Are Atheists Mostly Left Brained?

reply to post by Amagnon


It actually means redefining WHO we think God is!

That may mean putting everything aside to search. I have spent many years searching for answers and have received many. But they are always subject to growth, and changes.

A person in this case needs to be flexible in their beliefs, as the more we grow in our consciousness, the more our vision or perceptions will grow. This is a good thing!

Originally posted by Amagnon
reply to post by badmedia

 

Well, looking for Bill Gates in your computer and looking for God in the universe seems to be a fair analogy, and if it then we can interpolate it.

Not many people claim that Bill Gates personally fixed their software, or that he spoke to them through their software and gave them secret messages that disappeared after writing, or that they simply thought about Bill Gates every day and they got a free software upgrade while they were sleeping, or that when they had a crash it rebooted with a brand new upgrade that had never been seen anywhere before, or that Bill Gates installed all software on all computers 6 days ago - and before that there was no software.

But just because it is not "out there" does not mean it is not to be found. It just means it's not "out there".

As for the rest, a claim is just a claim. No way to know if it's true or not. Thus you can not honestly say the claim is true or false based on the claim itself. I don't take peoples claims as true, but that doesn't mean they are false either. It's just that persons claim. I know there are plenty of things that happened in my life that were crazy etc that I couldn't prove. Doesn't mean they didn't happen.

I personally equate such thinking as not believing a person who seen something happen until it appears on the news.

Until you realize what is "you", then you will never understand. You think you are part of the physical and flesh. Therefore it is impossible for you to understand anything beyond that. These things are simply possessions.

But creation as science can prove is based on logic and laws. And consciousness does not follow these things because it is not of this creation. Your body and brain follow these laws, but your consciousness is that which allows you to "be" and to observe. Without it you would just be like this creation, unconscious and following the laws of action and reaction.

If you want to find god, then find out who/what you truly are, rather than finding physical attachments to define yourself.

Here is a wonderful thread that someone U2U'D me about:

The Science of God

You take his information along with what is being said on this thread, it then becomes very viable; the reality of Gods existence.

We just need to set aside the blocks that stand in our way.

reply to post by MatrixProphet



I have to disagree...I don't see how atheism, by definition, would be motivated by the hatred of religion'...that would be a whole of religion to hate. It would just not make much sense. Furthermore, you cannot dismiss personal experiences from individuals who disagree with religious doctrine, regardless if they are believers or not. However, personal experiences, would not redefine atheism....which is simply a disbelief in god(s).....
I for one am a left-handed atheist, and while I don't believe in deities I'm still open to the possibility of paranormal phenomenon, which would include accounts of near-death experiences. Left-handers are predominantly right-brained from what I've gathered...so your -idea- that atheists are mostly -left-brained- would be inaccurate and inconsistent.

[edit on 21-5-2009 by laiguana]

Just looking at this thread title and I thought it'd maybe I should make a thread titled

"Are Theists Mostly Brain Dead?"

reply to post by laiguana

I have to disagree...I don't see how atheism, by definition, would be motivated by the hatred of religion'...that would be a whole of religion to hate. It would just not make much sense. Furthermore, you cannot dismiss personal experiences from individuals who disagree with religious doctrine, regardless if they are believers or not. However, personal experiences, would not redefine atheism....which is simply a disbelief in god(s).....
I for one am a left-handed atheist, and while I don't believe in deities I'm still open to the possibility of paranormal phenomenon, which would include accounts of near-death experiences. Left-handers are predominantly right-brained from what I've gathered...so your -idea- that atheists are mostly -left-brained- would be inaccurate and inconsistent.

Thank you for your response. I don't know if you have had the opportunity to read much of this thread but it may make more sense to you if you do.

This thread isn't so much about atheists hating religion as it is the "block" that most atheists seem to have understanding the difference between God and religion.

There is a chanting amongst you of equating religion always with the concept of God/Creator. Not being able to either; constitutionally connect the dots, or unwillingness to gain the wisdom to know the difference. Using such phrases that are foolish: "Prove God Exists," yet with so very little understanding of the cosmos, and making judgments about something we have little understanding of, except through the blinders of religion.

This whole thread is about looking at God through the use of both quadrants of the brain and recognizing that He can only be accessed through our higher consciousness, and in this arena can be discovered. Looking for him within oneself and not looking outside for him. Evidence will never give us the necessary facts that we need to prove his existence.

There seems to be a mass confusion with your tribe (for lack of a better term) to connect the dots. I am looking at it from a behavioral scientific way and not through moral judgments.

If the thread is too much for you, I would recommend the last couple of pages to get a little better idea of what I am speaking of.

Are you more analytical or emotion oriented?

reply to post by Welfhard

Just looking at this thread title and I thought it'd maybe I should make a thread titled

"Are Theists Mostly Brain Dead?"

Now you know that I am not saying that!

Did you see that I recommended a book for you to read? It will fit in well with your schooling. Warning: it may rattle your professor, but what the hay?

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
reply to post by Welfhard

 

Just looking at this thread title and I thought it'd maybe I should make a thread titled

"Are Theists Mostly Brain Dead?"

Now you know that I am not saying that!

Did you see that I recommended a book for you to read? It will fit in well with your schooling. Warning: it may rattle your professor, but what the hay?

No, I didn't see one, but I probably wouldn't take the recommendation either. There just aren't enough hours in a day.

reply to post by Welfhard



I hear you...not enough hours....


OT



[edit on 21-5-2009 by OldThinker]

reply to post by Amagnon


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

reply to post by Welfhard


Never too little time to learn.

This thread isn't so much about atheists hating religion as it is the "block" that most atheists seem to have understanding the difference between God and religion.

Not all religions have a god. Nor are all religions monotheistic. The gods of different religions vary in many aspects. Are you implying that we only look at one religion or that we look at all religions as the same?

unwillingness to gain the wisdom to know the difference. Using such phrases that are foolish: "Prove God Exists," yet with so very little understanding of the cosmos, and making judgments about something we have little understanding of, except through the blinders of religion.

I don't speak for all atheists, but I do believe that many of us are content to say that we are not all knowing creatures. I could reverse your argument and ask you why you've made that conclusion, despite our lack of understanding of the physical universe.

This whole thread is about looking at God through the use of both quadrants of the brain and recognizing that He can only be accessed through our higher consciousness, and in this arena can be discovered.

So I presume you've had some formal training in neuropsychiatry?...Because I am uncertain what you mean by 'higher consciousness'...although I often seem to see this phrase thrown around when it comes to these discussions.

There seems to be a mass confusion with your tribe (for lack of a better term) to connect the dots. I am looking at it from a behavioral scientific way and not through moral judgments.

I don't think that's a good way to approach something of this caliber, because behavior and experience varies so much between each person regardless if they believe in a god(s) or not.

If the thread is too much for you, I would recommend the last couple of pages to get a little better idea of what I am speaking of.

I have read enough.

Are you more analytical or emotion oriented?

Ask yourself that...

[edit on 21-5-2009 by laiguana]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


There is too little time to learn when you already are busy cramming knowledge into your cranium as is.

Originally posted by badmedia

Would you have been happier if I had given you a dogmatic view instead? I'd be willing to bet if I had, then you would have made some comment into that, which only goes to prove it has nothing to do with your claim but the topic itself. In other words, enjoy your blinders.



[edit on 21-5-2009 by badmedia]

Weak analogies are still weak.

And this response is a
Strawman fallacy

followed by a Red Herring fallacy

in the form of Judgemental Language and it does not work on me.

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
Evidence will never give us the necessary facts that we need to prove his existence.

The end.

I said a couple of pages back the reasons why I did this thread. Let me expound on this further.

If we hold up a mirror and told people that they are stupid and less intelligent for believing in a power greater than ourselves, what would the mirror reflect back?

If an atheist is feeling judged for my thread this may not be such a bad thing. Often judgment is a sign that not all is well in our world and the Universe is attempting to show us where we err.

On ATS there have been numerous threads done where the intelligence is challenged regarding those who have a belief in God (regardless of whether one is religious or not.) So here are a some threads I thought I would post regarding how atheists judge those who believe:


Evidence in Scripture Disproving God Once and For all

Intelligent People Less Likely to Believe in God

Why Do Atheists Care About Religion?

So when the shoe is on the other foot, it doesn't feel good does it?

It was my intention to draw the reader into a discussion of how words and definitions can be very misleading and misinterpreted. Along with the resistance that we find regarding the misunderstanding, or passive aggressive attitude, addressing everyone that believes in God calling them religious (as in a bad connotation), or stupid.

Regardless of whether one says they are right brain dominant or not, really has little to do with reality, if this same person uses only left brain logic to interpret the meaning of God, and his existence. This follows anyone who is dogmatic about the non-existence of God.

It is the RESISTANCE that I look at in a behavioral way. Many are trying to make the fields of science FIT their atheistic views. This is most definitely religious in the fullest sense.


Illustration that explains this whole thread in a simple way:

The automobile industry has surpassed humans in many ways. In the areas of environmental sensitivity; by evaluating its needs through sensors created by the automotive computer. The new high end Lexus can parallel park itself via sensors monitored by a computer.

The automotive computer is like the human brain. It has a program with limits and data (like our left brain) and sensors (like our right brain) to evaluate and make changes as needed.

It controls and maintains the balance needed to operate properly. Heat, air conditioning, and engine sensors, adjust the engine when needed.

We can compare this to humans. If we deny our feelings and our senses via the ego, and our conditioning, then, we limit the strength of our right brain and hence, fall back on just our memory and facts.

It is extremely difficult to evaluate and change our lives without human sensors (right brain).

It is these sensors that connect us to God.

reply to post by MatrixProphet


Oh criminy.

Illustration that explains this whole thread in a simple way:

The automobile industry has surpassed humans in many ways. In the areas of environmental sensitivity; by evaluating its needs through sensors created by the automotive computer. The new high end Lexus can parallel park itself via sensors monitored by a computer.

The automotive computer is like the human brain. It has a program with limits and data (like our left brain) and sensors (like our right brain) to evaluate and make changes as needed.

It controls and maintains the balance needed to operate properly. Heat, air conditioning, and engine sensors, adjust the engine when needed.

We can compare this to humans. If we deny our feelings and our senses via the ego, and our conditioning, then, we limit the strength of our right brain and hence, fall back on just our memory and facts.

This is the worst, most inaccurate analogy I have ever heard.

Firstly, our sensory system is a global process - that means it's done on both sides, with the right side of the body being controlled by the left and vice verse. Sensors are in no way related to "feelings" or emotion, and nor is emotion a universal right brain thing. A computer is a system built entirely on logic, the car you pointed out is entirely left brain assuming your definition of that term.

We don't deny our feelings via our ego and our conditioning, that's just dumb, most of what we do is emotional based. But a wise person knows that to give emotion free-reign is to ruin everything. It takes some balance.

I find this rather amusing though, you can't rationalise or justify with logic a belief in god so you retreat to the argument that the illogical/emotional parts of the brain is what connects us to god. Weak, very very weak.

It is these sensors that connect us to God.

She says so verily without having a clue as to what she's saying.

[edit on 22-5-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard


I thought you didn't believe in God? How can you know how to connect to him if you know nothing about it?

Do you understand what an analogy is? Or a metaphor?

You discount a whole thread or whole way of reasoning based on your disagreement of how I explain it? Is this the best you can do?

I will explain more simply what I meant:

The Lexus has more "senses" - figuratively speaking than most humans!

I used an example earlier using experience. Did you catch that one? Perhaps it will appeal more to your taste.

We don't deny our feelings via our ego and our conditioning, that's just dumb, most of what we do is emotional based. But a wise person knows that to give emotion free-reign is to ruin everything. It takes some balance.

I beg to differ! Where do you get your opinions from?

I left out how our ego can use substances to avoid our feelings and how we can stifle our shame & guilt by going strictly to logic or denial, but unfortunately, denial will not stop reality. I left it out because I didn't want to get headier than I already have.

I have a lot of books that I can recommend to you if you don't want to take my word for it.

Have you heard of John Bradshaw? I suggest you try to tackle his book; "Healing the Shame that Binds You."

You are new to this whole game, so if you need help understanding this, you can certainly U2U me!

Me thinks she doth protest too much...

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
Do you understand what an analogy is? Or a metaphor?

Yes, which is how I can know using computers as an analogy of a human brain with reference to so called "right-brainism" is a bad analogy.

You discount a whole thread or whole way of reasoning based on your disagreement of how I explain it? Is this the best you can do?

I will explain more simply what I meant:

The Lexus has more "senses" - figuratively speaking than most humans!

Humans have around 15 different senses, depending on how you group them. But it doesn't matter, sensing isn't just a right brain thing, it's divided equally across the hemispheres, meaning that it's completely besides your point. Or perhaps your talking of a different sense, the type that's summed up as "sound, practice reasoning" [dictionary.com- #11] in case it has nothing to do with the Lexus' sensors, making the analogy still completely invalid.

We don't deny our feelings via our ego and our conditioning, that's just dumb, most of what we do is emotional based. But a wise person knows that to give emotion free-reign is to ruin everything. It takes some balance.

I beg to differ! Where do you get your opinions from?

Personal experience of broken relationships and successful relationships. Giving in to emotions can be unwise at times, but we wouldn't have friends or loved ones without them either - we wouldn't live. It takes some balance.

I left out how our ego can use substances to avoid our feelings and how we can stifle our shame & guilt by going strictly to logic or denial, but unfortunately, denial will not stop reality. I left it out because I didn't want to get headier than I already have.

I have a lot of books that I can recommend to you if you don't want to take my word for it.

Have you heard of John Bradshaw? I suggest you try to tackle his book; "Healing the Shame that Binds You."

You are new to this whole game

You are new to the neurology and neuropsychology game, still toiling in psudoscientific pop-psychology which is the source of these extreme right-brain vs left-brain contrasts.

, so if you need help understanding this, you can certainly U2U me!

No thanks, I'll stick with the science of you don't mind.

[edit on 23-5-2009 by Welfhard]

Originally posted by miragezero
Weak analogies are still weak.

And this response is a
Strawman fallacy

followed by a Red Herring fallacy

in the form of Judgemental Language and it does not work on me.

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 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.