Religious Brains vs Atheist Brains

[Buddha Dharma]

How am i going against them? I called it non-theistic. And atheistic.

In your original post you accompanied lack of belief in gods with Buddhism's non-theism. If you mean by that an atheistic approach to the gods and non-material realms, you are not representing the Buddha's teachings.

 

[Darkstorn]

In your original post you accompanied lack of belief in gods with Buddhism's non-theism.

They are comparable.

If you mean by that an atheistic approach to the gods and non-material realms, you are not representing the Buddha's teachings.

I don't mean that at all. Again, your loss. Perhaps read my posts and talk to me instead of talking past me?

 

[Buddha Dharma]

Actually I'll do better than provide you material to report me with, which may say something about your intent. I will ignore you. Because I cannot and will not watch the Buddha's Dharma be distorted beyond clear historical context. I think that is wrong, and the Buddha would say all those doing it are wrong- were he here today.

 

[Darkstorn]

Actually I'll do better than provide you material to report me with, which may say something about your intent. I will ignore you. Because I cannot and will not watch the Buddha's Dharma be distorted beyond clear historical context.

YOU are distorting my words. You admit it there: You think i'm saying that there are no gods, and that Buddhism makes such claims. I never did such a thing. You are not showing your superiority by your actions at this rate.

 

[leibowde84]

No, that the gods are not saviors in Buddhism, so belief in them isn't meritorious. To say they don't exist though is a clear denial of something the Buddha taught.

But, belief in gods being meritorious is not a requirement for a religion to be theistic. If the religion teaches that gods exist or respect the existence of gods, then it is theistic.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

But, belief in gods being meritorious is not a requirement for a religion to be theistic. If the religion teaches that gods exist or respect the existence of gods, then it is theistic.

Right and the individual I was responding to was equating non-belief, as in modern atheism, with something a Buddhist can accept. I am obligated to tell a Buddhist they are defaming the teaching when they are. I'm not some lite Dharma secularist, buffet Buddhist.

The Vinaya for example, says if anyone, even a layman- says the Buddha said something untrue, to extort them about it. If the monks do it they face expulsion from the Sangha.

We have clear agreements on a matter in the scriptures of both vehicles, so neither Mahayana or Theravada teaches modern atheism. They teach the gods exist. This is a clear example of rejection of the Buddha, when both vehicles agree about a matter.

If there is a council of the Sangha, as there has been in modern times between the two vehicles- the first thing the two sides would look for in agreement about the Dharma is consensus. Do the Mahayana texts say this? Yes.

Likewise- do the Theravada texts say this? Yes.

 

[Darkstorn]

I'm not some lite Dharma secularist, buffet Buddhist.

But you are the kind of person who first talks past a person, then ignores the person, then continues to talk past the person.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

@leibowde84 zeal for the Dharma is actually a virtue in historical Buddhism. Only some modern Buddhists disagree that zeal for the Dharma is good. It's one of the paramitas- core virtues of the path. To have zeal for the Dharma. That is what I have.

Even if enemies attack Buddhists with the intent to annihilate the Dharma, in history there would have been no disagreement and no hesitation that we must defend the Dharma. It is the truth of salvation for beings. Killing is bad, but wiping the Dharma from the world is worse.

I said it earlier in this thread: Buddhism is not about tickling the ears of fluffy bunnies. We believe it is the truth- we that have perfect faith in the Blessed One.

 

[Darkstorn]

Killing is bad, but wiping the Dharma from the world is worse.

I've never before been accused of doing something worse than murder...

 

[james bond]

There is not such thing as too much physical world thinking.

Then there is no physicalism and materialism.

Information is physical. A bit of information is physical, and its being physical is independent from the support, if any, that stores it. You can actually measure bits and bites in Energy/temperature if you want. And consciousness is therefore physical too. You cannot be conscious without crunching bits and heat your surroundings.

You probably believe that you can have consciousness without physics, but that is as plausible as angels using wings to fly in a spiritual realm without an atmosphere.

There is nothing that transcends the physical, and if there is, it is probably very dull.

You just contradicted yourself from your first statement.

Oy vey. Information is also stored in virtual memory. Thus, we do not have to recall everything in order to use the information. You're using VM right now as we speak on your computer as well as your self.

Consciousness is an emergent property of information crunching in our brain. No brain, no consciousness, as you probably realize if you consider where your consciousness was before you acquired a brain at birth.

End of brain = game over. I would start getting used to the idea, instead of looking for totally implausible escapes whose only justification is wishful thinking and survival instinct.

And what you call atheist science, is only the logical conclusion rational people reach by analyzing the facts. Namely: we are what our brains compute. It is sufficient to assume a few glasses of not spiritual spirits (e.g. Vodka) to adios your metaphysical consciousness. It is sufficient to have a neuron destroying disease to kill anything that you would identify as a person. It is sufficient to have irreversible dementia or Alzheimer to have mothers not even recognizing their own sons or husbands that they loved so much before their synapses started playing crazy.

I mean, how much more evidence do you need? Do you really believe that a soul on earth with a kaputt brain will not recognize her own son or what she had for breakfast, while the same soul in Heaven will be hunky dory without any physical brain at all? That makes no sense whatsoever. That brain would not only be redundant, but counterproductive.

Therefore: No computation, no us. It looks very straightforward. Before birth = after death. Nice and symmetric. No evidence whatsoever of spiritual stuff of any kind that transcends that kilogram of disgusting looking blob that is in our skull. Any idea of a spiritual realm that will host our soul is also the result of naturalistic and physical mechanisms: namely our instinct to survive even beyond reproductive necessity. Our brains are the product of eons of naturalistic processes that optimized it for survival: it is not surprising that it misfires and makes up things when confronted with its own termination, or that shows "extended levels of awareness" on a scan

Then you missed the point of the entire article and why religious brains have more activity in the frontal lobe. If life is just physical, then our brains would be plotted all around the baseline scan.

I can telly you how many dimensions beyond the physical there are: ZERO, and I am being generous, by assuming that the spiritual is something that makes sense to start with. We have a lot evidence for the physical and ZERO for the non physical.

Alas, for all practical purposes, speaking of the spiritual is like speaking of xhfjhsbjfhsjdfhb.... a meaningless concept that does not even deserve that ZERO I conceded.

Ciao

- viole

Just curious. Do you believe in multiverses then? There is no physical evidence for it. Yet atheist scientists have to use it to explain why something is greater than nothing.

I'll leave it that. As for the rest, we'll agree to disagree.

 

[james bond]

The picture you show here says "meditation", which is not in any way religious by nature. It can be used for religius purposes I guess, but atheists are not less likely to meditate than religious people. Actually, my experience is that atheists meditate far more than religious people who seem to pray as a replacement. Meditation has been proven to help with brain activity. But, I have not seen the same with prayer, which is an entirely different practice.

All in all, you seem to associate meditation with religious people when that couldn't be further from the truth? Where did that incorrect assumption come from?

What I said was one could think about God or gods on which to meditate in order to reach higher consciousness.

Else one could think about "nothing." Both are valid. One of the keys is to have a reverent frame of mind. Just what do you think is "emptying the mind?" It's to empty claims and thoughts such as yours. I would say you are in a state of continual dissatisfaction and pain. Let's just agree to disagree because one should meditate on calming thoughts. Dalai Lama said "God exists" or "God does not exist," leave those at the door and meditate on world peace.

 

[viole]

Oy vey. Information is also stored in virtual memory. Thus, we do not have to recall everything in order to use the information. You're using VM right now as we speak on your computer as well as your self.

Oh vey. Do you think that virtual memory does not use any physical resources?

Then you missed the point of the entire article and why religious brains have more activity in the frontal lobe. If life is just physical, then our brains would be plotted all around the baseline scan.

I have no idea what you are talking about now.

Just curious. Do you believe in multiverses then? There is no physical evidence for it. Yet atheist scientists have to use it to explain why something is greater than nothing.

You are becoming incoherent now. What do have multiverses have to do with it? And what does it mean "atheist scientists have to use it to explain why something is greater than nothing"? What does it mean "Something is greater than nothing"? Is that something scientists should lose their sleep on?

You seem to suffer from the delusion that scientists waste time with such unintelligible, pseudo-philosophical set of profound sounding spiritual deepities that have no meaning whatsoever. Like all spiritual stuff, I might add.

I'll leave it that. As for the rest, we'll agree to disagree.

If "for the rest" means 99% of what we discussed about, I agree.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Darkstorn]

Thanks for all dem smileys, JB.

 

[leibowde84]

What I said was one could think about God or gods on which to meditate in order to reach higher consciousness.

Else one could think about "nothing." Both are valid. One of the keys is to have a reverent frame of mind. Just what do you think is "emptying the mind?" It's to empty claims and thoughts such as yours. I would say you are in a state of continual dissatisfaction and pain. Let's just agree to disagree because one should meditate on calming thoughts. Dalai Lama said "God exists" or "God does not exist," leave those at the door and meditate on world peace.

"Emptying the mind" in regards to meditation usually refers to stopping yourself from thinking about anything ... relaxing the mind so to speak. Sometimes I think about it like self-hypnosis.

But, I don't see what you are responding to here. I said that religious people can meditate just like atheists can. Religious beliefs are irrelevant. So, what point were you trying to make with your OP. It seems like you were mistakenly connecting religious people with meditation thinking that being religious somehow makes it more likely that you will meditate.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I'm afraid that the brain is an organ that regulate many of the body's functions. It requires a relatively massive amount of energy to maintain the body's metabolic equilibrium. It's function can be manipulated, suspended, modified, augmented, destroyed, or replaced by any number of mechanical or natural methods. The brain not only interprets our imperfect senses to provide us with its best-guess impression of objective reality, but it maintains all our internal functions as well. It can affect other organs through its Endocrine and Nervous Systems. All of It's functions is under the direct control of our genes and alleles(DNA) levels of expressions. In short, what we are is the product of what is expressed by our genes and alleles. There is nothing greater than the sum total of our subjective reality, from our perspective. We cannot see ourselves from any other objective perspective. We can't "mind-melt" with another mind. We can't even occupy the same space as another object. We are all prisoners in own subjective reality. There are no true empaths, only individuals. And, without an evolved language there would be no conscience, consciousness, or internal dialogue. There would only be self-awareness, instincts, and the brains interpretation of reality.

It is amazing how a particular wavelength on the electromagnetic spectrum can be interpreted as a color. Or the propagation of a pressure wave through a medium is interpreted as sound. But the ability to interpret a few molecules in the nose or on the tongue, as smell or taste, is truly nature's precipice in assuring our survival.

IMHO, I think it is delusional to think that we can alter reality by entering into any altered state of consciousness. I think, at best, this would be only self-serving. I do believe that meditation can have positive benefits. I believe that the entire body should be targeted for relaxation, not just the brain. I'm afraid that our true nature will never be effected by our sensing its awareness. It can only be constrained or controlled. Don

 

[james bond]

Oh vey. Do you think that virtual memory does not use any physical resources?

No, because I've already said all of your life on a HD video and audio, would be too much to fit into your brain. Something could trigger it without you having to load the entire virtual memory. Hint: I can name that tune in five notes.

Also, pain and suffering can be in the form of grief, worry or regrets or psychological. It doesn't have to be physical pain.

I have no idea what you are talking about now.

Never mind.

You are becoming incoherent now. What do have multiverses have to do with it? And what does it mean "atheist scientists have to use it to explain why something is greater than nothing"? What does it mean "Something is greater than nothing"? Is that something scientists should lose their sleep on?

Ditto.

You seem to suffer from the delusion that scientists waste time with such unintelligible, pseudo-philosophical set of profound sounding spiritual deepities that have no meaning whatsoever. Like all spiritual stuff, I might add.

It's not me who suffers delusions just because I have faith and you don't. I think the frontal lobe activity demonstrates it. The delusion you have is you expect God to submit to a test in order to believe him? I would think God would be testing you as he did Adam and Eve.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

It's not me who suffers delusions just because I have faith and you don't. I think the frontal lobe activity demonstrates it.

Except, it doesn't. Not even remotely. It wasn't a study into the frontal lobe activity of theists or "people who have faith", it was a study of people who practice different forms of introspective thought. If anything, it's about the effect of meditation on the brain. It certainly doesn't indicate that religious people aren't delusional, or the reverse.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Faith is inversely proportional to knowledge. The less knowledge you have, the more faith you will need. But, the more knowledge you have, the less faith you will need. Don

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

@leibowde84 zeal for the Dharma is actually a virtue in historical Buddhism. Only some modern Buddhists disagree that zeal for the Dharma is good. It's one of the paramitas- core virtues of the path. To have zeal for the Dharma. That is what I have.

Even if enemies attack Buddhists with the intent to annihilate the Dharma, in history there would have been no disagreement and no hesitation that we must defend the Dharma. It is the truth of salvation for beings. Killing is bad, but wiping the Dharma from the world is worse.

I said it earlier in this thread: Buddhism is not about tickling the ears of fluffy bunnies. We believe it is the truth- we that have perfect faith in the Blessed One.

Lol. Just goes to show that there's fanatics and fundies in all religions.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I have always felt my religious brain is most adequate if not superior than any "atheist scum."

. . . . there is a Star Wars joke hidden in there