The differences between religious and non-religious brains.

[Legendary Saiyan]

Hmm page 7 I'll snatch it.

 

[Le0]

What understanding lead you arrive at your conclusion to be a Muslim? Not asking out of disrespect. I agree with your post so I want to see where this train of thought is going

Sorry for the late reply, I didn't notice the post.
Honestly, I was one of those hardcore atheist with the mindset that religion is nothing more than a mind game. From logical stand point, the idea of religion is no different than the kings in the medieval time. The idea of satan is more like an excuse for why bad things happen so the idea of an all loving God would not be shaken. God is more like an explanation for what we cannot explain, an imaginary king we worship so we can have some sort of backup for when things doesn't turn well for us. I've been living with that mindset for years and to me, religious people are uneducated tool, from my parents to my entire family, all uneducated tool. And my life was fine, I didn't need a reason to fear or worship something but in a way that feeling came to me so I began reading almost all religious books, trying to understand why people believes in something they cannot prove. I'm a science guy, I still accept scientific facts. One day I woke up an athiest, the next I wake up an agnostic and then I wake up a Muslim. I can't prove God's existence, there are no valid reason logically and scientifically for God's existence. Why I believe in God is in my mind, I don't explain or share it with people because not one atheist can understand, which is why they're an atheist in the first place. Let's just say I've found my own unproven evidence.
Sorry to disappoint you if my post wasn't what you expected. But thank you for asking.

 

[Troyg39]

Sorry for the late reply, I didn't notice the post.
Honestly, I was one of those hardcore atheist with the mindset that religion is nothing more than a mind game. From logical stand point, the idea of religion is no different than the kings in the medieval time. The idea of satan is more like an excuse for why bad things happen so the idea of an all loving God would not be shaken. God is more like an explanation for what we cannot explain, an imaginary king we worship so we can have some sort of backup for when things doesn't turn well for us. I've been living with that mindset for years and to me, religious people are uneducated tool, from my parents to my entire family, all uneducated tool. And my life was fine, I didn't need a reason to fear or worship something but in a way that feeling came to me so I began reading almost all religious books, trying to understand why people believes in something they cannot prove. I'm a science guy, I still accept scientific facts. One day I woke up an athiest, the next I wake up an agnostic and then I wake up a Muslim. I can't prove God's existence, there are no valid reason logically and scientifically for God's existence. Why I believe in God is in my mind, I don't explain or share it with people because not one atheist can understand, which is why they're an atheist in the first place. Let's just say I've found my own unproven evidence.
Sorry to disappoint you if my post wasn't what you expected. But thank you for asking.

No this is exactly what I was expecting when I asked. Thanks for sharing

 

[Kishi Uzumaki]

I don't think so I'm somewhat religious but i'm a very analytical thinker ( a Buddhist to be exact and Buddhism allows to make a one's own understanding not believe just because everyone says you to believe things ) though i'm not naturally empathetic, i can be very kind because my analytical thinking allows me to understand a person's pains thoroughly .

 

[Umari Senju]

Sorry for the late reply, I didn't notice the post.
Honestly, I was one of those hardcore atheist with the mindset that religion is nothing more than a mind game. From logical stand point, the idea of religion is no different than the kings in the medieval time. The idea of satan is more like an excuse for why bad things happen so the idea of an all loving God would not be shaken. God is more like an explanation for what we cannot explain, an imaginary king we worship so we can have some sort of backup for when things doesn't turn well for us. I've been living with that mindset for years and to me, religious people are uneducated tool, from my parents to my entire family, all uneducated tool. And my life was fine, I didn't need a reason to fear or worship something but in a way that feeling came to me so I began reading almost all religious books, trying to understand why people believes in something they cannot prove. I'm a science guy, I still accept scientific facts. One day I woke up an athiest, the next I wake up an agnostic and then I wake up a Muslim. I can't prove God's existence, there are no valid reason logically and scientifically for God's existence. Why I believe in God is in my mind, I don't explain or share it with people because not one atheist can understand, which is why they're an atheist in the first place. Let's just say I've found my own unproven evidence.
Sorry to disappoint you if my post wasn't what you expected. But thank you for asking.

Honestly, this is what religion is suppose to be about. It isn't about what others around you believe is right or wrong but your own personal relationship with whichever god you choose to worship. It doesn't matter what others think (though it is a joy when others can accept or share in your belief) but ultimately it comes down to you and the higher power.

As Troyg39 mentioned. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Prince Lucifer]

An Atheist accepts everything at face value, while the Religious seek something or someone beyond what their eyes can see, that's the difference between our brains.

 

[NarutoKage2]

Your reply was, "such as" my post was a highlighting the general worship of theories. Your response was vague.

I know what evolution is, calm down. For something to be scientific fact it must be observable, measurable and must have a laboratory test. Evolution has never been observed(supposedly because it takes millions of years) and we can't replicate it in a lab. That means we have no way of knowing it is a fact. Yet there are loads of people who use it in everyday language as if it is a done deal.

Again, learn to read. I never said evolution as a theory was a religion. I made up the term "evolutionism to highlight the difference between the two. Evolutionism is the blind faith and acceptance of the theory of evolution to be fact without evidence. I didn't think this would be so hard to grasp. Maybe you should check the definition of a religion.

Evolution has been observed, directly and in a laboratory. Google 'Richard lenskis e coli bacterium experiment' for details of the verifiable demonstration . Who said it takes millions of years? Again I'll ask you since you obviously didn't bother to answer: what is evolution?

I'll spell it out for you: evolution simply means the changes in gene frequencies in a population over time. Large changes take large amounts of time, but there are still verifiable changes even within a reduced timeframe.
Learn to read? Indeed.

Edit: the neo Darwinian synthesis isn't at all religious, its reductionist. Many people, such as yourself , apparently, get threatened by a body of knowledge that they feel challenges their primitive belief system(s. )They have therefore attacked evolution and labelled it a 'religion' on many creationist websites/places. If you really are interested in finding out the truth, read up on the scientific literature and see what it says. Because , to me your statement highlights your ignorance more than anything else.

 

[Phact]

Lol at non religous brains being more analytical than religous brains. Throughout history scientists have always been religous. Even Einstein had his own ideas of what God is.

 

[Bling Kai]

I love the ignorant people over glorifying intellect to bash religion.

 

[orochimaru]

This is just another attempt, among many, to bash religion. History is factual occurings which always showed us how people (religious) came to unravel the mystery of the universe. Muslims , who they have the strongest and closest relationship to God, have discovered Math, Astrology, Medicine and many more. Not to mentio that Jewish and Christian scientists are very religious. The study may have been done on normal Christians or Catholics or Jews who have an extremely weak relation to their faith. They are Christians or Jewish by name only, yet they contradict their holy books they're suppose to be following! In short, History defies and eliminates this study.

 

[Gerkak]

Evolution has been observed, directly and in a laboratory. Google 'Richard lenskis e coli bacterium experiment' for details of the verifiable demonstration . Who said it takes millions of years? Again I'll ask you since you obviously didn't bother to answer: what is evolution?

I'll spell it out for you: evolution simply means the changes in gene frequencies in a population over time. Large changes take large amounts of time, but there are still verifiable changes even within a reduced timeframe.
Learn to read? Indeed.

So now evolution is the same as adaptation, you are still using assumptions there has been no evidence of a monkey turning into a man, in fact evidence suggests that man came before chimps. Fossils of humans have been found but there are no fossils for chimps. Evolutionists will not come to the conclusion that man predated chimps given that evidence because it contradicts their view of evolution.

Edit: the neo Darwinian synthesis isn't at all religious, its reductionist. Many people, such as yourself , apparently, get threatened by a body of knowledge that they feel challenges their primitive belief system(s. )They have therefore attacked evolution and labelled it a 'religion' on many creationist websites/places. If you really are interested in finding out the truth, read up on the scientific literature and see what it says. Because , to me your statement highlights your ignorance more than anything else.

How unfortunate, you are no different from Hawker it is as I predicted. You and your foolish ilk like to make assumptions without evidence. Here you are assuming I am a religious person, do I have to be religious if I don't accept evolution? You make it seem like all non religious people must believe in evolution as if that is the ideology supported by all of them. You are the one who is primitive if your arguments are this shallow. Evolution has many gaps as does anything dealing with the origin of life(including religions), the constant support for it is based purely on faith. The other assumptions include Darwin's assumption that a mechanism in nature gave life to inanimate matter, what this mechanism is or what its origin is was never explained by Darwin or any of his followers nor could they prove its existence. Today evolution can't explain how living things came about(that is the initial transition between inanimate to animate) nor can they produce a physical mechanism that is responsible.

Scientific facts can only come about when there are observations, experiments and clear and cut explanations for the aforementioned things. There should not be any gaps or areas left unanswered otherwise it isn't a fact. You don't question evolution like I and others do because you like the religious people are indoctrinated and feel a sort of sentimental connection to your beliefs that it blinds you to what is objectively before you. Science is wonderful but people ruin its name by introducing opinions, politics and censorship.

 

[NarutoKage2]

So now evolution is the same as adaptation, you are still using assumptions there has been no evidence of a monkey turning into a man, in fact evidence suggests that man came before chimps. Fossils of humans have been found but there are no fossils for chimps. Evolutionists will not come to the conclusion that man predated chimps given that evidence because it contradicts their view of evolution.



How unfortunate, you are no different from Hawker it is as I predicted. You and your foolish ilk like to make assumptions without evidence. Here you are assuming I am a religious person, do I have to be religious if I don't accept evolution? You make it seem like all non religious people must believe in evolution as if that is the ideology supported by all of them. You are the one who is primitive if your arguments are this shallow. Evolution has many gaps as does anything dealing with the origin of life(including religions), the constant support for it is based purely on faith. The other assumptions include Darwin's assumption that a mechanism in nature gave life to inanimate matter, what this mechanism is or what its origin is was never explained by Darwin or any of his followers nor could they prove its existence. Today evolution can't explain how living things came about(that is the initial transition between inanimate to animate) nor can they produce a physical mechanism that is responsible.

Scientific facts can only come about when there are observations, experiments and clear and cut explanations for the aforementioned things. There should not be any gaps or areas left unanswered otherwise it isn't a fact. You don't question evolution like I and others do because you like the religious people are indoctrinated and feel a sort of sentimental connection to your beliefs that it blinds you to what is objectively before you. Science is wonderful but people ruin its name by introducing opinions, politics and censorship.

I'm not sure if your being deliberately dense or its just a natural defense mechanism. Did I say your a religious person who rejects evolution because of it? I just pointed out that your stance (of labelling evolution as a religion) is identical to the one taken by religious people, aka creationists. There is no scientific objection to it whatsoever, simply because its the most plausible theory ever presented explaining the diversity(note the word diversity is not the same as origin ) of life. Me accepting it has nothing to do with faith.

The origin of life is indeed a mystery, but that's a biogenesis(non living matter turning into living cells that can self replicate) and has NOTHING to do with evolution, which explains the diversity of life AFTER it arose. In short: abiogenesis=/=evolution. Your ignorance of this very basic fact is precisely why no one takes the anti evolution squad(who are almost exclusively creationists) seriously. If there is a legitimate reason to doubt evolution as a theory, give an alternate explanation for the diversity of life as is observed in the natural world(I can give you close to a dozen examples of living things that have traits that have no plausible explanation unless they evolved).
Its interesting that you claim to 'question' evolution, yet you've repeatedly displayed that you have no idea what it is. THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IS NOT EVOLUTION .


Just saw your edit. Again, your ignorant of what you're discussing. Monkeys haven't been observed turning into men because they never did. Currently existing apes(such as chimpanzees or gorillas) and humans had a common ancestor that was neither chimp, nor human but the ancestor of both these current forms. This is indicated by a variety of evidence, such as DNA , which is 98% identical for humans and chimps. FYI, even if there was NO fossil record, the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming.

Get an education, or just do some internet searches outside of nb.

 

[Gerkak]

I'm not sure if your being deliberately dense or its just a natural defense mechanism. Did I say your a religious person who rejects evolution because of it? I just pointed out that your stance (of labelling evolution as a religion) is identical to the one taken by religious people, aka creationists. There is no scientific objection to it whatsoever, simply because its the most plausible theory ever presented explaining the diversity(note the word diversity is not the same as origin ) of life. Me accepting it has nothing to do with faith.

Your words were " Many people, such as yourself , apparently, get threatened by a body of knowledge that they feel challenges their primitive belief system"

Clearly you were trying to lump me in with those who follow religion otherwise you would have made the distinction when you first posted but you didn't. It has to do with faith because it being the most plausible explanation according to you and other proponents of the theory does not make it fact. Like I said before I have nothing against the theory of evolution itself, rather my main point is those who go further and speak of it like it is absolutely true making it seem like a religion. If you weren't so quick to respond without comprehending you would find that I explained the difference between the theory and the blind faith belief. I thought that was made clear, perhaps you just don't want to accept it. Also science has nothing to do with opinion if something is right then it is regardless of how many people choose to believe in it or not. Faith is : complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
Its synonyms include trust or belief, you trust the main proponents of the theory and believe in the theory. It is clear that you see it more than just a hypothesis.

The origin of life is indeed a mystery, but that's a biogenesis(non living matter turning into living cells that can self replicate) and has NOTHING to do with evolution, which explains the diversity of life AFTER it arose. In short: abiogenesis=/=evolution. Your ignorance of this very basic fact is precisely why no one takes the anti evolution squad(who are almost exclusively creationists) seriously. If there is a legitimate reason to doubt evolution as a theory, give an alternate explanation for the diversity of life as is observed in the natural world(I can give you close to a dozen examples of living things that have traits that have no plausible explanation unless they evolved).
Its interesting that you claim to 'question' evolution, yet you've repeatedly displayed that you have no idea what it is. THE ORIGIN OF LIFE IS NOT EVOLUTION .

Ignorance? If you had read you would see that in that instance I was speaking of Darwin and his followers, who did indeed speak about the origin of life, Darwin also attributed a mysterious mechanism as the trigger for evolution in living species, though he could not prove nor could he explain why evolution occurred at different rates for different species. For example, why the Antelodant which was able to survive by growing and transforming into the Daedon could not evolve again to survive and ended up dying out. Evolutionists often say most changes occur as coincidences sometimes it happens sometimes it doesn't or sometimes it is fast and other times not so fast. These gaps don't do well for the theory and indeed many scientists don't like explanations for things to be based on coincidences an example of this is Einstein not being comfortable with some of the findings of quantum physics. Why are you asking me to give you an alternative? That's like me saying a football player shouldn't have missed that penalty kick and you say "can you do better?" That isn't an excuse nor does it make the gaps and inconsistencies of evolution disappear. If evolution can be proven 100% I wouldn't doubt it, why should I? I have no personal beef with the theory.

Just saw your edit. Again, your ignorant of what you're discussing. Monkeys haven't been observed turning into men because they never did. Currently existing apes(such as chimpanzees or gorillas) and humans had a common ancestor that was neither chimp, nor human but the ancestor of both these current forms. This is indicated by a variety of evidence, such as DNA , which is 98% identical for humans and chimps. FYI, even if there was NO fossil record, the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelming.

Get an education, or just do some internet searches outside of nb.

So do you agree that man came before chimps? Also what was the origin of the common ancestor where did it come from? Was its evolution observed? I know man didn't come from monkeys (monkeys aren't even the closest to man, apes are) I used monkeys to stress a point. Similarities in DNA aren't doubted but that is too vague to be used as 'proof' of evolution. You can't change science no matter how hard you try, there must be direct observation and/or also a repeatable lab test. If you can do neither then there is no way of proving things all one can do is make drastic extrapolations from tiny bits of 'evidence'.

I do have an education your attempts at insulting me are amusing from generalization to questioning my intelligence and even my education? This is the ammunition of those who support evolution? I hope not.

 

[Awkward Linguist]

"Let me tell you a bedtime story of how the monkey evolved into a human" Lmao can't even take him seriously​

 

[NarutoKage2]

@gerkak: where exactly did Darwin explicate on the origin of life? (In all probability, what he did was to speak of the possible origin of species, which is incidentally the title of his book). But I may have overlooked it, but I'm certain Darwin never claimed to know the origin of life from non living matter as you phrased it.

Mysterious mechanism? Lmao there's nothing mysterious about natural selection, its been observed literally thousands of times across the animal and plant kingdom. Its the natural equivalent of the man made process of artificial selection, where the selecting agent(in this case man) acts to preserve, specific varieties possessing certain 'traits' , the varieties are random but the selection itself is non random and purposeful in the sense of discriminating gene flow of said heritable 'traits'. The discriminator is man, in the case of the documented evolution of dogs from wolves( look up : Belayevs wolf experiment for further details), or various different breeds of dogs, such as the chihuhua, the great Dane or the Labrador,all of which were created by human breeders from wilder, wolf like ancestors. In the case of wild plants and animals, such as wild roses(the selecting agent are the insects and birds who help them pollinate) or the deep sea angler fish, nature is the selecting agent.

But in both cases the process is the same: random change followed by non random selection of specific varieties with distinct qualities possessing heritable traits. In other words: not every animal can survive(not die) and pass on its genes(have babies). The specific traits(such as long beaks for a bird, say, or bigger brains for an ape, or longer legs for a gazelle) that have helped a subset of the population possessing them to both survive better, and reproduce better, get preserved in the 'gene pool' while other, less favorable traits do not.

Its important to realize that evolution only acts as a response to the environment, i .e as a result of environmental stressors that may act favorably on certain varieties of an animal, at the expense of others of the same species. If you had bothered to look up(yes I know you haven't or you never would have made the 'no one knows why evolution is sometimes fast and sometimes slow argument) the ecoli bacterium experiment, or belayevs wolf experent, you would have realized that its actually very well known why the speed of change varies: its environmental pressures on a population(either imposed or natural) that necessitates change. Although change is a bad word, a better way to phrase it would be 'selective survival, within a population over several generations, with the traits that allowed for the survival amongst the population being the change that is observed'.

Such change has been observed numerous times, no use denying it. And there is overwhelming evidence of change on larger time scales as well. Its the whole reason why dinosaurs no longer exist( and what do you think dinosaurs are, BTW? Why do we find their fossil bones in the earth, and why do such animals no longer exist today? ) . And while you' re at it, I'd also like to know why ostriches and penguins are very clearly birds with wings and all, yet they never fly? And why sea creatures such as dolphins/ whales just happen to have lungs for breathing that no other fish have, and would actually die if they didn't surface for air? Pretty cruel way to create an animal that has to live its life in the sea, I must say.

Hope you are now beginning to get an idea of why I asked you for an alternative to evolution to explain the natural diversity of life.


OK,so your asking me to produce a time lapse video of man coming from an earlier, ape like ancestor , and then a time lapse video of that ancestor,ad infinitum till the first unicellular organism, I'd suppose? Well, notwithstanding the discovery of a time machine, no ones ever going to be able to produce one, and even if they did, I'm guessing you still wouldn't be convinced. So I'll just lay out some fun facts to deduce instead:

- Humans have a tailbone, a vestigial organ(like wings for an ostrich)
-Our DNA (look up the dna melting experiment) forms a bond most rapidly and almost perfectly, with chimp DNA, and a slightly less perfect bond with gorilla DNA
- 98.8% of our DNA is identical to a chimpanzee(repetitive, yes I know)
-Anatomically we just happen to be closer to great apes than any other living thing on earth(sarcasm)
- Our earliest verified hominoid ancestor, all happened to have lived in the land of the great apes(Africa, in case you were wondering)
- 5 digits, two hands, two thumbs , two legs and two feet with remarkably similarly appearance are all entirely coincidental(more sarcasm)

I could go on, but hopefully this is sufficient to illustrate the general idea.