There are a few articles around positing the existence of a "God spot" in the brain of believers.
If there is one, then it doesn't imply atheists are more intellectual - because that would mean they had a God spot but were rationalizing it away.
What it would mean is that if someone has a "God spot", they're powerless - they don't get a choice, their brain is wired to believe in God. And if someone doesn't have a "God spot", it's impossible for them to believe in one.
Good logic! However, I do take issue with your presumption that there is a single God (viz "believe in God"). But that is probably just semantics. Can we postulate that if a "God spot" is proven to exist that there must have been a God that made it exist? Also, if there are more atheists now (in percentage terms) does that mean that evolution is removing the "God spot"? If so, does it follow that the God that made it exist is now no more, as "It" is not ensuing that the "God spot" is not evolved away?
I stand corrected. (My post was mostly a sarcastic comparison anyway). I think the rumor was that her clit was in her throat.... And she supposedly was pressured at gunpoint to perform in the porn films, and later became a fervent advocate against pornography.
Do you reckon maybe a better comparison woulda been if I'd said I have ocean-front property in Arizona to sell to those who believe there's a "God Spot"?
It's not that they are missing something in their brain, it's to study if there is any PART that differentiates believers vs non-believers. It's that while studied under times of prayer and meditation no "special spot" lit up, only expected areas of memory and emotion. Depending on what side your on, it's either functioning correctly or malfunctioning.
another example: In Rorschach ink-blot studies, for instance, believers tended to see images that weren't there and non-believers tended to miss images that were present.
make of that what you will, I have yet to form an opinion.
An article can't infer anything. Infer means to draw a conclusion. An article can imply something, though.
If the article is implying that atheists are more intellectual, I won't disagree. I've read several recently that draw the same conclusion. It's a question of cause and effect. Are intellectual people more likely to question things in general? Or, do atheists become more intellectual by way of study?
Chrishtans analyze the bible from cover to cover, and that is a lot of reading. But, atheists analyze all the other books. That's REALLY a lot of reading.
have what? A god-spot? Obviously not, otherwise that would make being an atheist counter-productive. I looked into some of these articles and the retort to "god-spot", was called a "gullibility spot".. I'm not judging, and don't want to step on toes here but I just wanted to point that out.
The whole thing is sort of impertinent, if there is or there isn't is an individual choice that is probably contingent on your level of consciousness. On that note in my life I have found many atheists to be more spiritual and more aware than many Christens. I had a guy not to long ago tell me he didn't believe in God and would never lie cheat or steal from anyone. On the other hand I have been around Christens that never walk the walk. If you know what I mean. Smart Dumb? Its over rated folks!
The ability to receive and give love unconditionally might be something that would be more pertinent. The if there is of if there isn't is so well droll. Aloha
I think this is the most important piece of the article:
"Dr. Zuckerman says, the research on atheism is just getting started. “We'll never fully understand religion until we can understand secularity,” he observes. “There are intellectual questions needing to be answered, because they have real-life, political consequences.”
“There is a lot of evidence that religious beliefs flow very naturally from the way the mind is designed,” Dr. Shackelford says. It has long been believed, he says, that atheism is a harder position to maintain because it goes against the natural instinct to want to attach some kind of meaning to phenomena we can't explain. “Perhaps religion is natural, but not inevitable.”
Maybe this is why religion started to collapse with the Industrial revolution - the science that fired it provides an alternative to attach meaning to phenomena with the advantage that it can also explain some of them.
from their humanity?!? haha, that's hilarious. I think the people who are distancing themselves from their "humanity" are the people who aren't trying to be better people. Are you telling me that just because an atheist doesn't buy the outdated stories in a book means they are living their lives in a way that brings them further from their humanity? Ever notice that atheists supply less that 1% of the prison population?Christians supply 81%. Think about that and then lets talk about "humanity".
It's easy to deconvert to atheism because they are disappointed, hurt or because they have lost their faith due to God making sense. It's harder to suddenly make a rational atheists convert to Christianity, which...
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people,...
I have been noticing that Theists are usually stuck with the burdan of proof when it comes to their beliefs. This thread is about asking Atheists what they believe respectfully. It is for theists to get a better...
I have talked to many atheists and some say that atheists are people who do not believe in the concept of God. But in the past people said that atheists were people who believed that there was "no God". What...