Are Atheists Mostly Left Brained?

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


Which would apply if it weren't for the fact that I knew most of these people to be smarter than me long before I knew their beliefs about God.

Yet you still haven't shown how your criticism of that study is anything more than a religious kneejerk reaction to evidence against your beliefs.

reply to post by Welfhard


Great argument for one providing claimed personal information I have no possible way of verifying. If you choose to accept biased study as fact go right ahead, the source alone argues against validity given Shermer and Co's topic of personal crusade.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
Great argument for one providing claimed personal information I have no possible way of verifying.

My testimony is as unreliable as anyone elses, it is also limited in sample size. I never expected you to accept it nor should you.

If you choose to accept biased study as fact go right ahead, the source alone argues against validity given Shermer and Co's topic of personal crusade.

So do you refuse a study on your own bias of it's topic is what I'm really getting at here. Because all you've done so far is call the study bias without anything to back you up on it, hence it's a reasonable suggestion that you take personal offence off it considering it's findings, rather than an intellectual one.

We pay attention to that which confirms our desires and overlook that which contrasts them. You know this.

[edit on 24-5-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard


Actually, no. If there was a study produced from other sources that had no particular ax to grind *you cannot deny they do and enthusiastically to boot* with the subject matter at hand, I would accept it. I mean would you accept a study Nazis produce to show a causal relationship between Jews and whatever ill of the world they chose to claim and called it a study? And no I am not calling Shermer a Nazi.

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

 

Actually, no. If there was a study produced from other sources that had no particular ax to grind *you cannot deny they do and enthusiastically to boot* with the subject matter at hand, I would accept it. I mean would you accept a study Nazis produce to show a causal relationship between Jews and whatever ill of the world they chose to claim and called it a study? And no I am not calling Shermer a Nazi.

But you are calling him militantly anti-religious to the point that he'd give way to it over pure, detached, scientific methodology. This is what I'm waiting for you to justify.

It's as if your saying that any findings of any study are what the conductors of the study want to find.

I haven't read the study yet, but I plan to.

[edit on 24-5-2009 by Welfhard]

reply to post by Welfhard


Given his past M.O. I would say it's a matter of course. He is promoting his personal views and always has. Rather like certain others and their study attempting to say most if not all scientists are atheist by constricting the meaning of what they are talking about when they say scientists to such a point that you will only mostly get atheists.

Originally posted by Welfhard
It's as if your saying that any findings of any study are what the conductors of the study want to find.

I haven't read the study yet, but I plan to.

Isn't it just a study based on stereotyping things? What does the education level have to do with if something is right or wrong? The study is trying to suggest right or wrong not based on the topic itself, but based on the intelligence level?

What if someone was religious and was much smarter than those conducting the test? Does that mean that religion is correct? I don't think so, if it is correct or not has nothing to do with how smart someone who believes in it is.

As Einstein said, any fool can know the point is to understand.

I'm a bit confused on where this thread is leading. I don't even understand why you guys are arguing? Is there a point to this?

If you believe the title of this thread and don't see anything wrong with its wording and the conclusion it draws, please do your own research and you will understand why it is a misleading and illogical statement.

PS: OP, I do not mean to attack you personally, I just think you do not understand what you mean when you use the term "Left Brained"

[edit on 25/5/2009 by Dark Ghost]

reply to post by Dark Ghost

PS: OP, I do not mean to attack you personally, I just think you do not understand what you mean when you use the term "Left Brained"

No, I know you don't. I completely understand how both work. But you must separate behavioral science from neurological or chemical/biological psychology. You are only talking the medical end and not the behavioral end.

reply to post by badmedia


Not to mention it's "poisoning the well" logical fallacy.

Are atheists smarter than believers?

No........& yes!

How many of you have an understanding of sociology?

Here is how it works:

Unless those doctors have an understanding of human behavior and sociology I would have to ask them to qualify themselves in this arena. Just because they are doctors doesn't mean squat if they are not trained in these areas.


It is all about conditioning, genetics, and environment (leaving out organic issues). How high is the IQ of the average person? 95-100?

How many people have an average IQ? How many are below the average?

Now look at society on the whole. How many excel in learning? The masses will always go the way of their tribe. Very few break out of it.

So if the majority have average, to below average IQ (not even taking into consideration EQ), how stamped out like a cookie cutter are they going to be? Throw addiction onto the group and their gray cells will drop more.

We need to look at environment also. This can play a big part in conditioning. If many countries are going Godless, then this would be interpreted as people coming to their senses by atheists. It is NOT a confirmation that they are smarter - just conditioned to be that way.

So this leaves those who are brighter (always in degrees) but still with their conditioning.

There are atheists who are idiots as there are believers. You don't measure it by religion! If you measure society how many of them are religious? Society on the whole is not as smart as one who has a higher IQ & EQ, which number less. These CAN be atheists and believers.

Those who are biased will attempt to base it on those who are believers, but, since most are believers (in America) and most are average, then this would appear to substantiate their claims.

Keeping in mind that atheism is becoming a religion they have to be lumped in also. Atheists have their conditioning also. Academia is a big conditioner!

The premise of my thread is:

If an atheist relies on his conditioning (a certain amount of brainwashing as the orthodox religious - different schools of thought, different leaders, but same box) rather than using, or developing his emotional intelligence, then he may go along with his tribe in being categorized as less evolved in his thinking, by those who are not boxed in and have the wisdom to KNOW the difference.


"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds." - Einstein



[edit on 25-5-2009 by MatrixProphet]

Originally posted by MatrixProphet
If an atheist relies on his conditioning (a certain amount of brainwashing as the orthodox religious - different schools of thought, different leaders, but same box) rather than using, or developing his emotional intelligence, then he may go along with his tribe in being categorized as less evolved in his thinking, by those who are not boxed in and have the wisdom to KNOW the difference.

This argument works both ways. The religious are all for conditioning and orthodoxy. There is the expression that goes "Catholics don't evangelise, they don't need to, instead the reproduce moulding children into good little catholic boys and girls." This is also true for many other people of religious backgrounds, why just to today in another thread, one religious parent said:

"Just want to raise my kids the best I can, according to what I believe."

This individual had previously stated that what they believe is that the bible is hand-crafted by god, including all the bits that command racism, sexism, slavery etc. The problem one has with this view is that people like this don't take into account that "what I believe" may be wrong.

I've always been of the school of thought that if you can't justify your beliefs, you should not have them. That if you believe in something just because it's what you would like to be true or is what you've always been exposed to then you do not have a good enough reason to believe those things. And finally, to follow the evidence - if there is any.

reply to post by Welfhard


This cuts both ways,

I've always been of the school of thought that if you can't justify your beliefs, you should not have them. That if you believe in something just because it's what you would like to be true or is what you've always been exposed to then you do not have a good enough reason to believe those things. And finally, to follow the evidence - if there is any.

especially since we are talking about a unprovable answer *both arguments* to a perhaps unanswerable question. But you ignore that part right? Your answers are the only possible correct answers. Sounds like something you claim to hate.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

Originally posted by Welfhard
This argument works both ways. The religious are all for conditioning and orthodoxy. There is the expression that goes "Catholics don't evangelise, they don't need to, instead the reproduce moulding children into good little catholic boys and girls." This is also true for many other people of religious backgrounds, why just to today in another thread, one religious parent said:

"Just want to raise my kids the best I can, according to what I believe."

This individual had previously stated that what they believe is that the bible is hand-crafted by god, including all the bits that command racism, sexism, slavery etc. The problem one has with this view is that people like this don't take into account that "what I believe" may be wrong.

I've always been of the school of thought that if you can't justify your beliefs, you should not have them. That if you believe in something just because it's what you would like to be true or is what you've always been exposed to then you do not have a good enough reason to believe those things. And finally, to follow the evidence - if there is any.

It is like the matrix movie. If you are arguing either for or against Neo and the machines being real, then both are wrong. The point of the movie is to understand.

And for this reason I find myself stuck between atheists and religious people. And to me, they are all the same. 2 sides of the same coin, both without understanding.

Surely a thread like this that has nothing to do with anything conspiracy related belongs elsewhere, say on BTS?

reply to post by badmedia


Isn't the middle always caught in the crossfire of the extremes? Too bad neither side knows how to live and just let live.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

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

 

This cuts both ways,

I've always been of the school of thought that if you can't justify your beliefs, you should not have them. That if you believe in something just because it's what you would like to be true or is what you've always been exposed to then you do not have a good enough reason to believe those things. And finally, to follow the evidence - if there is any.

especially since we are talking about a unprovable answer *both arguments* to a perhaps unanswerable question. But you ignore that part right? Your answers are the only possible correct answers. Sounds like something you claim to hate.

Hence why I'm agnostic-atheist. I find that logic points to one answer yet it cannot be confirmed, therefore "can't move."

reply to post by Welfhard


Yet you're arguments are consistantly that of the latter part of your claimed description. Either way, I am going to drop this as it is ad hom.

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

 

Yet you're arguments are consistantly that of the latter part of your claimed description. Either way, I am going to drop this as it is ad hom.

So? Would you call me a hypocrite for play devils advocate as well? In an intellectual discussion, I'll default to an atheist perspective, but I've said on occasion that I'm agnostic-atheist, purely because there is no objective answers in this game. Sometimes I think you disagree with me for the sake of disagreeing. You remind me of my brother.

reply to post by Welfhard


No, merely commenting on the actions I see as opposed to blindly accepting assurances to the contrary I have yet to see materialize. And further more I am not disagreeing to be disagreeable, I am disagreeing because I disagree. Don't flatter yourself into thinking I mark you up for any special treatment please.

[edit on 25-5-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]