It's official! Religious people suffer from brain damage. (article)

[R_P_A_S]

LMAO! :D

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100210124757.htm

[The Vegan Marxist]

LMAO! :D

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100210124757.htm

Wouldn't surprise me, since there was the proven study that those that can't predict right from wrong, or make logical decisions, the majority of those have frontal lobe brain damage. This even applies to violent criminals as well: http://socyberty.com/crime/a-killer-brain-a-look-inside-serial-killers/

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Well, I suspect that most if not all psychological factors correspond to things in the brain. This information would suggest that brain damage is responsible for religious belief. However, I think it might be important to clarify that this is probably true of "some people." It doesn't really explain the phenomenon of how people are raised to be religious fundamentalists. That is, unless externalities can cause brain damage without force, which I have no idea about. I suspect it's not possible, but that's just guessing.

Most things about people are the result of genetics and how their genetics "analyze the environment they are in." It's like a program that changes according to where a person finds themselves, so to speak.

[the last donut of the night]

The same bourgeois anti-theists that claim that religion is purely the result of genetic defects, so to speak, are also the same ones that don't give a damn when their colleagues defend ''scientific'' claims that black people are more stupid than whites, or that racism is genetically innate in all of us, or that people are naturally greedy.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

The same bourgeois anti-theists that claim that religion is purely the result of genetic defects, so to speak, are also the same ones that don't give a damn when their colleagues defend ''scientific'' claims that black people are more stupid than whites, or that racism is genetically innate in all of us, or that people are naturally greedy.

And? Data is data. Just because a person has backward political beliefs doesn't mean they can't produce a true conclusion once in awhile.

Furthermore, most people don't believe whites are more intelligent than blacks. I've never seen the studies on racism or greed, and they'd be questionable because where would they find a control? And if they did, it would refute the theory wouldn't it?

[Hiero]

Wow, it's like you people have enver read any Marx or anything in he sociological arena.

This fucking scientist have never stepped into a ghetto or poor neighboured.

Remember religion is the sigh of the oppressed? Well I guess all the oppressed are retards now as well.

Communists position is to critic modern science as the science of the bourgeioise. These scientific studies are skewed and completly ignore huge historical-social influence.


Go back and hit the Marxist/Communusist books.

[Sasha]

well to be fair the title of thread is incorrect (nicely provocative, but incorrect).
it should be more sommething like "under research with 80 something people who had brainsurgery after an tumor in the brain, the people with a certain kind of braindamage display an hightend sense of spirituality", but thats not as catchy.
while this raises a lot of questions about spirituality and answers some (there is now strong evidence to where spirituality is placed in the brain) saying "It's official! Religious people suffer from brain damage." isnot correct.

[the last donut of the night]

And? Data is data. Just because a person has backward political beliefs doesn't mean they can't produce a truth conclusion once in awhile.

Furthermore, the most people don't believe whites are more intelligent than blacks. I've never seen the studies on racism or greed, and they'd be questionable because where would they find a control? And if they did, it would refute the theory wouldn't it?

Yeah, just because they're not communists doesn't mean we have to throw away everything they say. However, if you know you're getting 'data' from a faulty source...

Why take that source seriously again?

[black magick hustla]

all of those damn liberal antitheists should be hung from the highest tree and spat at for being so goddamn insensitive

[Jazzratt]

Do peopl,e just read whatever the hell they like in these things? It's not saying that all religious people are brain damaged it's making the rather different claim that brain damage leads to massive changes in spirituality; making the brain damaged more likely to be spiritual.

Religion is a pernicious, ultimately harmful force in the world but childishly distorting things like this to say "lol, spiritual people have brain damage" is embarassaing. As for the usual suspects coming in to champion trumping science with ideology I think your delusional reality-denials make you just as guilty as the religious of standing in the way of progressing human understanding.

[mikelepore]

It's not saying that all religious people are brain damaged it's making the rather different claim that brain damage leads to massive changes in spirituality; making the brain damaged more likely to be spiritual.

That distinction reminds me of the observation by John Stuart Mill: "Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

[Calmwinds]

The same bourgeois anti-theists that claim that religion is purely the result of genetic defects, so to speak, are also the same ones that don't give a damn when their colleagues defend ''scientific'' claims that black people are more stupid than whites, or that racism is genetically innate in all of us, or that people are naturally greedy.

Wow that sounds really cool and leftisty, you are hardcore marxist yo! You must have done a wide reaching sociological survey to support these claims, then conducted a meta-analysis of these psychological types that support individually all 3/4 of the claims, and correlated them with each other, and then say "Ah yes indeed same people, same beliefs". Oh wait, that didn't happen.

Getting past what might have been a hostile opening, I understand you are trying to make a better society, and it is important to throw much much hate to those who support horrible cultural criticisms of race and sex and such, but sometimes people confuse correlation with causation, and this is one of those cases.

I don't understand all the extreme hate towards the Bell Curve. There are some TOUGH things that science can show that have huge ethical ramifications, but do not affect the truth of them. Look, what does it matter if some leftists believe the findings of the Bell Curve to be true? It's easy to call the authors a bunch of racist white men[1] and do away with them like that, but it is harder to accept their conclusions and then frown that reality is really like that, that reality is unegalitarian, and then try to change that so it is egalitarian.

Also I do not agree with the OP's article. Sounds like a quick attempt to correlate theists with brain damage so they have 'explained it all away'. They most likely are more psychologically inclined towards emotive satisfaction through ideas that there is a 'protector' and 'big brother' watching over them.


Wow, it's like you people have enver read any Marx or anything in he sociological arena.

This fucking scientist have never stepped into a ghetto or poor neighboured.

Remember religion is the sigh of the oppressed? Well I guess all the oppressed are retards now as well.

Communists position is to critic modern science as the science of the bourgeioise. These scientific studies are skewed and completly ignore huge historical-social influence.


Go back and hit the Marxist/Communusist books. I love the "science of bourgeoisie" thing. Lol, I guess all science that disagrees with an emotive-leftist ethics is the "science of the bourgeoisie". How are they skewed? Can you show me clearly and concisely why they are not truthful? I'm willing to learn, and if I am wrong, I will change. Because shit, it's the truth right? But with someone with the title "Lacanian Charlatan"[2] you might have a hard time, even if wrote the Charlatan part as a joke.

[1] - I do not support one of the authors personal conservative libertarian agenda, I think he is misleading himself into a fetishization of classical liberalism and a hero worship of the founding fathers of america.
[2] - Might be a pretentious reference to Chomsky's quote.


If it helps, I am not white, and it shouldn't help at all.

[Chambered Word]

This was bound to come up sooner or later.

[La Comédie Noire]

I don't understand all the extreme hate towards the Bell Curve. There are some TOUGH things that science can show that have huge ethical ramifications, but do not affect the truth of them. Look, what does it matter if some leftists believe the findings of the Bell Curve to be true? It's easy to call the authors a bunch of racist white men[1] and do away with them like that, but it is harder to accept their conclusions and then frown that reality is really like that, that reality is unegalitarian, and then try to change that so it is egalitarian.

Well, what would happen if you gave an IQ test to White Europeans circa 1904 and then the same test to white Europeans now? I'd think you'd find a profound lack of "general intelligence" in the class of 1904.


If it helps, I am not white, and it shouldn't help at all.

Many different people support the findings of the Bell Curve, it's not a problem.

[Girl A]

I think this sort of argument isn't helpful, because religion is used to oppress people and to help keep ruling powers in control. To say that those who are religious have some sort of mental dysfunction is to ignore the millions of working people who use religion as a support, to label them as being ill. We need to approach religious control as a social issue rather than some sort of brain defect... its also problematic to use disability as some sort of way to take a shot at oppressive powers.

[OldMoney]

While Ill agree that religious fanatics definatley have something wrong with thier brains this article isnt saying all religious people are brain damaged. Its a good way to stir the pot a bit, but nothing exemplary comes from the study. All they show is that people who have had a certain brain tumor are more seceptibile to self-transcendence. So are people on LSD, u cant say that all religious folk are on acid, or can you??

I do agree that religious belief has some solid roots in genetics. Ive always belived myself that one of the main reasons for folk to be religious has to do with humans inate survival instinct. Human nature is to survive and go on. Its hard for humans to accept the fact that when they die they turn to dust, and nothing more.

I belive its due to this fact that religion has spread so rampantly throughout our civilization. Almost all religions have some sort of afterlife, or belief that some part of the human experience carries on. The only way we can do this is to procreate, not by accepting jesus as our lord n saviour comeon.

Also there is something to be said about awakening other parts of ourr conciousness through religious practices. Obtaining inner peace or transcendation through meditation or tantra has been widley documented. The fact is there is still alot about the brain we dont understand, Timothy Leary showed that these same experiences could be acived with a little LSD.

So in conclusion all religious people ARE on Acid aha

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Yeah, just because they're not communists doesn't mean we have to throw away everything they say. However, if you know you're getting 'data' from a faulty source...

Why take that source seriously again?

Sometimes sources reveal their methodologies and the data checks out as being acquired in a fairly legitimate way.

As for the Bell Curve, which someone mentioned, the reason it is a problem is because it says that blacks are less intelligent than whites because of their genetics. And if a test were given now, it might show that we are just as intelligent than those in 1903. It probably would show an increase (or decrease, though I think this is less likely) in the intelligence of this generation (at least, according to the tests).

Although there are flaws with the methodology contained in the Bell Curve and other texts, I think the field had and has potential. Unfortunately, a desire to promote a racist agenda has really hurt the advancement of testing and analysis.

So yeah, when the Bell Curve came out, the majority of anger was about its claim that genetics cause an intelligent difference in racial groups, not that the idea of "Iq testing" is fundamentally flawed.

[bailey_187]

The same bourgeois anti-theists that claim that religion is purely the result of genetic defects, so to speak, are also the same ones that don't give a damn when their colleagues defend ''scientific'' claims that black people are more stupid than whites, or that racism is genetically innate in all of us, or that people are naturally greedy.

erm, no. Most serious scientists dispute the bell curve nonsense.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

While Ill agree that religious fanatics definatley have something wrong with thier brains this article isnt saying all religious people are brain damaged. Its a good way to stir the pot a bit, but nothing exemplary comes from the study. All they show is that people who have had a certain brain tumor are more seceptibile to self-transcendence. So are people on LSD, u cant say that all religious folk are on acid, or can you??

I suppose not. Having imbibed a number of mind-altering substances myself, including LSD, I must say I haven't felt the urge to become any kind of god-botherer or mystic.


I do agree that religious belief has some solid roots in genetics. Ive always belived myself that one of the main reasons for folk to be religious has to do with humans inate survival instinct. Human nature is to survive and go on. Its hard for humans to accept the fact that when they die they turn to dust, and nothing more.

That seems to be part of it - being dead is a state which we literally cannot imagine. But I think there is a larger social aspect to religious belief as well.


I belive its due to this fact that religion has spread so rampantly throughout our civilization. Almost all religions have some sort of afterlife, or belief that some part of the human experience carries on. The only way we can do this is to procreate, not by accepting jesus as our lord n saviour comeon.

Or we could, you know, actually live longer instead of doing it vicariously through our children, who are their own people with their own paths in life.


Also there is something to be said about awakening other parts of ourr conciousness through religious practices. Obtaining inner peace or transcendation through meditation or tantra has been widley documented.

Usually by credulous idiots spellbound by crafty old fakirs, no doubt.


The fact is there is still alot about the brain we dont understand, Timothy Leary showed that these same experiences could be acived with a little LSD.

I don't believe he's ever shown such a thing.

[Philzer]

Hi!

No.

Religion is a step of conscious in the history of the anthropogenesis.

For tody I believe the strategy-aspect is the most important.

Religion is the will to be right without sanity.


-->>revleft.com/vb/communism-and-religion-t73036/index7.html

Kind regards