this study, I tried ( in vain ) to offer my interpretations and understandings of the findings in the study, yet I had to leave the thread after a couple of posts because nobody was interested in neutrally and objectively discussing the findings.

I think, at the time, that I was probably the only poster who actually took the time to read the original study ( Astyanax, at least, has helpfully provided a link to it in his OP ).

The thread was full of gleeful anti-Christians responding to sensationalist news articles, which were dishonestly and irresponsibly headed along the lines of: ''Study suggests that born-again Christians have smaller brains''.

Then some Christians came wading in, indiscriminately attacking science or scientific studies, and, as you can imagine, the thread descended into farce, with most of the posts taking on the ''I'm right, you're wrong'' rule of debate, with nobody even wishing to discuss the merits, or not, of the particular study in question.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
Yup. But not in the earlier watchmaker version, which makes quite a difference.


What ''watchmaker version'' ?

There's no difference here, because Lemaitre was interested in finding a theory which explained a single, spontaneous moment of ''creation'', rather than the Steady State theory, which was gaining more and more general solidity within the physics community, at the time.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


Interesting, is it good or bad?

C.G. Jung in his book Psychology and religion says that suppression of religion in people causes neuroses.

Religion and psychology, very interesting indeed.
edit on 2011/6/2 by etherical waterwave because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 
Quote: ["What ''watchmaker version'' ?"]

The christian one of an omni-everything 'god' creating rules for a universe running on his rails. With the sometimes acknowledged exception of 'free will', which has to be used on 'god's conditions 'or else'.

The earlier 'scientism' one from materialistic philosophy and a reductionist methodology.

Quote: [ There's no difference here, because Lemaitre was interested in finding a theory which explained a single, spontaneous moment of ''creation'', rather than the Steady State theory, which was gaining more and more general solidity within the physics community, at the time."]

An analysis of the historical context science/religion is even more off-topic than considerations of a watchmaker-universe, and is of minor interest and value.





edit on 2-6-2011 by bogomil because: spelling



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


You wrote:

["Considering that the subjects of this experiment were all in the age range of 58-64, then is it not reasonable to assume that those who adhered to a religion, must have had a religious experience by that time of their lives ?"]

Theism is mainly based on assumptions and is embroidered on or embellished by assumptions. And NO, it's not reasonable to assume anything about anything. That's not how it works in science/logic.

But you can ofcourse have FAITH in assuming.

Quote: ["There seems to be a lack of distinction between ''religious experience'' and ''life changing religious experience'' amongst some who are arguing against religion or a religious person's experience."]

No wonder. There are no measure-tapes for this except subjective evaluations.

Quote: [" In one of the earlier threads on this study, I tried ( in vain ) to offer my interpretations and understandings of the findings in the study, yet I had to leave the thread after a couple of posts because nobody was interested in neutrally and objectively discussing the findings."]

It's kind of meaningless to interpretate an insufficient study, whichever way one's sympathies are. Which my initial post here also proposed.

Quote: ["The thread was full of gleeful anti-Christians responding to sensationalist news articles, which were dishonestly and irresponsibly headed along the lines of: ''Study suggests that born-again Christians have smaller brains''.

Then some Christians came wading in, indiscriminately attacking science or scientific studies, and, as you can imagine, the thread descended into farce, with most of the posts taking on the ''I'm right, you're wrong'' rule of debate, with nobody even wishing to discuss the merits, or not, of the particular study in question."]

I'm not keen on that kind of debate either.



edit on 2-6-2011 by bogomil because: vocabulary



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


I did not read the article but isn't the hippocampus the portion of our brain that holds the emotional portion or more importantly the portion where we have empathy for another being? That would explain a lot.

I read a study a while back that cannabis grows new cells in the hippocampus portion of the brain. Making you more human.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Pimander
 


This isn’t a religious conspiracy either.

I agree, which is why I posted it in Science & Technology.


Which goes to show - being a mod doesn't make you behave in ways that make sense.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:32 PM
link   
So you think that just THINKING some thoughts will shrink your brain?

That's AMAZING.

Stupid, but amazing.



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Astyanax
 


There is already a thread on thiswww.abovetopsecret.com...
not the same source, and i think i saw a third also..



posted on Jun, 2 2011 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Uh yeah and all these conspiracies don't damage our brains? I think majority of the "enlightened" are the ones with brain damage.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 07:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
An analysis of the historical context science/religion is even more off-topic than considerations of a watchmaker-universe, and is of minor interest and value.


It was relevant to the initial poster's point that I was replying to.

The fact that you got the wrong end of the stick is your problem, not mine !



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by bogomil
Theism is mainly based on assumptions and is embroidered on or embellished by assumptions. And NO, it's not reasonable to assume anything about anything. That's not how it works in science/logic.


Of course it's reasonable to assume that a 60-year-old Christian has had some kind of a religious experience, otherwise why would he or she be a Christian ?

Praying = religious experience. Thanking God = religious experience. If you don't think you can assume that a 58-64 year-old Christian has done something along these lines at some point in his or her life, then I am truly baffled !

There is clearly a distinction between a ''religious experience'' and a ''life changing religious experience''.


Originally posted by bogomil
No wonder. There are no measure-tapes for this except subjective evaluations.


Their religious experiences were measured and categorised by psychologists, I think. Of course, as you say, this is still subjective, but a distinction was made in the study between normal religious experiences and life changing religious experiences, with the latter being those who became Christian upon their reported experiences.


Originally posted by bogomil
It's kind of meaningless to interpretate an insufficient study, whichever way one's sympathies are. Which my initial post here also proposed.


LOL.

How can you ascertain a study is insufficient without interpreting that fact ? One of your interpretations of the study is that it is insufficient. Does that mean that your view of the study is also meaningless ?!



Originally posted by bogomil
I'm not keen on that kind of debate either.


Yeah, they're pretty pointless and unproductive.



posted on Jun, 3 2011 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


It's reasonable to assume that a 60-year-old Christian has had some kind of a religious experience, otherwise why would he or she be a Christian?

The overwhelming majority of people become Christians simply because their parents were. Anyway, a ‘religious experience’ is not just the experience of belief in a deity; it refers to an actual epiphany, a claim such as ‘God spoke to me’ or ‘St. Matilda healed my herpes’ or ‘I saw the face of Jesus in my soup.’


Praying = religious experience. Thanking God = religious experience. If you don't think you can assume that a 58-64 year-old Christian has done something along these lines at some point in his or her life, then I am truly baffled!

That is because you are incorrectly interpreting the meaning of ‘religious experience’.



posted on Jun, 13 2011 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by violence=answer
reply to post by Astyanax
 


religion is mind control
mind control is damaging to the brain.
religion is fear
so in that you are constantly afraid
causing stress
damaging the brain.


religion is not on to anything,
and a bunch of those people that guy earlier were not religious.






Hrmm I use mind control when I concentrate to commit something to memory. I also use mind control when I divide my day up into times for each of my passions and chores...

Why do you have an issue with these things...

Mind control is not the issue... The issue is when we allow others to tell us what we should respect revere and accept as truth. That goes for anything and anyone, the religious or the atheist...



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 12:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
You always suspected it. Now, it seems to have been scientifically verified.


Religious Experiences Shrink Part of the Brain

A study links life-changing religious experiences, like being born again, with atrophy in the hippocampus... Scientific American

The original paper can be found here. It’s even more positive in its conclusions than the SciAm author, who is obviously treading carefully so as not to lose any born-again subscribers. Enjoy!


edit on 2/6/11 by Astyanax because: (no reason given)










Know what's funny? I went 20 years Godless, no faith in my life and I had social anxiety, despression and suicidal thoughts, before I knew who God was.

Now I have neither despression, brain damage, or suicidal thoughts.

yay for me I'm the lucky 1% who beat the studies.

what a joke man. lol, take care OP.



posted on Jun, 23 2011 @ 01:27 AM
link   
only when surrounded by murderers throwing stones


shortly after telling them about a "religious experience"

see-

But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looking up steadfastly to heaven, saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. And he said: Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God..And casting him forth without the city, they stoned him
bible.cc...

edit on 23-6-2011 by Rustami because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 24 2011 @ 03:50 AM
link   
reply to post by JesusisTruthh
 


Now I have neither despression, brain damage, or suicidal thoughts.

The same is true of people who have had lobotomies. But tell us, please: what form did your religious experience take? How did you come to ‘know God’?



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join