Atheists vs Believers in Science

Now I know this probably isn't true for all but is does make a lot of sense when you think of some of the radical believers and maybe some atheists. What do you think?



Atheists vs Believers

there is a definite self induced hysteria that can come about for many reasons and religion is one of them, the human mind remains an enigma.

It's certainly interesting from a scientific perspective. There's a lot to suggest that the mind can actually have an effect on the body which you can see through psycho-somatic reactions and placebos, etc.

Meditation or quiet contemplation can actually be a good thing I think, you don't have to be a believer to do it and it can really help your mindset and focus.

Prayer is the Christian form of meditation.

Meditation has been theoried to help sooth, calm, relax and help heal the body and settle the mind.

'Love The Process' knows quite a bit about it - look her up on Facebook.

It gets a bit technical for me but I do think that a lot of the exercises are very helpful.

I think, in general though it has always been a known that pleasant thoughts or practicing short sessions of no thought help to rest the brain.

I think I should point something out about religion / science - if you can understand it, it can go a very long way in helping yourself and others but it can also make things look extremely silly.

For all that I understand now I still don't subscribe to any one revealed religion as the ultimate truth. I go by my own inner voice / heart.

Which could explain to some extent why people often report seeing visions and or their deities while in a trans-like state.
The neurons are all fired up and seeing is believing.

I agree. I'm always impressed when I hear how powerful our minds really are.

interestingly ... religeous visions are thought to be caused by temporal lobe epilepsy .. so i can see the connection

I'm not sure there is any new information in that article. We already know that mental/intellectual stimulation alters the brain biologically. While meditation/prayer may be thought of as non-stimulation, in a way it really isn't non-stimulation.

And finding info that agrees with your point of view reinforces that bias? We look for things that reinforce our point of view? Surprising. I mean come on, I thought everyone knew that we do that. The real trick, the real evidence that you are being open minded, is too look for evidence that does NOT confirm your point of view. That's why the scientific method seeks to disprove theories.

Absolutely no bias. The article helps ME understand the possibility of why some folks seem to be so gun ho, fanatical, radical, (whatever term fits best) their disbelief of belief.
In my case, I don't pray nor dwell on being an atheist. Atheism is just a fact of life for me. The article helps me underdtand why I am not a fanatic about atheism.

Wrong, atheism is not a religion. Smarter? Really? Haven't heard that one before.

The problem with attempting to 'explain away' such phenomena as 'visions', etc, is that neuroscience/psychology has no basic idea of how unified perception occurs. The binding problem would seem to be a difficulty for strictly neuronal explanations of visions in terms of simplistic causality.

But meditation has been demonstrated to have a beneficial effect - however the nature and power of the mind remains totally unexplained.

OK, and? I was speaking in generalizations. We all do it in virtually every aspect of life. We look for things that confirm our beliefs, whether it's a religious belief, a belief about your creepy neighbor's shady character, or even a political belief. We all do it all the time. Of course, the more times you (general you) confirm a belief with info you have sought out, the more you become convinced. The more you are convinced you are right, the less you are open to the possibility that your view is wrong, and the more "fanatical" you get about it. This is not new information, which is my only point about the article. It's really not new information.