A lot of people here describe themselves as being Atheist, but do they throw the term about too loosely? Whilst not believing in 'Gods' in the normal literary sense, Atheists tend to believe in nature, science, themselves or money as some kind of God, and if we take God as being a:

"deity: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force"

Then this is acceptable, right? Each one of the aforementioned fits the definition pretty well.

The term Atheist describes an individual who lives for no great belief, drive, or power: it's nothing short of absolute nihilism, which surely can't exist. Anyone who serves no purpose in life doesn't live long enough to consider themselves an Atheist.

Being atheist does not mean you have abandoned belief in everything. It also doesn't mean that you're left without a purpose. It simply means that you live your life without God.

Atheists tend to believe in nature, science, themselves or money as some kind of God, and if we take God as being a:

"deity: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force"


Nature, science, people and money aren't supernatural. People depend on money, but do they really worship it? I guess some do. And I suppose it could be considered somewhat of a "force" in many people lives.

I just don't know many atheists who are going to personify a substitution of God for the purpose of worship. If anything, it isn't the word "atheist" that's thrown around loosely these days. At least not as much as the word "God".

A lot of people here describe themselves as being Atheist, but do they throw the term about too loosely? Whilst not believing in 'Gods' in the normal literary sense, Atheists tend to believe in nature, science, themselves or money as some kind of God

Okay, sure. I guess that works in a small-minded, insane, stupid sense.

and if we take God as being a:

"deity: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force"

Now you just shot yourself in the foot. An atheist may worship a force, but they don't necessarily worship a personification of that force. One may argue that I "worship" science, and draw heavily on its implications for my own philosophy, but I don't offer sacrifices to Richard Dawkins. I still don't believe in a God.

Then this is acceptable, right? Each one of the aforementioned fits the definition pretty well.

No, and no.

The term Atheist describes an individual who lives for no great belief, drive, or power: it's nothing short of absolute nihilism, which surely can't exist. Anyone who serves no purpose in life doesn't live long enough to consider themselves an Atheist.

No, the term nihilism describes someone who lives for no great belief, drive, or power. You even use the goddamn word. Most nihilists are atheistic, but not all atheists are nihilistic. (Although, I am very nihilistic myself)

This is trollicious! Defining things into existence ftw!

I was thinking about making a thread about this last night.
As soon as I saw the title, I knew there would be flaming inside.
I was (really high) thinking about what it means to be an atheist, and basically it came down to everything is natural, all religious dogma is just an interpretation of something much larger and very difficult to put in words, which eventually grew into some huge life sucking institution that I would be ashamed to be part of.

I even went as far as to say that I am an atheist.
God IS the process of Creation, are these atheist thoughts? I think so. . .

I think atheist is just a general term for an entity that doesn't follow any one religion.
It doesn't mean they don't believe in God, I mean sure, some probably don't believe there is a process involved and the 'big bang' is just some random mutation that one day arose from the quantum vacuum (which would mean there is a process, a process of randomness). And I am perfectly fine with someone believing that. Because when I examine my own beliefs, it's pretty much similar except without the random part. The problem with my beliefs is that there is no before, for the quantum vacuum is eternal.
How did this process come about.
I don't fucking know.

While OP raisers a valid point, he kinda veers off into the ozone towards the end. That is, by pre-twentieth century standards, I am sure that myself and many others--including Sufi Muslims, Kaballahists, and Christian mystics of many stripes--woukld be considered atheists because we reject the notion of God as the petty and micro-managing deity portrayed in the Bible.

I have encountered many self-described atheists who are ethical, inner-directed and generally highly spiritually evolved.

FInally, I have a quibble with OP's definition of God--the "being" part. To me, this implies some sort of materialistic manifestation.

Atheists lack a belief in God. Thats all.

FInally, I have a quibble with OP's definition of God--the "being" part. To me, this implies some sort of materialistic manifestation.

Off topic, but -

Why would 'material' not be a part of God? Why do you have this disbelief in material existence?

"deity: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force "

Then this is acceptable, right? Each one of the aforementioned fits the definition pretty well.

First let us define personification: A personification is a figure of speech that gives an inanimate object or abstract idea human traits and qualities, such as emotions, desires, sensations

Let us examine your aforementioned, to see if it fits the definition, shall we?

Clearly none of these are supernatural. Are they personified? Do we supposed atheist peronify them?

Nature: Do we give nature emotions, desires, sensations? This storm desires me.

Science: Do we give science emotions, desires, sensations? The hypothesis is angry at me.

Themselves: Humans are not inanimate objects nor an abstract idea. Humans already possess human traits and qualities and thus cannot be personified as humans.

Money: Do we give money emotions, desires, sensations? My five spot said it is quite warm in my pocket.

Then no, these things are not worshipped as a deity.

"[The term Atheist describes an individual who lives for no great belief, drive, or power: it's nothing short of absolute nihilism, which surely can't exist.

Wow, and fuck no.

A = latin suffix meaning without
Theism = belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.

Put 'em together...

Without belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.

A person who is defined by the above is an atheist. They can and DO have drive, power and great beliefs. It is just that all of their drives, power and belief are usually comletely grounded in this the real natural world.

You do not have to have an imaginary friend to be special.

I am not upset or surprised you are unable to see this. Your mind is covered and slowed down by the nonsense of religion. Clean it off, and you will find it easier to debate.

I have a better one "do atheists exist?"

Because you know there isn't any emperical evidence saying this is true.

Maybe it's some kind of conspiracy.

I don't believe in Atheism.

I don't believe in Atheism.

I don't believe in Opiate :mad:

First let us define personification: A personification is a figure of speech that gives an inanimate object or abstract idea human traits and qualities, such as emotions, desires, sensations

Let us examine your aforementioned, to see if it fits the definition, shall we?

Clearly none of these are supernatural. Are they personified? Do we supposed atheist peronify them?

Nature: Do we give nature emotions, desires, sensations? This storm desires me.

Science: Do we give science emotions, desires, sensations? The hypothesis is angry at me.

Themselves: Humans are not inanimate objects nor an abstract idea. Humans already possess human traits and qualities and thus cannot be personified as humans.

Money: Do we give money emotions, desires, sensations? My five spot said it is quite warm in my pocket.

Then no, these things are not worshipped as a deity.



Wow, and fuck no.

A = latin suffix meaning without
Theism = belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.

Put 'em together...

Without belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.

A person who is defined by the above is an atheist. They can and DO have drive, power and great beliefs. It is just that all of their drives, power and belief are usually comletely grounded in this the real natural world.

You do not have to have an imaginary friend to be special.

I am not upset or surprised you are unable to see this. Your mind is covered and slowed down by the nonsense of religion. Clean it off, and you will find it easier to debate.

I just paraphrased a comment from a Youtube video to see what people would say; don't mind me.

I don't believe in Opiate :mad:

But I believe in Harvey Dent.

LULZ how about we imagine god as...

God: (the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions)

This is pretty acceptable, right? And pretty acceptable that people believe it's a load of horse shit.

Yes it does! Althought it seems that many 'atheists' are egoists who simply wish to win the argument/debate, and obviously it's much easier to defend that position. After all what language, math or picture could be made of a proposed infinite being such as God must be. Is it possible to sum up the infinite, or to picture it completely?

On the other hand the responses on this forum suggest that deists are right brain hemisphere dominant and atheists are left brain hemisphere dominant. The right brain dominant person sees the big picture and then if necessary will fill in the details later. The left brain wants to add up all the detailed empirical evidence before building the big picture.

Thus the divide: Deists 'see' God, in a manner totally foreign to atheists and until challenged feel no need to justify that which their instinct and intuition tells them must exist even though they do not have all the details. The Atheist finds it easy to shoot at the Deists divine conceptions by demanding the details, which obviously they, in their left brain thinking, regard as more important than intangibles like intuition.

No foul either way but suggests a need for ... tolerance?

Definition of Atheism:
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

So therefore, it *does* exist.

No foul either way but suggests a need for ... tolerance?
Intolerance will not be tolerated.

Althought it seems that many 'atheists' are egoists who simply wish to win the argument/debate, and obviously it's much easier to defend that position. After all what language, math or picture could be made of a proposed infinite being such as God must be. Is it possible to sum up the infinite, or to picture it completely?

Huh? "I can't defend my position as good as P can, therefore P has his position because he simply wishes to 'win' the argument"?

You talk about tolerance but how is dismissing the position of "many atheists" as one they take to win arguments, tolerant of you?


On the other hand the responses on this forum suggest that deists are right brain hemisphere dominant and atheists are left brain hemisphere dominant. The right brain dominant person sees the big picture and then if necessary will fill in the details later. The left brain wants to add up all the detailed empirical evidence before building the big picture.

Well this "left brain hemisphere dominant" user is here to tell you that "left/right brain" dichotomy is bullshit. I'm sorry, but my penchant for empirical evidence requires me to tell you that.

"Even on the most trivial tasks our studies showed that everything in the brain was in flux----both sides, the front and back, the top and bottom. It was tremendously complicated. To think that you could reduce this to a simple left-right dichotomy would be misleading and oversimplified."

Dr. Michael Gazzaniga, UCLA School of Medicine.


"Scientists are understandably annoyed when they see careful but often inconclusive work popularized and exploited so glibly. As Deutsch puts it: “I get bothered by people saying, ‘This is all based on neurological theory, therefore it’s true.’ It’s not legitimized by neurological theory. There is no evidence that people favor one portion of the brain or the other----that’s pure speculation.”

http://www.psychoheresy-aware.org/images/Pro2_14.pdf

Ruh Roh Raggy....

Where'd your lame ass argument go Redzed?

(The following was motivated purely by ego, and a bit childish. This thought obviously came from the lower left portion, just west of the "I like the color blue" portion, of the most complicated organ ever studied by man.)

Atheism is turning into a fad now for people who wanna feel special and put other people down. I only respect the true few Atheist that say why the don't believe in God and not just"religion suck" or "its not right" and give no reason behind it. Those people who just try to bash religion with no reason are annoying.

A lot of people here describe themselves as being Atheist, but do they throw the term about too loosely? Whilst not believing in 'Gods' in the normal literary sense, Atheists tend to believe in nature, science, themselves or money as some kind of God, and if we take God as being a:

"deity: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force"


Nature, science, etc; are not supernatural. Idiot.

Nature, science, etc; are not supernatural. Idiot.

Can anything really be supernatural? I believe that supernatural is just a word sometimes used to describe unexplained natural things. If we take it to mean this, then everything in existence (also called reality) is pretty supernatural.

Things that are immaterial aren't made of matter. When something isn't made of matter it doesn't exist.

Things like that are like chi balls, Zeus, Thor, Odin, Ra, unicorns, Tengu. Blah blah blah.

It's quite simple really.

Things that are immaterial aren't made of matter. When something isn't made of matter it doesn't exist.


Yeah... Right.

Light doesn't exist right?

Yeah, I thought so.

Nature, science, etc; are not supernatural. Idiot.

Meoowww.

Atheist dont believe in made up bullshit(read:god). Simple

Things that are immaterial aren't made of matter. When something isn't made of matter it doesn't exist.


Matter is made up of waves in ætherspace.
You can go much further than "My shoe exist, thinking about my shoe does not exist." when you view reality that way.

Atheist dont believe in made up bullshit(read:god). Simple

Quantum physics has a buttload of made up shit.
Ever try to imagine the mainstream version of the atom?
Seems pretty darn supernatural to me.

Yeah... Right.

Light doesn't exist right?

Yeah, I thought so.

Lol, because light is material silly.

No, atheism does not exist. Without God, Self sits at the core of the soul where its dictates are worshipped as supreme.

Atheist dont believe in made up bullshit(read:god). Simple

Sure you do: You believe in fear, hate, death, pain, ego...none of which exist as anything other than lies. There is no fear, only false beliefs; there is no hate, only the actions that arise of false beliefs; there is no death, only birth into eternity; there is no pain, only wounds of the flesh; there is no individual, only God.

Atheists believe plenty of fairytales.

Why would 'material' not be a part of God? Why do you have this disbelief in material existence?

God is generally defined as spirit, but can manifest materially. What I meant was, the notion of God as a being, a discrete entity, who somehow stands apart from Creation.

I don't so much disbelieve in material existence as discount it. Material goods, for instance, just are not all that important to me. I am happy to reside in a 10x12 foot cabin with no running water. I am very happy with my 17-year old car. Right now, I feel very spiffy in my boat shoes and jeans that I fished out of a dumpster, my 50 cent thrift shop shirt and my $5 yard sale leather jacket.

Ruh Roh Raggy....

Where'd your lame ass argument go Redzed?

(The following was motivated purely by ego, and a bit childish. This thought obviously came from the lower left portion, just west of the "I like the color blue" portion, of the most complicated organ ever studied by man.)

Ironic you should illustrate my point;) Some search for understanding and truth, whilst it seems others simply search for any opportunity to boost their egos.

Ironic you should illustrate my point;) Some search for understanding and truth, whilst it seems others simply search for any opportunity to boost their egos.

It does not illustrate your point.

What in there indicates that my comment came from a certain region in the brain that is tied with my atheism brain center? That would illustrate your point.

It does nothing to illustrate that point.

Now, a new argument that some search for truth and understanding, whilst others seek only to boost their ego, is unfounded as well. Little too black and white isn't it? Allow me to illustrate how fucking wrong you are (little truth and understanding incoming).........

That would mean that people who discover truths and gain greater understanding of things do not seek to boost their ego's in doing so. Want me to list the egotistical scientific pricks of the past 1000 years who have made major contributions to understanding and truth?

Your old argument is gone, and you don't even have a valid new one for me to illustrate. Better luck next time ;)

What in there indicates that my comment came from a certain region in the brain that is tied with my atheism brain center? That would illustrate your point.


Missed again! Your behaviour reminds me of a typical bully:mad: What you bring to a discussion is exactly exemplified in your post quoted, as well as many of your previous replies to several of the other posters here. Rust contributed some real points worthy of further consideration. You butted in with the equivalent of nyah nyah :p Thus illustrating that some posters are only interested in scoring points, winning their argument, deluding themselves that there is an objective truth. You seem essentially no different to the fundamentalist theists you condemn. You know the truth:rolleyes: and anyone who does not agree is wrong and deserving of mockery scorn and censure:eek:

Illustrating that some posters are only interested in scoring points, winning their argument, deluding themselves that there is an objective truth. You seem essentially no different to the fundamentalist theists you condemn. You know the truth:rolleyes: and anyone who does not agree is wrong and deserving of mockery scorn and censure:eek:

Who am I scoring points with?

I believe everyone here is interested in winning their argument. Or at least enough that to single me out for it is rather cuntish.

I am quite different than fundie theists, I use facts to make claims. Unlike some who post nonsense about beleif systems arising in a certain places in the brain.

There would be no argument on here at all if most posters didn't already think they had some form of truth. Some have evidence to support it, others do not. You and your brain region belief system nonsense had none.

Stop crying about it.

Not everyone who disagrees with me gets mockery and scorn from me. Just those who insult me, or refuse to educate themselves and keep making classic theistic comments like....Isn't atheism a religion, and How can an atheist know right from wrong, and the ever present, atheists are just like fundie theists.

I know what I posted was childish and dickish. I posted as much in the orginal post itself. If you keep redefining your point, what I posted WILL illustrate it. Pretty easy to do.

I posted it b/c honestly I figured if you were embarrassed enough about the DUMBSHIT claims you made...you might actually research things before you shit them in your diaper and post them on here.

I do enjoy the pot calling the kettle black though. You are arguing like this to save face, and are completely ego driven in this. Your posting of 4 various faces in the body of your text DOES illustrate a bit of immaturity on your part.

Which I won't judge you for...so long as you realize the hypocrisy of it.

Seems pretty darn supernatural to me.

Supernatural doesn't equal complicated. It equals not explainable by natural phenomenon. The atom is both complicated and explainable by natural phenomenon.

P.S. I was going to point out how you didn't provide anything to back up your ridiculous claims (e.g. "Matter is made up of waves in ætherspace") as usual, but your jaw-dropping dishonesty has been made more than obvious by now (http://www.totse.com/community/showpost.php?p=10196379&postcount=29).

Sure you do: You believe in fear, hate, death, pain, ego...none of which exist as anything other than lies. There is no fear, only false beliefs; there is no hate, only the actions that arise of false beliefs; there is no death, only birth into eternity; there is no pain, only wounds of the flesh; there is no individual, only God.

Atheists believe plenty of fairytales.

massive lulz

A bunch of fucking morons on this thread.:D

God does not believe in atheists.

Sure you do: You believe in fear, hate, death, pain, ego...none of which exist as anything other than lies. There is no fear, only false beliefs; there is no hate, only the actions that arise of false beliefs; there is no death, only birth into eternity; there is no pain, only wounds of the flesh; there is no individual, only God.

Atheists believe plenty of fairytales.


Fear is a feeling. Hate is a feeling. Death is the end of all cellular activities in your body. Pain is a feeling. Ego is just some made up shit.

Wounds and pain are 2 different things. You can be in pain and not be physically harmed in anyway.

there is no hate, only the actions that arise of false beliefs;

ie. religious war. religion was all made up a few thousand years ago. ever since then we've had about 10000 wars all because of peoples beliefs(ie. god). Dont tell me something exist's when you cant give me some hard evidence. You cant prove he exists and cant prove he doesnt exist. It's like a speeding ticket. No proof means no fine.

Fuck you
Yeah... Right.

Light doesn't exist right?

Yeah, I thought so.
and you
Lol, because light is material silly.


He meant matter or/and energy
Light is a physical (that you can look at) manifestation of energy

A bunch of fucking morons on this thread.
This.

I am quite different than fundie theists, I use facts to make claims. Unlike some who post nonsense about beleif systems arising in a certain places in the brain.


You are not being honest. You do think you are right and anyone who does not agree is fair game for your jerkish behaviour. Fact is I proposed a reason for the differences between atheist and theists and you took it to heart as tho it was meant as an insult, it is you who are crying about it.
The very fact you think it's ok to act "childish and dickish" and then expect to be listened to shows the depths of your delusion. There's two sides to every story and the info posted by Rust is only one. Here's another:

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,,22492511-5005375,00.html?from=valueAdd

Well this "left brain hemisphere dominant" user is here to tell you that "left/right brain" dichotomy is bullshit. I'm sorry, but my penchant for empirical evidence requires me to tell you that.



Had a look at your empirical evidence Rust and aside from the fact it's from an outdated source now out of print it is hardly conclusive evidence. However that was not my point at all. Anyways here's an article from a different point of view:

Neurologist Roger Sperry won a Nobel Prize for demonstrating that the right and left hemispheres play distinct but complimentary roles in adult brains. He looked at patients who had had a callosotomy - where the two hemispheres of the brain are separated by severing the corpus callosum. Their brain is effectively ‘split’ in two. This procedure, another type of hemispherectomy, is sometimes performed on/in people with severe epilepsy, to stop the transmission of seizures between the left and right halves.

The split brain patients sat directly in front of a screen onto which, in essence, pictures or words were flashed on either side so that they were only processed by one half of the patients’ brain. When a word was flashed on the left hand side, the patient couldn’t say what they’d seen because their non-verbal right hemisphere was left to make sense of the word alone, without the help of its verbal left companion. However, if they were asked to pick up an object behind a screen in front of them with their left hand related to what was on the screen, they picked up the correct object. This indicated that their right brain had in fact “seen” the object and directed their left hand correctly - it just couldn’t help them say what they’d seen.


http://www.abc.net.au/science/features/brain/

Huh? You think an article in a news website which sites no references, speaks with no neurologists, and just gives a rotating image and says "Ta Da!" is evidence?

I gave you quotes from dozens of MDs telling you the "left brain / right brain" is a false dichotomy and an oversimplification. Please don't tell me that news stub even begins to compare.


P.S. I don't know how I could go about proving this to you because it's a freaking rotating image, but I honestly see the image rotating clockwise. Yet I'm willing to bet you'd put me under the left side column (which includes "facts rules", "math and science", and "logic" - the things you were claiming atheists, in their supposed left brain hemisphere dominance, were into).

P.S. I don't know how I could go about proving this to you because it's a freaking rotating image, but I honestly see the image rotating clockwise. Yet I'm willing to bet you'd put me under the left side column (which includes "facts rules", "math and science", and "logic" - the things you were claiming atheists, in their supposed left brain hemisphere dominance, were into).

Hi Rust it seems we're posting simultaneously. For a more scientific view by the winner of a Nobel prize see the post above yours. As for the rotating image it was a bit of froth and bubble meant more to amuse BP than to convince you:) I found the variety of responses of most interest and, ... no I have not made any assumptions about you. As previously stated I respect your views as a positive contribution even tho I'm not always convinced by them. Mostly that's because you also seem fixated upon winning the argument to the point where you feel it's appropriate to be rude. There's an axiom that goes something like this: Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care

Redzed? Did you read your own source?

“When someone says they are right or left-brain it’s really just a metaphor for a cognitive style”, says neuropsychologist Associate Professor Michael Saling from the University Melbourne and Austin Health’s Epilepsy Research Centre. “Without a doubt the popular left and right division of the brain is an over-simplification. For example, research is showing that musical, artistic and intuitive thinking can’t be thought of as strictly lateralised, or exclusively of the right hemisphere ".


Spaling says we know with confidence that basic language processes are predominantly controlled by the left hemisphere, and spatial cognition like navigation or face recognition are coordinated by the right hemisphere. But when it comes to the question of ability, both hemispheres work in concert with each other.


“Every single cognitive function has right hemisphere and left hemisphere components. To avoid competition between the two halves of the brain there is a division of labour between the left and the right”, says Saling."


...




"

The story of Nico illustrates that a person can get by without half a brain. But for most of us it’s the intimate interaction between the two hemispheres of our brain that makes us who we are.


This especially seems to be the case amongst mathematically gifted adolescents. In a recent study by scientists at the University of Melbourne and the U.S Army Research Institute for Behavioural and Social Sciences, mathematically gifted students showed a faster and more accurate ability to exchange information between hemispheres than those of average mathematical ability. The researchers describe this as “enhanced interhemispheric interaction and collaboration…and a highly integrated form of bilateralism”




What you quoted was them showing two aspects, verbal and spatial, that seems to be, on average, much more localized in either left or right hemispheres than other aspects. That's it. It doesn't say that it resides completey in one spot or the other. Great. I don't mind conceding that. That in no way means what you claimed regarding atheists and empiricism.

What you quoted was them showing two aspects, verbal and spatial, that seems to be, on average, much more localized in either left or right hemispheres than other aspects. That's it. It doesn't say that it resides completey in one spot or the other. Great. I don't mind conceding that. That in no way means what you claimed regarding atheists and empiricism.

Of course I read it Rust and presented it as a balanced view in which both sides of this debate are able to find some support. Why? I'm not speaking in absolutes nor claiming superior knowledge. I acknowledge there are two sides to the debate as it should be! Science does not yet know all there is to know. Rather than taking it personally, please read my original post as an attempt to reconcile the differences. So you disagree, great, and you've made some intelligent responses, even better! Is that not the way to discovering truth? Examine both points of view? Remember our discussions regarding free will vs determinism? Eventually you persuaded me of the validity of your opinion. How is this different?

That's the problem! Both sides haven't found some support, even with what you just posted!

One side is: "deists are right brain hemisphere dominant and atheists are left brain hemisphere dominant. The right brain dominant person sees the big picture and then if necessary will fill in the details later. The left brain wants to add up all the detailed empirical evidence before building the big picture."

The other side is: "That's a bullshit oversimplification".

What does the article you provided show? That it is an oversimplification, and that the only evidence they cite supporting some localization is regarding verbal and image recognition, and that, as far as they say, it applies to all humans. So really, it is not a "article form a different point of view" as you said; in the relevant topic, this article and I are in agrement (i.e are of the same point of view).

So I replied the way I did because your article doesn't support the oppossite. It supports just what I said: the left/right dichtotomy is an oversimplification and there is no evidence that atheists are "left brain dominant" or even right brain dominant. When someone implies that I'm not presenting both sides of the story I take it as they are saying that I deliberately haven't presented facts/evidence that proves/supports that I'm wrong. I haven't. I also take when they say that they are going to present the other side of the story, as if they are presenting evidence that shows the oppossite. You haven't.


no I have not made any assumptions about you. As previously stated I respect your views as a positive contribution even tho I'm not always convinced by them


Well you said the atheists here are left brain dominant so I'm assuming that me, being an atheist in this forum, would be "left brain dominant" as you said. Yet I'm an atheist and I see the rotating picture as rotating clockwise, which according to your article should mean I'm right brained. Either you are wrong, the article is wrong, or both you and the article are wrong.

Mostly that's because you also seem fixated upon winning the argument to the point where you feel it's appropriate to be rude. There's an axiom that goes something like this: Nobody cares how much you know until they know how much you care

Here's my axiom: If what you're saying is true, nobody should give a fuck whether you care or not.

I'm here to express myself, and try to tell truths - as close as I can get to doing that at least - not to be polite to people. If the people I'm talking to don't appreciate any truth I might be saying just because it's not polite, then too fucking bad. (See? Rude!) I'm not going to force myself to walk on eggshells just because the other person happens to believe it's better to utter falsehoods while being polite than uttering truth while being rude.

That being said, I try to be polite to those who deserve it, but of course I fail to do so at times.

Wolfy, fear is not a feeling. Neither is hatred. And death is certainly not the cessation of cellular activity (Ever see a headless chicken run around? Ever been bitten by a dead snake?). Anxiety...that's a feeling, which can be partner to fear as much as love or any other type of belief. It's the sensation of imminent decision: What do I do right NOW? That's not fear, numbnuts, that's confusion as your fairy tale is reconciled to reality. It's what you experience right before you learn the truth about a matter...right as everything you thought to be real is shown as bullshit and a little bit of truth creeps into your closed mind. It's quite enjoyable, really. What many consider fear is shown to be the first step of learning...that is, if you make a hobby out of facing it.

So you took a step and decided to throw God out in the hopes of freeing your mind...or for any multitude of reasons. Maybe a pastor felt you up...maybe your over-religious parents beat you...who the fuck knows. I did it because I wanted to fuck who I wanted to when I wanted to...and God certainly didn't approve of that. It was a fun journey...sitting high, casting judgment down on the lunatics who dare think a God exist. I just loved the bitterness :rolleyes:. If Godlessness is indeed the truth, then why does it need your defense? Wouldn't it be discovered over and over again to be the truth, as all matters of truth are? Governments can hide it every now and then...so can private organizations...but truth always prevails, because it doesn't change and can always be found again by anyone willing to look for it. If God isn't, dear Wolfy, then how come the discovery that trumps government after government and organization after organization is not that God is dead, but that God is indeed alive and working in the hearts of man. And this! This, in spite of all the horrors in this world and all the attempts to mislead the people down paths of materialistic egoism and self-seeking! Do you know where to find God? Look inside your self and uncover the eternal channel linking your soul to the Creator's...it's there, brother...even if you think you hate God and can't believe in such nonsense, it is there. No matter the nation, the oppression, the lies and the deceits, God is waiting inside every man's heart to be discovered and embraced. Nothing can kill that truth, nor is it in need of defending. You'll find it just as any other if you look for it.

I love you^

He meant matter or/and energy
Light is a physical (that you can look at) manifestation of energy




I don't see why God can't include all this energy and matter, I can't see why God has to be energy an matter. I can't see why God can't be what he wants, seeing as he is the baddest muthafucker around.

The argument that no evidence of God means no God has been covered, so there's no need for me to continue.

Wouldn't it be discovered over and over again to be the truth, as all matters of truth are?

lol!
Trolls say the darnest things!

Well you said the atheists here are left brain dominant so I'm assuming that me, being an atheist in this forum, would be "left brain dominant" as you said.

Here's what I actually wrote: "On the other hand the responses on this forum suggest that deists are right brain hemisphere dominant and atheists are left brain hemisphere dominant."

Not an absolute statement as your partial quote makes out. Fact is there is much in brain research that supports the seperate left/right brain functions had you scrolled down from the rotating dance r you would see those and they are consistent with my original post.

There is no question of crossover, however accepting there are differences as you have conceded, I am hypothesising those differences may be the reason theists and atheists are both so damn set upon proving each other wrong rather than finding reasons for the divide. You say those differences are trivial and perhaps not universal, however there is opinion that brain hemisphere dominance is not set that rather it switchs depending on the tasks etc. In any case how big a difference does it need to be seeing as there are posters here who have been theists and are now atheists and vice versa?

As for being polite and tolerant, if there are in fact physical reasons for people to believe in God then who has the right to criticise them? And how does one show that attempts to enlighten the other 'side' are anything more than egoism by being ignorant, rude, or insulting?

For example Todd Murphy is a Behavioral Neuroscientist associated with Dr. Michael Persinger and as a child he had visions, he later discovered the probable cause was temporal lobe epilepsy.

... this from neuroscientist Michael Persinger:
"Within the last five years science has found that single point mutations on genes can produce permanent changes in speech production. There is now evidence that point mutations, whose mechanisms must still be discerned, can diffuse within decades throughout entire populations. There have been approximately 15 million changes in our species' genome since our common ancestor with the chimpanzee. There are human accelerated regions in the genome with genes known to be involved in transcriptional regulation and neurodevelopment. They are expressed within brain structures that would have allowed precisely the types of phenomena that Jaynes predicted had occurred around 3,500 years ago. Related genes, attributed to religious beliefs, are found on the same chromosome (for example, chromosome 10) as propensities for specific forms of epilepsy (partial, with auditory features) and schizophrenia. ..." (Persinger, 2007).


The implications are confronting and perhaps life changing, but the point in context with my original post is that there may be actual physical differences between the brain of an atheist and a theist! That being so should we not extend each other the courtesy of respect, tolerance and a civil tone?

That being so should we not extend each other the courtesy of respect, tolerance and a civil tone?

Hostility is hard to disguise, when dealing with somone who is not aware enough to realize they have been completely and roundly trounced in an argument.

It is hard to disguise whenever someone keeps regressing their argument in order to save a little face.

---------

Huh, guess it wasn't that hard to do afterall, didnt call you a cuntface once!

:)

Atheism, as an explicit position, can be either the affirmation of the nonexistence of gods,[1] or the rejection of theism.[2] It is also[3] defined more broadly as synonymous with any form of nontheism, including the simple absence of belief in deities.[4][5][6][7]

Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism[8] and naturalism,[9] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere;[10] and some religions, such as Jainism and Theravada Buddhism, do not require belief in a personal god.

The term atheism originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion.[11] With the spread of freethought, scientific skepticism, and criticism of religion, the term began to gather a more specific meaning and has been increasingly used as a self-description by atheists.


Wikipedia deems the OP false.

Not an absolute statement as your partial quote makes out.

Not absolute in that you use the word "suggest", however, absolute in that I am an atheist of this forum, hence you are saying that the responses in this forum suggest I am left brain dominant. The same still applies: Either I disprove the link you gave, I disprove those suggestions or I disprove both.


Fact is there is much in brain research that supports the seperate left/right brain functions had you scrolled down from the rotating dance r you would see those and they are consistent with my original post. Where is that exactly, because I see no such research in the article with the "rotating dancer".

There is no question of crossover, however accepting there are differences as you have conceded, I am hypothesising those differences may be the reason theists and atheists are both so damn set upon proving each other wrong rather than finding reasons for the divide. I know what you're hypothesizing - the problem is there is nothing substantiating that "hypothesis"!

The only thing I "conceded" - and that's not even the correct word though I realize I myself used it - is that verbal aspects in humans could be found more localized in one hemisphere. That however, doesn't come close to supporting your claim (or "suggestion"). You don't need one aspect being localized in all humans. You need a specific aspect ([wanting] to add up all the detailed empirical evidence before building the big picture" - which could be summarized as being more empirical minded) localized in some humans more than others!


You say those differences are trivial and perhaps not universal, however there is opinion that brain hemisphere dominance is not set that rather it switchs depending on the tasks etc. In any case how big a difference does it need to be seeing as there are posters here who have been theists and are now atheists and vice versa?If it's switches, all the more reason why suggesting that atheists of this board are "left brain dominant" is silly!

Similarly, the switching also doesn't help your case. We would expect that if there is something different in the brains of theists/atheists, that they wouldn't change, since their brain is hard-wired to accept one or the other!


As for being polite and tolerant, if there are in fact physical reasons for people to believe in God then who has the right to criticise them? And how does one show that attempts to enlighten the other 'side' are anything more than egoism by being ignorant, rude, or insulting?1. Where are you getting that there are physical reasons for people to believe in god? Have you established that at all here? If you're speaking hypothetically then any answer I give is still contingent on that actually happening. When and if we find that this is the case, then and only then would I have to consider this.

Not to mention that being rude does not necessarily mean unjustly criticizing someone for something they have no control over.

EDIT: Also, following your lead, can't I ask "If there are physical reasons for people being more rude, then who has the right to criticize them?". Not only does that question mirror your own, but I would say there is the same type of "evidence" regarding the brain affecting rudeness - for example frontal lobe damage causing personality changes (thus me being able to "hypothesize" that different frontal lobes make for more/less rude people...


2. Like I said: If what you're saying is true, nobody should give a fuck whether you care or not.

The other side shouldn't give a damn if your true statements are attempts at egoism or honest enlightenment. If you say that 2+2 =5 and I correct you by saying it's 4, you shouldn't give a fuck whether I'm masturbating in my own home over the vastly superior intellect I have or whether I'm peacefully meditating and thanking the universe that one more honest soul in the world has been enlightened. My reasons are inconsequential to the truth (or falsehood) of the statement.


The implications are confronting and perhaps life changing, but the point in context with my original post is that there may be actual physical differences between the brain of an atheist and a theist! That being so should we not extend each other the courtesy of respect, tolerance and a civil tone?"There maybe" is not a meaningful statement if not backed-up with meaningful evidence. Unless you're suggesting the theists in this board have epilepsy - which is what that quote refers to - then I don't see how your "maybe" is anything more than rampant speculation.

Wolfy, fear is not a feeling. Neither is hatred. And death is certainly not the cessation of cellular activity (Ever see a headless chicken run around? Ever been bitten by a dead snake?). Anxiety...that's a feeling, which can be partner to fear as much as love or any other type of belief. It's the sensation of imminent decision: What do I do right NOW? That's not fear, numbnuts, that's confusion as your fairy tale is reconciled to reality. It's what you experience right before you learn the truth about a matter...right as everything you thought to be real is shown as bullshit and a little bit of truth creeps into your closed mind. It's quite enjoyable, really. What many consider fear is shown to be the first step of learning...that is, if you make a hobby out of facing it.

So you took a step and decided to throw God out in the hopes of freeing your mind...or for any multitude of reasons. Maybe a pastor felt you up...maybe your over-religious parents beat you...who the fuck knows. I did it because I wanted to fuck who I wanted to when I wanted to...and God certainly didn't approve of that. It was a fun journey...sitting high, casting judgment down on the lunatics who dare think a God exist. I just loved the bitterness :rolleyes:. If Godlessness is indeed the truth, then why does it need your defense? Wouldn't it be discovered over and over again to be the truth, as all matters of truth are? Governments can hide it every now and then...so can private organizations...but truth always prevails, because it doesn't change and can always be found again by anyone willing to look for it. If God isn't, dear Wolfy, then how come the discovery that trumps government after government and organization after organization is not that God is dead, but that God is indeed alive and working in the hearts of man. And this! This, in spite of all the horrors in this world and all the attempts to mislead the people down paths of materialistic egoism and self-seeking! Do you know where to find God? Look inside your self and uncover the eternal channel linking your soul to the Creator's...it's there, brother...even if you think you hate God and can't believe in such nonsense, it is there. No matter the nation, the oppression, the lies and the deceits, God is waiting inside every man's heart to be discovered and embraced. Nothing can kill that truth, nor is it in need of defending. You'll find it just as any other if you look for it.


Hexadecimal, please use paragraphs. http://www.totse.com/community/images/icons/icon4.gif

First let us define personification: A personification is a figure of speech that gives an inanimate object or abstract idea human traits and qualities, such as emotions, desires, sensations

Let us examine your aforementioned, to see if it fits the definition, shall we?

Clearly none of these are supernatural. Are they personified? Do we supposed atheist peronify them?

Nature: Do we give nature emotions, desires, sensations? This storm desires me.

Science: Do we give science emotions, desires, sensations? The hypothesis is angry at me.

Themselves: Humans are not inanimate objects nor an abstract idea. Humans already possess human traits and qualities and thus cannot be personified as humans.

Money: Do we give money emotions, desires, sensations? My five spot said it is quite warm in my pocket.

Then no, these things are not worshipped as a deity.



Wow, and fuck no.

A = latin suffix meaning without
Theism = belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.

Put 'em together...

Without belief in the existence of one or more divinities or deities.

A person who is defined by the above is an atheist. They can and DO have drive, power and great beliefs. It is just that all of their drives, power and belief are usually comletely grounded in this the real natural world.

You do not have to have an imaginary friend to be special.

I am not upset or surprised you are unable to see this. Your mind is covered and slowed down by the nonsense of religion. Clean it off, and you will find it easier to debate.

Well said.

Flaky, paragraphs are for the conformed. I speak Babylonian as my primary language. We have no paragraphs...only love and hate. AYAYAYAYAYAYAY!

Rust: Wonderful defense.

Fuck you

and you



He meant matter or/and energy
Light is a physical (that you can look at) manifestation of energy


This.

Wtf?! Light IS matter. God almighty. There are these things called PHOTONS. It isn't some "manifestation", it is actual MATTER. I hope you're a troll or something.

So you took a step and decided to throw God out in the hopes of freeing your mind...or for any multitude of reasons. Maybe a pastor felt you up...maybe your over-religious parents beat you...who the fuck knows. I did it because I wanted to fuck who I wanted to when I wanted to...and God certainly didn't approve of that. It was a fun journey...sitting high, casting judgment down on the lunatics who dare think a God exist. I just loved the bitterness :rolleyes:. If Godlessness is indeed the truth, then why does it need your defense? Wouldn't it be discovered over and over again to be the truth, as all matters of truth are? Governments can hide it every now and then...so can private organizations...but truth always prevails, because it doesn't change and can always be found again by anyone willing to look for it. If God isn't, dear Wolfy, then how come the discovery that trumps government after government and organization after organization is not that God is dead, but that God is indeed alive and working in the hearts of man. And this! This, in spite of all the horrors in this world and all the attempts to mislead the people down paths of materialistic egoism and self-seeking! Do you know where to find God? Look inside your self and uncover the eternal channel linking your soul to the Creator's...it's there, brother...even if you think you hate God and can't believe in such nonsense, it is there. No matter the nation, the oppression, the lies and the deceits, God is waiting inside every man's heart to be discovered and embraced. Nothing can kill that truth, nor is it in need of defending. You'll find it just as any other if you look for it.


Because people are delusional and love to be told what to believe, for hope. I mean, I can't really blame the whole of man, living in squalor and hopeless situations, they need some feeling of comfort and security. Also, the power of indoctrination at a young age is VERY strong. And 99.9% of people don't understand the flaws in the watchmaker argument, nor wtf the anthropic principle is. In short, people are lazy and would rather have comfort than to search for what actually has support and evidence. Nonetheless, atheism has grown rampant throughout Europe and is growing in the U.S., yet look at where theism is most fervent, the middle east. God, I'd love to live there, under "God's law"...lol. It's also (coincidentally!) a region with little freedom of thought and much thought suppression. Interesting.

Because people are delusional and love to be told what to believe, for hope. I mean, I can't really blame the whole of man, living in squalor and hopeless situations, they need some feeling of comfort and security. Also, the power of indoctrination at a young age is VERY strong. And 99.9% of people don't understand the flaws in the watchmaker argument, nor wtf the anthropic principle is. In short, people are lazy and would rather have comfort than to search for what actually has support and evidence. Nonetheless, atheism has grown rampant throughout Europe and is growing in the U.S., yet look at where theism is most fervent, the middle east. God, I'd love to live there, under "God's law"...lol. It's also (coincidentally!) a region with little freedom of thought and much thought suppression. Interesting.

More interesting: The nation that first freed the human mind from religious oppression is founded on the equality and liberty of God's creations. What more needs to be said about your viewpoint than this: You do not understand the difference between imposed concepts of gods (indoctrination) and the Revelation found within the heart.

More interesting: The nation that first freed the human mind from religious oppression is founded on the equality and liberty of God's creations. What more needs to be said about your viewpoint than this: You do not understand the difference between imposed concepts of gods (indoctrination) and the Revelation found within the heart.

I'm not sure what your first point is, it is sort of muddled. On the second point, I would simply say very, very few people have that "revelation" without first having the indoctrination part. See how many people have the "revelation" in irreligious countries. That's why it takes missionaries and others to MAKE it happen.

Rust: Wonderful defense.

What defense? There was something to defend against? You just said an incredibly outrageous statement that you didn't even begin to substantiate... there's nothing to defend.

Flaky, paragraphs are for the conformed. I speak Babylonian as my primary language. We have no paragraphs...only love and hate. AYAYAYAYAYAYAY!.

How do you say "You're a lying fucksack" in Babylonian?

or

"When you met God, face to face, did he scold you for being a rapist"?

You can give it a shot and meet It or you can continue on your present course as if the idea was never presented.

You act like I'm here preaching doctrine. I'm not telling you what's right and wrong. I'm not telling you that you have to follow God. I'm telling you how I met God. Want to give it a try? Cool. Don't? Cool. That's not religion, or anything even closely resembling it. It's an easily duplicated experience, which is entirely up to an individual to decide whether or not they'll do the incredibly small amount of work necessary to first contact God. You choose not to partake in It. I do. Just be glad I haven't been indoctrinated...I might be told it's right to kill you for your godlessness!

Further: Nobody ever told me to seek God. Lot's of people told God to have mercy on my soul and other such shit, but that's about it.

God does not believe in atheists.

Shit, I came into this thread only to say this. :mad:

I'm starting to wonder if toste exists.

I'm starting to wonder if toste exists.

:eek:

:eek:

Doesn't that just make a chill go down your spine?

According to Atheism, Atheism doesn't exist because its having the belief that life is without divine beings or deities. But on the other hand, this is a cottage crab: http://abyss.davidmlawrence.com/uploaded_images/10CottageCrab_10Mar2007-768878.jpg

According to Atheism, Atheism doesn't exist because its having the belief that life is without divine beings or deities. But on the other hand, this is a cottage crab: http://abyss.davidmlawrence.com/uploaded_images/10CottageCrab_10Mar2007-768878.jpg


LOL WUT :confused:

According to Atheism, Atheism doesn't exist because its having the belief that life is without divine beings or deities. But on the other hand, this is a cottage crab: http://abyss.davidmlawrence.com/uploaded_images/10CottageCrab_10Mar2007-768878.jpg

Now I want lobster. How long do you need to boil one?

Where is that exactly, because I see no such research in the article with the "rotating dancer".



Had you looked to the left of the dance ryou would ahve seen this:
LEFT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
uses logic
detail oriented
facts rule
words and language
present and past
math and science
can comprehend
knowing
acknowledges
order/pattern perception
knows object name
reality based
forms strategies
practical
safe

RIGHT BRAIN FUNCTIONS
uses feeling
"big picture" oriented
imagination rules
symbols and images
present and future
philosophy & religion
can "get it" (i.e. meaning)
believes
appreciates
spatial perception
knows object function
fantasy based
presents possibilities
impetuous
risk taking

The 'atheists' have so far given more validity to the above list for me than any other research I've seen. Your posts are full of it. You dissect the argument whereas a deist/theist will describe 'their' big picture. You will then demand facts, backed up by logic. Whereas for the 'believer', feelings and intuition, gut feelings, are more important. Does this suggest the theist does not use facts or logic? No! However the atheists also use feelings and intutuion except, by and large, they appear to be subordinated to -- logic, facts, empirical evidence.

Can you see faith? Or hope? Or Love?

The intention was to understand, not to criticise! Would you argue against a theory where atheists want tangible evidence whereas believers tend to be satisfied more by the intangibles?

The intention was to understand, not to criticise! Would you argue against a theory where atheists want tangible evidence whereas believers tend to be satisfied more by the intangibles?

If the theory lacked empirical evidence I would.

What you want to suggest is Atheists use the logic side dominated by things like facts, and Theists use the fantasy side dominated by things like feelings?

As much as I would like to believe that (and believe me I would) I would still have to ask for more evidence.

Further: Nobody ever told me to seek God. Lot's of people told God to have mercy on my soul and other such shit, but that's about it.

Yes, b/c people telling you that your soul will be consumed in hellfire and they hope God will have mercy on it............in NO way entices you to check out a bit more into this God fella.

Had you looked to the left of the dance ryou would ahve seen this:

I did see that. That's not what you claimed it was. You said:

"Fact is there is much in brain research that supports the seperate left/right brain functions had you scrolled down from the rotating dance r you would see those and they are consistent with my original post."


How are those two lists "research"? They are not. Not even close.They are reiterations of the same claims. That's it. Claims that are baseless, as far as that dancer link goes, not only because they provide no evidence but because I myself refute their observations (or yours)!

The 'atheists' have so far given more validity to the above list for me than any other research I've seen. Your posts are full of it. You dissect the argument whereas a deist/theist will describe 'their' big picture. You will then demand facts, backed up by logic. Whereas for the 'believer', feelings and intuition, gut feelings, are more important. Does this suggest the theist does not use facts or logic? No! However the atheists also use feelings and intutuion except, by and large, they appear to be subordinated to -- logic, facts, empirical evidence.

It seems with your late reply you've completely forgotten the discussion. Please read it again:

1. You're reiterating the same claims again. I don't need them reiterated. I understand your claims (or "suggestions") well. I need them substantiated. You haven't done so.

2. My posts are precisely what refute those lists because, like I already said before in the conversation, I see the dancer going clockwise and thus I would fall into the category you claim theists would fall.


The intention was to understand, not to criticise! Would you argue against a theory where atheists want tangible evidence whereas believers tend to be satisfied more by the intangibles?

Yes, I would since there is basis for that "theory".

It seems with your late reply you've completely forgotten the discussion. Please read it again:

2. My posts are precisely what refute those lists because, like I already said before in the conversation, I see the dancer going clockwise and thus I would fall into the category you claim theists would fall.

Yes, I would since there is basis for that "theory".

Sorry;) I have a life aside from TOTSE so replies may take some time. Personally I can see the dancer turning either way.
Here's a more info regarding left/right brain functions:
http://www.viewzone.com/bicam.html
First, some science.

We'll keep this light and uncomplicated. Our brain, like the rest of our anatomy, is made up of two halves, a left brain a right brain. There's a big fold that goes from front to back in our brain, essentially dividing it into two distinct and separate parts. Well, almost separate. They are connected to each other by a thick cable of nerves at the base of each brain. This sole link between the two giant processors is called the corpus collosum. Think of it as an Ethernet cable or network connection between two incredibly fast and immensely powerful computer processors, each running different programs from the same input.



The left side of our body is "wired" to the right side of our brain, and vice versa. For whatever reason nature did this cross-over, it applies even to our eyes, which process a majority of their sensory data on opposite sides of the brain.
We can thank Nobel Prize Winner (1981) Roger Sperry for this next contribution. Sperry conducted what are sometimes called the "split-brain" experiments. Here's how it went: A patient suffering from uncontrolled seizures had an area of his brain removed by surgery in an attempt to control his illness. This area just happened to be the corpus collosum, which was suspected of having developed lesions (short circuits).

Following his surgery, Sperry's patient seemed completely normal -- almost. A series of tests were conducted where each "half" of the patient was isolated from the other. Different visual and tactile information could then be presented to the patient's left or right side, without the other side knowing. The results were astounding.

With their communications link severed, each side of the patient's brain was functioning independently. Although this did not prevent his ability to walk, talk and eat, some unexpected findings were encountered in some of the higher brain functions when each side was examined independently of the other.

The right hand and eye could name an object, such as a pencil, but the patient could not explain what it was used for. When shown to the left hand and eye, the patient could explain and demonstrate its use, but could not name it. Further studies showed that various functions of thought are physically separated and localized to a specific area on either the left or right side of the human brain. This functional map is consistent for an estimated 70 to 95 percent of us.


The main theme to emerge... is that there appear to be two modes of thinking, verbal and nonverbal, represented rather separately in left and right hemispheres respectively and that our education system, as well as science in general, tends to neglect the nonverbal form of intellect. What it comes down to is that modern society discriminates against the right hemisphere.
-Roger Sperry (1973)

Upon completing the map, it was becoming clear to researchers that each side of the brain had a characteristic way that it both interpreted the world and reacted to it. The chart below will help illustrate the characteristics which are known to reside on each side of our brains.


LEFT BRAIN FUNCTIONS

uses logic
detail oriented
facts rule
words and language
present and past
math and science
can comprehend
knowing
acknowledges
order/pattern perception
knows object name
reality based
forms strategies
practical
safe
RIGHT BRAIN FUNCTIONS

uses feeling
"big picture" oriented
imagination rules
symbols and images
present and future
philosophy & religion
can "get it" (i.e. meaning)
believes
appreciates
spatial perception
knows object function
fantasy based
presents possibilities
impetuous
risk taking


Our personality can be thought of as a result of the degree to which these left and right brains interact, or, in some cases, do not interact. It is a simplification to identify "left brain" types who are very analytical and orderly. We likewise certainly know of the artistic, unpredictability and creativity of "right brain" types. But each of us draws upon specific sides of our brain for a variety of daily functions, depending on such things as our age, education and life experiences. The choices of which brain is in control of which situations is what forges our personalities and determines our character.

Experiments show that most children rank highly creative (right brain) before entering school. Because our educational systems place a higher value on left brain skills such as mathematics, logic and language than it does on drawing or using our imagination, only ten percent of these same children will rank highly creative by age 7. By the time we are adults, high creativity remains in only 2 percent of the population.

And some more:
http://www.indiana.edu/%7Epietsch/split-brain.html
And again:
http://www.melvinmorse.com/e-tlp.htm:
Deep right temporal lobe and associated limbic lobe structures are clearly linked to human religious experiences of all types, including conversion experiences and near death experiences. Simply because religious experiences are brain based does not automatically lessen or demean their spiritual significance. Indeed, the findings of neurological substrates to religious experiences can be argued to provide evidence for their objective reality.

........

The mesial right temporal lobe, hippocampus, and associated limbic lobe structures are implicated as the biological substrates of out of body and religious experiences. The evidence for this includes studies of temporal lobe pathology, direct electrical stimulation studies, studies of temporal lobe epileptics, experimental studies of near death experiences(NDEs), and clinical studies comparing ketamine and LSD experiences and the actions of associated neurotransmitters within the human brain.

Early case reports demonstrated that tumors in the temporal regions were often associated with visual hallucinations. These hallucinations included visions of "a strange looking wicked looking woman in a dress", to "pictured scenes and mirages", to flashes of light and luminous objects.(Henschen 1925, Jackson 1889-90) For example, one report of a boy with a cystic glioma in the right temporal lobe resulted in a vivid three dimensional vision of a man dressed in white.(Cushing 1921). Kennedy was one of the first to identify vividly real hallucinations of an audio-visual nature, localized outside of the body as being temporal lobe in origin.(Kennedy 1911).

A more recent study describes a patient who reported a feeling of being far away from his body on right temporal mesolimbic structure stimulation.(Gloor). Michael Persinger has developed a method of weak electrical stimulation of the right temporal lobe without neurosurgical intervention, which he used to study college students. He describes them as having a "God experience".(Persinger 1987)

Temporal epileptics describe having seizures which involve religious elements, including the sort of dramatic transformations described after near death experiences.(Morse 1992) I reported on a 12 year old girl who described leaving her physical body, traveling down a tunnel to a place she felt was heaven; not after nearly dying, but in the context of EEG findings consistent with right temporal epilepsy(Morse 1994) In one series, 88% of patients who saw themselves from a vantage point of being outside the body, or seeing one’s one body externalized in space had a temporal lobe focus(Devinsky 1989).
......................
Many of the experiences in temporal lobe epileptics involve phenomena such as deja vu, jamais vu, memory recall, and visual and auditory hallucinations.(Palmini 1992, So 1993). Feelings of religious ecstacy (Williams 1956) and double consciousness, meaning the simultaneous experience of one’s ordinary consciousness and the perception of another reality are again linked to right temporal lobe epilepsy.(Mendez 1996). Religious conversion is also described. (Dewhurst 1970). Finally, Morgan (1990) makes a direct correlation between the religious ecstasies reported in the works of Dostoyevsky and seizures caused by a right temporal lobe astrocytoma. The latter involved feelings of detachment, ineffable contentment, visualizing a bright light recognized as the source of all knowledge, and seeing "Jesus Christ".



Given the above it seems the right brain is implicated in religious experience and as stated previously the replies by yourself and others do support the theory. This does not mean it's right or wrong or superior/inferior which side of the brain dominates or whether it is some other factor that makes theists and atheists disagree, it's simply information. How does that fit with observations of reality? Sure all of us will still have right and left brain functions, however one or the other will tend to dominate and your replies and demands for evidence are consistent with the claims made for left brain dominance. Helps me understand some of your replies and why you react the way you do:)

Sorry;) I have a life aside from TOTSE so replies may take some timeIt's not the lateness of the reply that's the problem, but the complete lack of any admission that you were wrong in claiming there was research in that link when there was none or that you have gone far off track regarding the discussion. As for the links:

1. The sources they use are old as fuck. A quote from 1973, for example, when you yourself complained about the age of my link which provided quotes that were much recent.

2. They come from utterly ridiculous sources. A pediatrician peddling this unsubstantiated worldview (http://www.melvinmorse.com/light.htm) and a oddball that writes for this site (http://www.viewzone.com/)

Hardly compelling sources. The only compelling source would be the second link you provide from Indiana University, except it's old, really old, and deals mainly with split brain operations... which nobody is denying!

Again: Nobody has denied that the left and right hemisphere show some different functions to the extent shown in split-brain patient experiments. That last bit is the important part. Your claims aren't limited to to the extent shown in those experiments, you speculate wildly on what side an atheist would favor and what side a theist would favor. You have not provided any credible link that supports that idea. None.

But hey, in the interest of providing large amounts of text for the other person to read:

"
This news article (http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,22492511-5005375,00.html), like many others, ignores the true source of this optical illusion and instead claims it is a quick test to see if you use more of your right brain or left brain. This is utter nonsense, but the “right-brain/left brain” thing is in the public consciousness and won’t be going away anytime soon. Sure, we have two hemispheres that operate fine independently and have different abilities, but they are massively interconnected and work together as a seamless whole (providing you have never had surgery to cut your corpus callosum).

We also do have hemispheric dominance, but that determines mostly your handedness and the probability of language being on the right or the left. There is also often asymmetry for memory, with some being right or left hemisphere dominant. But none of this means that your personality or abilities are more right brain or left brain. That much is nonsense.

Further, how your visual cortex constructs this optical illusion says nothing about your hemispheric dominance, and is absolutely not a quick personality profile."


-- Steven Novella, Director of the General Neurology Program at Yale University. http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php?p=27




"So what does phrenology have to do with the current left-brain/right-brain mentality? In short, everything. Just like phrenology, the left-right craze is based on a fundamental scientific observation, namely that the two hemispheres are not identical in function, and just like phrenology, the concept has been seriously overblown and misapplied. The fact is, with few exceptions, just about any function or ability you can imagine involves a host of coordinated brain circuits in both hemispheres. The two sides may make somewhat different contributions to these abilities, but these differences generally pale in comparison to differences in function we see between networks within the hemispheres, such as those networks that support visual recognition versus those that enable language comprehension.

The parallels between popular left-brain/right brain dichotomies and phrenology run even deeper, though, as both concepts are based on a more fundamental misconception about brain organization, namely that complex functions are carried out by circumscribed islands of brain tissue. Look at just about any map of brain function and you will find tidy parcellations, like cuts of beef, with labels such as “language,” “memory,” “vision,” and “thought.” But this drastically oversimplifies the picture. For example, there is no “language area.” Instead our ability to use language is supported by a coordinated and widely distributed network of circuits spanning many regions in both hemispheres. These circuits may be individually specialized in function, to be sure, but it is the integrated action of the network that gives rise to our capacity for language. Furthermore, some of these circuits are not slaves to a linguistic taskmaster, but participate in other abilities as well. The same holds true of other functions.

So to say that the left-brain does one thing, and the right-brain does another, is a throw-back to phrenology (and a clumsy one at that!), that fails to recognize the more dynamic, interactive, network-based organization of brain function. So get with the network. Left-brain/right-brain is so 19th century! "

- UC Irvine's Center for Cognitive Neuroscience



"To most neuroscientists, of course, these notions are seen as simplistic at best and nonsense at worst. So there was general satisfaction when, a couple of years ago, a simple brain scanner test appeared to reveal the true story about one of neurology's greatest puzzles: exactly what is the difference between the two sides of the human brain? Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on how you like your theories, the big picture revealed by that work is proving far less romantic than the logical-creative split, intriguingly complex and tough to prove.
...
Such brain-aching complexities mean that this new line in hemispheric research is still in its early days. But at least there seems no prospect of a return to the old left-right caricatures that inspired so many self-help books exhorting people to liberate their right brains and avoid too much sterile left-brain thinking. As Fink says, whatever the story about lateralisation, simple dichotomies are out. It is how the two sides of the brain complement and combine that counts."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321934.600-left-brain-right-brain.html



Another quick one:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/258066



Sure all of us will still have right and left brain functions, however one or the other will tend to dominate and your replies and demands for evidence are consistent with the claims made for left brain dominance. Helps me understand some of your replies and why you react the way you doWrong. Like the articles above show, what you're saying is utter non-sense. I demand evidence because I see the importance of evidence. If you don't, then that's not a feature of "left" or "right" brain dominance, it's a feature of irrationality.

And again, I see the woman rotating clockwise so by the atrocious "logic" of the article you provided I should be acting as a right-brained dominant person yet you are pigeon holing me as left-brained. That's how ridiculous the dichotomy is: it's not even applied consistently.

It's not the lateness of the reply that's the problem, but the complete lack of any admission that you were wrong in claiming there was research in that link when there was none or that you have gone far off track regarding the discussion. had you read the above you would see there was research in that article as you would see the link to the original, my bad on the position.

As for the links:

1. The sources they use are old as fuck. A quote from 1973, for example, when you yourself complained about the age of my link which provided quotes that were much recent.
The point is it depends on your POV.

2. They come from utterly ridiculous sources. A pediatrician peddling this unsubstantiated worldview (http://www.melvinmorse.com/light.htm) and a oddball that writes for this site (http://www.viewzone.com/)
In your opinion.

Hardly compelling sources. The only compelling source would be the second link you provide from Indiana University, except it's old, really old, and deals mainly with split brain operations... which nobody is denying!

Again: Nobody has denied that the left and right hemisphere show some different functions to the extent shown in split-brain patient experiments. That last bit is the important part. Your claims aren't limited to to the extent shown in those experiments, you speculate wildly on what side an atheist would favor and what side a theist would favor. You have not provided any credible link that supports that idea. None.
Yes the speculation has never been the issue, in fact that's the process!
But hey, in the interest of providing large amounts of text for the other person to read: In other words 'don't bother you didn't read them'?

- UC Irvine's Center for Cognitive Neuroscience



"To most neuroscientists, of course, these notions are seen as simplistic at best and nonsense at worst. So there was general satisfaction when, a couple of years ago, a simple brain scanner test appeared to reveal the true story about one of neurology's greatest puzzles: exactly what is the difference between the two sides of the human brain? Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on how you like your theories, the big picture revealed by that work is proving far less romantic than the logical-creative split, intriguingly complex and tough to prove.
...
Such brain-aching complexities mean that this new line in hemispheric research is still in its early days. But at least there seems no prospect of a return to the old left-right caricatures that inspired so many self-help books exhorting people to liberate their right brains and avoid too much sterile left-brain thinking. As Fink says, whatever the story about lateralisation, simple dichotomies are out. It is how the two sides of the brain complement and combine that counts."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321934.600-left-brain-right-brain.html
from the article:


the big picture revealed by that work is proving far less romantic than the logical-creative split, intriguingly complex and tough to prove.
…………..


As Fink says, whatever the story about lateralisation, simple dichotomies are out. It is how the two sides of the brain complement and combine that counts.

http://www.rense.com/general2/rb.htm


That says what? It says it's "complex and tough to prove", and this: "It is how the two sides of the brain complement and combine that counts." For those who place intangibles such as faith, hope and love, gut feelings, intuition, synchronicity, deja-vue, etc., above tangible evidence, the balance in "how the two sides of the brain complement and combine" is apparently diiferent from those who demand evidence.

had you read the above you would see there was research in that article as you would see the link to the original, my bad on the position.
The point is it depends on your POV.

What above? Please be specific.

Again: You said there was "research" in the original link you provided with the dancer. Tell me where. Apparently there is none because I've been asking you to provide it repeatedly now and you've not. In fact, you provided me their list of what supposedly characterizes "left/right brains" as if that was research (and it just isn't) which tells me you thought that was the research in question!

In your opinion.

No, not in my opinion. Whether neurologists are more qualified to speak about the brain a than a pediatrician and 'some guy on the Internet' is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact.



Yes the speculation has never been the issue, in fact that's the process!

No, it has been the whole issue because I don't question whether or not you can speculate till the cows come home, I question whether the crap you're speculating has anything substantiating it! That's the whole discussion: You speculated and I called bullshit.

In other words 'don't bother you didn't read them'?


No, in other words "Anybody can provide a mountain of text to prove their point, if you want to play like that then here:"



For those who place intangibles such as faith, hope and love, gut feelings, intuition, synchronicity, deja-vue, etc., above tangible evidence, the balance in "how the two sides of the brain complement and combine" is apparently diiferent from those who demand evidence.

Except you ignore the point which was that you were saying and providing links for a false-dichotomy. That article shows how the "left/right brain" bullshit you were buying into (and vehemently providing articles for) is just that, bullshit. There is no such thing as "left dominant" or "right dominant".

If you want to concede that and say that it's how they are both in flux that determines whether you "place the intangible above the tangible" then again: I call bullshit. You've provided nothing to support that's the case, save for an article from a pediatrician that is conveniently happening to be selling books on all this bullshit he's peddling.

atheism is simply not beleiving in transendent deities hence the word A-THEISM as in without theism
/thread

If you want to concede that and say that it's how they are both in flux that determines whether you "place the intangible above the tangible" then again: I call bullshit. You've provided nothing to support that's the case, save for an article from a pediatrician that is conveniently happening to be selling books on all this bullshit he's peddling.

Obviously this is pointless, you continue with your bully bluster if you wish, apparently you did not read up or you would know the doc is also a neurologist. IMHO you amply prove the theory without any need for further reference.

Obviously this is pointless, you continue with your bully bluster if you wish, apparently you did not read up or you would know the doc is also a neurologist. IMHO you amply prove the theory without any need for further reference.

Bully bluster? Are you going to dishonestly call anyone you disagree with a "bully"? What of part of my reply had any characteristic of being bullyish. Please, tell me.

As for the doc being a neurologist, it's obvious that you didn't read up because he is not. He calls himself - there's a humongous difference between being something and you just conveniently calling yourself something to sell books - a "neuroscientist", but he has absolutely no degree in neuroscience/neurology. He's a pediatrician. That's it.

Go read his curriculum vitae for yourself, (http://www.melvinmorse.com/cv.htm) lest you whine and call try to dishonestly say I'm bullying you into believing this. :rolleyes:

As for me proving the theory, no I don't. Like I said, I like Science and evidence. That's it. You have no reason to believe that's because my brain works in some sort of special manner while yours does not. You don't even have a scan of my brain yet you see no problem in saying that I prove your theory! If that's not dishonest, I don't know what is! It would be as honest as me saying: I have a theory that dishonest individuals who call others bullies just because they disagree with them are theists... and you prove the theory.... Not very honest at all. Again, I don't prove your theory if anything I disprove the ridiculous idea that people can be labeled so easily since I already contradict either your own link or your original claim by seeing the dancer go clockwise.

As for me proving the theory, no I don't. Like I said, I like Science and evidence. That's it. You have no reason to believe that's because my brain works in some sort of special manner while yours does not. You don't even have a scan of my brain yet you see no problem in saying that I prove your theory! If that's not dishonest, I don't know what is!
Pot calling the kettle black! You demand evidence, you place logic above faith, you want details -- all consistent with the claimed left brain functions. I advanced a theory as to why atheists and theists think differently. You've twisted that using demeaning language. Apparently you believe if you say 'ridiculous' or 'bullshit' enough times, or use various other means to belittle, that counts as evidence. And what's it for? Are you trying to help out? Can you do that by aggresively attacking other posters with provocative language laced with obscenities? Seems all you are interested in is bolstering your ego by claiming a win. Are you so desperate to be proven right you can't countenance the possibility you may not be? The very quote you provided states there is at present no definitive answer:
the big picture revealed by that work is proving far less romantic than the logical-creative split, intriguingly complex and tough to prove.
…………..


As Fink says, whatever the story about lateralisation, simple dichotomies are out. It is how the two sides of the brain complement and combine that counts.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." -- Arthur Schopenhauer

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." -- Daniel J. Boorstin

Namaste:)

Seems all you are interested in is bolstering your ego by claiming a win.

It is a win. You say so yourself...right here...

The very quote you provided states there is at present no definitive answer

Which is why your answer can be and was called bullshit. You were called on your bullshit and have been crying about it for awhile now.

Let me know if you actually save face at some point.

Are you so desperate to be proven right you can't countenance the possibility you may not be

He is right. Your left brain, right brain dichotomy is more your opinion than it is any valid fact.

Are you so desperate to NOT be proven wrong, you can't contenace the possibilty that you have been?

Cheers:)

Pot calling the kettle black! You demand evidence, you place logic above faith, you want details -- all consistent with the claimed left brain functions.

Except there is no such thing as " left brain functions that are consistent with placing logic above faith"... That's what you need to show and have not.

Your argument is as ridiculous as me saying "Morons reply to me in this thread" and then when you reply defending yourself (as you should if I ever utter such a silly argument) then me using that as "evidence" that you are a moron. It's entirely inane.

You claimed there was such a thing as "left brain dominance". There is none. I provided a source that points out that there is no such thing - as I should do if I encounter such falsehoods.



You've twisted that using demeaning language. Apparently you believe if you say 'ridiculous' or 'bullshit' enough times, or use various other means to belittle, that counts as evidence.

Are you now resulting to dishonesty?

Where did I twist anything you said?
Moreover, what the do you think all those quotes from board approved neurologists were? Not-evidence? Please, spare me these childish attacks.

I'll take "demeaning" language over your blatant dishonest any day of the week. When you claim that what I'm doing is saying "bullshit" and counting that as evidence, when I'm clearly not -I'm calling bullshit (a short hand for disagreeing with what you said) as well as providing sources from numerous clinical neurologists well versed in this topic that all contrdict the idea of "left/right brain dominance" - that's plain old dishonesty.


Seems all you are interested in is bolstering your ego by claiming a win. Are you so desperate to be proven right you can't countenance the possibility you may not be? The very quote you provided states there is at present no definitive answer:

A "win"? You're the first person in this discussion to even utter the word "win", so please don't project your paranoid delusions on me. At no point in time have I ever said I've "won" anything here.

Sorry but you don't get to diminish what I've said just by pulling the "ego" card whenever you wish. You have absolutely no knowledge of who I am, why I post, whethere I have a big ego or not. In fact, I would say the person who thinks himself so smart and competent that he can deduce the intentions of another person over the internet - that would require a much bigger ego than anything I've done.

P.S. I'll reiterate what I said before, and you ignored:

"Also, following your lead, can't I ask "If there are physical reasons for people being more rude, then who has the right to criticize them?". Not only does that question mirror your own, but I would say there is the same type of "evidence" regarding the brain affecting rudeness - for example frontal lobe damage causing personality changes (thus me being able to "hypothesize" that different frontal lobes make for more/less rude people..."

"Apparently you believe if you say 'ridiculous' or 'bullshit' enough times, or use various other means to belittle, that counts as evidence. "

-- redzed


"Getting hung up on "Christianity's" version of God can simply be a case of having bought the BS taught by the control freaks masquarading as Christian"


-- redzed


Any other stones you want to throw? I think you've been the first. Jesus is wondering if you want to be the second as well...