12-30-2019, 02:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-30-2019, 03:11 PM by tokutter66.)
religious fundamentalism and brain damage
religious fundamentalism and brain damage
religious fundamentalism and brain damage
|
12-30-2019, 02:59 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-30-2019, 03:11 PM by tokutter66.)
religious fundamentalism and brain damage
12-30-2019, 03:03 PM
(This post was last modified: 12-30-2019, 03:04 PM by Phaedrus.)
religious fundamentalism and brain damage
I think you messed up the linking. xD
(12-30-2019, 02:59 PM)tokutter66 Wrote: religious fundamentalism.....and .......brain damage??? I don't know if this was intentional but it's funny as hell!
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
lol...…...fixed
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you, to find fundamentalism causes brain damage!
Some of the dumbest people I've ever met have been fundies. There is no fun in fundies.
I can usually identify a delta as soon as it opens it's mouth.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
(12-30-2019, 02:59 PM)tokutter66 Wrote: https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/link-be...cientists/ From the article: Quote:These findings are important because they suggest that impaired functioning in the prefrontal cortex—whether from brain trauma, a psychological disorder, a drug or alcohol addiction, or simply a particular genetic profile—can make an individual susceptible to religious fundamentalism. And perhaps in other cases, extreme religious indoctrination harms the development or proper functioning of the prefrontal regions in a way that hinders cognitive flexibility and openness.
From the abstract of the study:
Quote:Abstract Lots of big words to keep the Trumptards away in there. Still, I always remember Chris Rock's question: "Whatever happened to "crazy?"
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
I hated the tone of this article and felt that the conclusions of the study were brushed broadly in an absurd and insulting way.
As someone who isn't particularly neurotypical (with several non-neurotypical family members, as well), I'm not necessarily the most flexible in my thinking--although I try. I found the condescension towards people who don't manage "flexibility" as well as the authors would find acceptable nauseating. Frankly, there are a lot of humans who seek out rules and structure as a means of understanding and coping in the world, and fundamentalism isn't that different from other supportive and regimented social structures (think: the mental equivalent of a weighted blanket, which calms, restricts, and reassures): the military, all kinds of monastic traditions including yoga and Benedictines, and many, many more. While I might feel reinforced to think, hey, fundies are just mentally ill types who couldn't "get it" if the answer was written in fiery letters 60 points high, so they're just mentally defective assholes and I can now feel superior to them...that is an immoral social framework. Furthermore, if it's true that you have to be mentally defective, somehow, to be a fundamentalist, and therefore the solution is to devise an atheistic-based set of lies and structures designed to snare the defective over to "our side"--something that it just feels as if it's the next level being considered by the article's authors--then count me the fuck out.
god, ugh
(12-31-2019, 12:11 AM)julep Wrote: While I might feel reinforced to think, hey, fundies are just mentally ill types who couldn't "get it" if the answer was written in fiery letters 60 points high, so they're just mentally defective assholes and I can now feel superior to them...that is an immoral social framework. Furthermore, if it's true that you have to be mentally defective, somehow, to be a fundamentalist, and therefore the solution is to devise an atheistic-based set of lies and structures designed to snare the defective over to "our side"--something that it just feels as if it's the next level being considered by the article's authors--then count me the fuck out.I basically agree. I read this article awhile back and my take away was that it's simply saying the kind of thinking prevalent in fundamentalism is consistent with the kind of thought processes that occur with certain brain injuries. Which strikes me as a conclusion of approximately zero significance. And then they proceed to read stuff into it. It's like saying someone with a slight cough because they breathed in some dust displays behaviors that have been observed in pneumonia or terminal COPD. So what? If evangelicals are brain-damaged or even merely acting that way, then how do we explain deconverts? Miraculous healing? Humanity is full of ways to tamp down aspects of one's thinking, to compartmentalize, ignore, sublimate, project and do all sorts of things that are logically inconsistent while being entirely oblivious to it. And atheists are not somehow inherently less vulnerable to it. By accident of birth and experience, some of us have seen through the religious bullshit. But not because we're better humans somehow. It just gives us a fighting chance to be better people by making us less blinkered about a single aspect of the human experience. (12-31-2019, 03:27 AM)mordant Wrote: If evangelicals are brain-damaged or even merely acting that way, then how do we explain deconverts? Perhaps because everyone actually lies somewhere on a bell curve so that the observations may reflect the mode or the mean but not necessarily the total distribution.
No gods necessary
(12-30-2019, 02:59 PM)tokutter66 Wrote: https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/link-be...cientists/ Can you explain in a little more detail what your opinion of the article is? It's normal when one simply posts a link to another site (particularly as a topic starter) to say a few words about it—your opinion—in order to give us something to go on. Do you agree with its thrust? Does it make any really good points? Or do you think it's a load of bullshit? Put simply, why have you posted it? Hmmm doesn't really say much either way. I'm a creationist; I believe that man created God.
(12-30-2019, 02:59 PM)tokutter66 Wrote: https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/link-be...cientists/ I pay no attention to a post without actual content. Links don't count if you can't explain the content.
Never argue with people who type fast and have too much time on their hands...
(12-30-2019, 03:28 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:(12-30-2019, 03:27 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: Some of the dumbest people I've ever met have been fundies. There is no fun in fundies. Unfortunately people with this type of mental challenge are permitted to vote! Therefore, I think we're allowed to make fun of them to our hearts content. (12-31-2019, 10:10 AM)SYZ Wrote:(12-30-2019, 02:59 PM)tokutter66 Wrote: https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/link-be...cientists/ There's a small study using TMS or Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation which has been used sucessfully for depression but in this study it was used on religious believers. Some interesting things resulted. Quote:Disabling certain areas of the brain with transcranial magnetic stimulation can reduce a person's belief in God and negativity toward immigrants, claims a new study published in the journal Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. Quote:Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is a procedure currently used to treat depression. It works by using magnetic energy to stimulate nerve cells in areas of the brain involved in mood control. Quote:Compared with participants who received the sham treatment, those who received TMS reported a 32.8% reduction in belief in God, angels and heaven. "As expected, we found that when we experimentally turned down the posterior medial frontal cortex, people were less inclined to reach for comforting religious ideas despite having been reminded of death," explains Dr. Izuma. After a few weeks the religious beliefs returned but for a time they had less god-brains. Interesting study. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/301117.php#1 By the way, these ain't just ordinary magnets. (12-31-2019, 10:10 AM)SYZ Wrote:(12-30-2019, 02:59 PM)tokutter66 Wrote: https://www.rawstory.com/2019/12/link-be...cientists/ Yeah it's generally bad form to post something and then not participate in the post. Apropos of possibly nothing, the OP is either Rachel Slick, or is using an image of Rachel as their avatar. Rachel is the daughter of Matt Slick, an internet apologist who gets a fair bit of attention in that realm. She deconverted a few years ago and posted online about it, but has mostly laid low since. If the OP is Rachel and wants to remain anonymous, using that image is probably not the greatest idea. If they are not Rachel then for different reasons -- still not a good idea. If the OP is really Rachel and wants to say things here publicly, "Hmmmmmm" is a start I guess but honey you're among friends, come on in; the water's fine. Might be therapeutic! https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2013...her-story/ |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|