Do atheist have brain damage?

[Darwin]

As has been pointed out and as UpChurch notes,we know that an experience with what could be considered spiritual (to each their own) can be produced artificially by stimulating brains,there is no doubt.
Actual conditions like temporal lobe epilepsy or schizophrenia may help as a trigger.
When it comes to other incidents that people like to link spirituality into,namely OBE (out of body) near death experiences,included brain regions (like anterior gyrus) have been identified,just like other "pathological" experiences to be associated with in such an experience.We shall say that such an experience can also be caused artificially to a degree at least.
Spiritual "awakenings" or what one ever calls them can also be helped by fasting and related activities "exposing" you to such,I´m sure everyone knows what I´m after.
I consider myself to be one among those not qualified to say whether these feelings do have something divine into them but on other hand we are pretty talented with Occam´s and do have a documented reason to cut down on metaphysics and add some psychophysics.

 

[woodguard]

I hope everyone know this was a joke and something to think about.

Only in a free society can you admit you are not part of state religion.
Some people are part of religions groups for social reasons.
So these number are way off.

So when you say it is wrong to believe in God, is it logic or chemistry in you brain.

I know my belief in God is part chemistry and part right-brain logic. (The right side is your creative half)


So if I meet an atheist in the street, I will check his ears for blood before calling 911!

 

[woodguard]

Why are you assuming that "non-religious" implies a belief in God? What are you basing this assumption on?

I think non-religious are undecided or don’t care one way or the other. Some would be closet atheist.

Atheist being someone who absolutely does not think God exists.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Do atheist have brain damage?

Well, if Torment and Darwin are correct about the nature of the experience (I don't know since no one has sited a source yet), then the nature of the experience is an artificial one. In other words, it is created through artificial stimulation to the temporal lobes and not through devine intervention. So, the "religious" experience has a non-religious origin.

Nonsense! That conclusion isn't justified at all! Suppose someone were blind from birth because the visual part of your brain wasn't functioning properly. Now by appropriate stimulation of that part of the brain a person may get to be able to see for the very first time. Would that mean that that everything he sees is an illusion? Using your reasoning you must say so! Ridiculous!

 

[triadboy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do atheist have brain damage?

Nonsense! That conclusion isn't justified at all! Suppose someone were blind from birth because the visual part of your brain wasn't functioning properly. Now by appropriate stimulation of that part of the brain a person may get to be able to see for the very first time. Would that mean that that everything he sees is an illusion? Using your reasoning you must say so! Ridiculous!

I keep trying to pinpoint your belief system and it's very difficult. I assume you believe in alien-driven UFOs, the Loch Ness monster, angels, the divinity of Jesus, God,...and maybe even fairies and leprechauns - simply because other people have consistently reported these creatures down through the ages. C'mon Ian, throw me a freaking bone. Tell me what you believe.

 

[Upchurch]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do atheist have brain damage?

Nonsense! That conclusion isn't justified at all! Suppose someone were blind from birth because the visual part of your brain wasn't functioning properly. Now by appropriate stimulation of that part of the brain a person may get to be able to see for the very first time. Would that mean that that everything he sees is an illusion? Using your reasoning you must say so! Ridiculous!

huh? You're "blind from birth" scenerio isn't even close to the question at hand. A more appropriate one would be this:

Suppose someone was blind from birth but were unaware of the fact because the visual centers of their brain were stimulated in such a way to make the person believe that they could see. Now, by appropriate medical proceedures, the person's blindness is corrected, allowing the person for the first time to see light reflected off of actual objects. How could the person tell the difference between the artificial stimulation and the "light from an object" stimulation?

Similarly (and back to the point of the thread), how could someone tell the difference between an artificially stimulated religious experience and a devinely inspired religious experience?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

That conclusion isn't justified at all!

...unless you were talking about my "conclusion" that the religious experience is an artificial one due to the fact that it was generated by an man-made stimulous rather than a devine one. In which case, how do you rationalize that an artificially stimulated religious experience has actual (or devine) origins?

 

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Oh, so a little excercise in free will results in brain damage?

or Brain damage will result in the exercising of free will. Time to do some self inflicted brain damage on myself, I am tired of being a puppet! Where's the hammer and 9 inch nails?

Wait, binge drinking would be a better way to do it. 1 tequilla, 2 tequilla, 3 tequilla. ..........

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do atheist have brain damage?

...unless you were talking about my "conclusion" that the religious experience is an artificial one due to the fact that it was generated by an man-made stimulous rather than a devine one. In which case, how do you rationalize that an artificially stimulated religious experience has actual (or devine) origins? [/B]

In the same way as I mentioned in my previous post. I'm unclear why you would conclude a particular experience is unreal simply because the experience can also be brought about stimulation of the brain.

Even if the experience were not real, this needn't have any implications that naturally occurring religious experiences are unreal.

I mean no doubt you can stimulate the brain so it appears that person is seeing a banana. It doesn't mean there's no such thing as real bananas though!

 

[Yahzi]

All society is a result of overcoming our hardwired impulses to kill those outside our clan, and take their stuff. I got into an argument yesterday with a guy I had never met before. I didn't try to hit him with my club. I guess I'm brain damaged.

Read the above quote until you understand.

 

[Upchurch]

In the same way as I mentioned in my previous post. I'm unclear why you would conclude a particular experience is unreal simply because the experience can also be brought about stimulation of the brain.

Even if the experience were not real, this needn't have any implications that naturally occurring religious experiences are unreal.

I mean no doubt you can stimulate the brain so it appears that person is seeing a banana. It doesn't mean there's no such thing as real bananas though!

I'm not concluding anything, Ian. I asked how would you know the difference between a real religious experience and an artificial one?

However, I will point out that if one sees something, a banana for example, one can verify it's existance by also touching, smelling, and tasting it. Not only that, but one can experience (through use of multiple senses) the banana repeatedly over a period of time. (Minds out of the gutter, kids. This isn't that kind of discussion board.)

Can the same be said of real religious experiences? Even after you've been able to differentiate them from the artificial religious experiences?

Actually, how would one be able to tell the difference between a real (i.e. devinely inspired) religious experience and a self-induced one? By that, I mean that if a person really wanted to have a religious experience and convinced themselves that they've had one, how would one know the difference between that and a devinely inspired reigious experience? The human mind is easily fooled. Magicians and charlatans do it all the time.

I'm not saying that all religious experiences are necessarily created by us here in the mortal plane, but what indicators are there that let us know that an experience is genuinly from the devine?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Do atheist have brain damage?

I'm not concluding anything, Ian. I asked how would you know the difference between a real religious experience and an artificial one?

Artificial one?? Surely a religious experience is a religious experience is a religious experience!

However, I will point out that if one sees something, a banana for example, one can verify it's existance by also touching, smelling, and tasting it. Not only that, but one can experience (through use of multiple senses) the banana repeatedly over a period of time. (Minds out of the gutter, kids. This isn't that kind of discussion board.)

Pointless nitpicking. Besides, I assume tactile, olfactory, and gustatory sensations of a banana could be in principle induced by appropriate stimulation of the brain as well.

Can the same be said of real religious experiences? Even after you've been able to differentiate them from the artificial religious experiences?

I really don't understand why we should wish to distinguish them. You seem to be just assuming that artificially induced religious experiences are not real. And I don't know what your argument is which justifies this stance.

 

[Jesse]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do atheist have brain damage?

Now by appropriate stimulation of that part of the brain a person may get to be able to see for the very first time.

Really? That's awesome! I'd like to read more about this. Maybe I could help a blind person to see?

 

[Jesse]

Re: Re: Do atheist have brain damage?

However, I will point out that if one sees something, a banana for example, one can verify it's existance by also touching, smelling, and tasting it. Not only that, but one can experience (through use of multiple senses) the banana repeatedly over a period of time. (Minds out of the gutter, kids. This isn't that kind of discussion board.)

Also, since senses can easily be tricked, I surmise that the "sixth sense", if it exists, could also be tricked.

 

[Jesse]

Re: Re: Re: Do atheist have brain damage?

Artificial one?? Surely a religious experience is a religious experience is a religious experience!

Jim Jones and his cyanide-laced kool-aid drinking cult had a 'religious' experience. So did that other cult (whose name escapes me) several years back who believed that by killing themselves they would join the aliens in some UFO chasing around the comet Halebop, or something to that effect.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do atheist have brain damage?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Now by appropriate stimulation of that part of the brain a person may get to be able to see for the very first time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? That's awesome! I'd like to read more about this. Maybe I could help a blind person to see?

It would depend on what's damaged, the eye itself or the part of the brain devoted to visual perception.

 

[Jesse]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do atheist have brain damage?

It would depend on what's damaged, the eye itself or the part of the brain devoted to visual perception.

Cool. But.... Where can I read about this?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Do atheist have brain damage?

It would depend on what's damaged, the eye itself or the part of the brain devoted to visual perception.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cool. But.... Where can I read about this?

{Shrugs} Don't know. Do a search on google.

 

[JAR]

All society is a result of overcoming our hardwired impulses to kill those outside our clan, and take their stuff. I got into an argument yesterday with a guy I had never met before. I didn't try to hit him with my club. I guess I'm brain damaged.

 

[JAR]

I hope everyone know this was a joke and something to think about.

What do you mean by "this was a joke."

 

[Loki]

Ian,

(following on from Upchurch)

Artificial one?? Surely a religious experience is a religious experience is a religious experience!

The question is really "are religious experiences what the experiencer thinks they are"? What's being discussed is what might the reality behind the experience be. In this sense, it's quite important to try and determine if there is such a thing as an "artificial" experience.

I really don't understand why we should wish to distinguish them.

Strangely enough, it would prove your position if we could!

You seem to be just assuming that artificially induced religious experiences are not real. And I don't know what your argument is which justifies this stance.

The argument is simple (but, of course, not conclusive) - basically, the "religous experience" has always been placed with a certain "framework". That is, a person experiencing it has certain attributes, the experience itself has certain attributes, and the surrounding environment has certain attributes (simple example - "religious experience" = "pentecostal christian at church service"). If you can reproduce the experience *away* from this framework, then you have taken a strong step towards showing that the framework is *not relevant*. If you can produce a "religious experience" in James Randi in a lab, then you've taken a big step towards showing the "experience" is not what it seems.

You're correct - it has not been shown to be "artifical". But it has been shown to be significantly different from what it was originally thought to be. You can argue "I don't care - I *still* think it's a true mystical/religious experience", but this just sounds (to me) far more like assuming your conclusion than letting the data guide you.