Is Atheism a Neurological disorder? Possible prenatal test

[The Imperium Empires]

God I could make the statement that religon is a neurological disorder but I won't because it's wrong and so is this. A majority of Atheists were former religon followers so on earth how is this true. This thread needs to be locked because it seems to exist just to insult people.

[Shyluz]

It worries me that 20% of those voting in the straw poll have no idea how biology works. Then again, 1/4 of Americans think the sun goes around the earth, so I guess this might be what progress looks like.

Actually, he changed the Poll so much that I accidently voted to support him, and we can't change our votes.

[New Larthinia]

God I could make the statement that religon is a neurological disorder but I won't because it's wrong and so is this. A majority of Atheists were former religon followers so on earth how is this true. This thread needs to be locked because it seems to exist just to insult people.

You're more sensible than those radical feminist minorities, it seems. Can't handle some criticism at all.

[Vashty]

God I could make the statement that religon is a neurological disorder but I won't because it's wrong and so is this. A majority of Atheists were former religon followers so on earth how is this true. This thread needs to be locked because it seems to exist just to insult people.

I agree. This is insulting to atheists and non-theists, and insulting to those with genuine mental disorders. Kinda reminds me of those people who believe homosexuality is 'a disease/illness'

[Veceria]

What. Is OP serious?

[The Imperium Empires]

God I could make the statement that religon is a neurological disorder but I won't because it's wrong and so is this. A majority of Atheists were former religon followers so on earth how is this true. This thread needs to be locked because it seems to exist just to insult people.

You're more sensible than those radical feminist minorities, it seems. Can't handle some criticism at all.

Thanks and hey Larthina remember me I'm in that thing with you.

[Vashty]

God I could make the statement that religon is a neurological disorder but I won't because it's wrong and so is this. A majority of Atheists were former religon followers so on earth how is this true. This thread needs to be locked because it seems to exist just to insult people.

You're more sensible than those radical feminist minorities, it seems. Can't handle some criticism at all.

What does this have to do with atheism?

[New Larthinia]

You're more sensible than those radical feminist minorities, it seems. Can't handle some criticism at all.

Thanks and hey Larthina remember me I'm in that thing with you.

I know.

[New Larthinia]

You're more sensible than those radical feminist minorities, it seems. Can't handle some criticism at all.

What does this have to do with atheism?

Nothing, but it seems that he can't really handle any ideal that opposes him, and I just pointed that out

[Impaled Nazarene]

Something something correlation does not equal causation or something

[Ad Nihilo]

First of, I should clear that if I absolutely had to choose any religion in the world, Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Islam, Christianity) and their denominations would be near the bottom of my list.

Now, Jesus did say that only through him you'd find peace after death etc etc, but he also teached moral principles. The quotes about praying even for your enemies (benevolence), turning the other cheek (humbleness), the fact that rich people who are greedy, and they usually are, have fewer chances of salvation as a contrast to people who give their possessions to the poor (social equalism, welfare), the one without a sin be the first to throw a stone (lenience and self-knowledge), not to be anxious about tomorrow but focus on today (living and enjoying each moment of our lives) and more. These are all very positive and helpful advices for most of people.

So I don't get why you say that he was only like "blah blah blah mah religion is da best blah blah blah". I think that Jesus should be viewed as a religious advocate as well as a philosopher and moralist.

Well the thing about "dude, chill, God will sort everything out when he comes down and judges everything" is that it does have the upshot that you don't get to be a dick either.

So yeah, you do get (indifferent) benevolence, and humbleness and you don't get to throw stones in glass houses.

But I will have to insist that saying "rich people are not as likely to get into Heaven" is not in any way shape or form progressive. It fixes nothing. And it does not encourage anybody to fix anything either.

The fundamental thing I am getting at is that Jesus's "philosophical" message is not a moral message you can underpin a good life, or a good society on. The message is basically, lay down and wait for God to fix everything. That will simply not do. It is not exalted, wise, or useful in any way shape or form. Nor is it good, whatever you want to take "good" to mean.

And now it's my turn to ask: How do you dare to put someone like Jesus next to a psychopath, murderer and low-life sadist like Charles Manson?

Not next to. But if you were to put them on a spectrum:

Charles Manson: psychopath, murderer and low-life sadist
Jesus of Nazareth: well-intentioned zealot who (unintentionally) got himself and droves of his followers killed for no obvious social gain for the poor and disempowered, or anyone really. If everyone followed his message we'd be living in caves and we'd have a Great Disappointment every year instead of Easter: https://www.gci.org/history/disappointment
Mother Thereza / Pope Francis: well-meaning and successful at being good people, preach a good message, live a good life, and if everyone followed their message the world would be a better place.

I tend to rate intentions very low. Good intentions are cheap. Everyone has good intentions. The world is still a hell-hole because most people with good intentions think that good intentions are sufficient. I rate people who produce actual positive results and do make the world a better place much more highly.

[Esternial]

God I could make the statement that religon is a neurological disorder but I won't because it's wrong and so is this. A majority of Atheists were former religon followers so on earth how is this true. This thread needs to be locked because it seems to exist just to insult people.

You could make the statement that religiousness imparts neurological difference and you might be true.

http://pss.sagepub.com/content/20/3/385

Here we show that religious conviction is marked by reduced reactivity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a cortical system that is involved in the experience of anxiety and is important for self-regulation.

The article quotes some seemingly interesting publications, too. "The Relation Between Intelligence and Religiosity: A Meta-Analysis and Some Proposed Explanations" and shit like that.

A meta-analysis of 63 studies showed a significant negative association between intelligence and religiosity.

[Arcadiom]

Better question: Is relegion a neurological disorder.

I think being likely to need an over watching all seeing eye to be able to handle the human condition is more delusional than not.

Please don't sink to his level.

It's not a matter of sinking to his level. Atheism is a school of thought that for the most part promotes skepticism and an evidence based reality, much like science, which is by definition the system by which human beings seek facts and knowledge. Merriam Webster defines science as: "the state of knowing, knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding, a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study, knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method, such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science, a system or method reconciling practical ends with scientific laws." It can be no coincidence that most atheists are of the inclination that "science" is most likely more correct, that Religion, which is defined as: "The belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group". Knowledge, vs. Belief. It is, by scientific means, possible that a divine being exists- but only so much as it is possible for leprechauns or unicorns to exist. Possible, but an unreasonable assumption, especially without evidence. It may also be noted, that there are multiple religions who contradict each other, and to say that one is more valid due to the evidence presented by one's own holy text is pretentious and unreliable to say the least. That being said, and back to the point, which is more likely? That humanity's combined system of critical thought based upon facts and evidence is mistaken, and that atheists who think a giant invisible man in the sky is ridiculous are suffering a "Neurological Disorder" - or is it more likely that the continued belief in said invisible man who created the universe after the pyramids were built, and that women came from the rib of man, is in fact a "Neurological Disorder".

[Uxupox]

This may seem like a provocative title, however in context I feel there is a reasonable amount of evidence to make this hypothesis.

"Studies on the demographics of atheism have concluded that self-identified atheists comprise anywhere from 2% to 13% of the world's population"
source; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

When we look at how the vast majority of the world's population adhere to some kind of theistic Religion, whether monotheistic, polytheistic or henotheistic. It seems like they're is something fundamental to our neurological wiring, that causes us to seek a God(ess) or God(esses). Something fundamental that causes us to comprehend the idea of a being greater than our selves, something that surpasses this physical Earthly realm...

When we look at the correlation between Pervasive Developmental Disorder's and Atheism, could it be that there is a fundamental defect in the brain wiring of an Atheist that causes them to be unable to comprehend the idea of a being greater than them selves? The very nature of a supernatural entity is an abstract concept that would be very dependent, and sensitive to the condition of one's brain wiring.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=OMR ... er&f=false
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ps ... ad-atheism

And if so, would it be possible that in future we may see a prenatal test for Atheism? And if so would you support it? I personally would as if there is even the slightest chance that a neurological disorder could send my Child to hell, I don't think I could live my self knowing, that my and my wife brought them into the world to suffer such a fate. Calvinism, and predestination spring to mind...

But what do, YOU think NSG?

This is very low quality bait man.

[Lost Memories]

It's not a matter of sinking to his level. Atheism is a school of thought that for the most part promotes skepticism and an evidence based reality, much like science,

Yesterday I had the chance to reread Psychological Types by Carl Jung, and the view of reality based only on the object, which is the description of extremized extroverted types, fits a lot with this "Atheist school of thought".
Contrasted with introverted types who focus more on the subject, who's doing the looking, than the object which is being looked at.
Just something which came to mind while reading what you wrote.

[Republic of Coldwater]

I doubt there is anything genetic that could make one innately atheistic, there lacks any genetic basis for one's belief, or lack of belief in a god and one's participation in organized religion.

[Guy]

I think you're a <edited out because I need my warnings for Gameplay>

[Alvecia]

-snip-

I imagine you might want to edit that so it is in keeping with forum rules.

[Lost Memories]

I rather wonder if there is a bigger correlation of extroverts among atheists, than people following any religion.
The strong orientation toward informations coming from outside themselves which many atheists show, could point to that, but it's questionable, as much as identifying the psychological type of a person is not something easy to do.

[Pope Joan]

The question reminds me of the fascinating book 2312 by Kim Stanley Robinson. "The year is 2312. Scientific and technological advances have opened gateways to an extraordinary future." saith Amazon. Among those advances is designer brain surgery which uses chemicals, implants, and surgery to alter the operation of the brain. Libido can be increased. A sense of communing with and identifying with particular animals can be enhanced. And, a very popular procedure involves enhancing the spiritual and religious sense, which (in this book) resides in a particular sector of the brain.

http://www.amazon.com/2312-Kim-Stanley- ... 749&sr=1-4

[Alvecia]

The question reminds me of the fascinating book 2312 by Kim Stanley Robinson. "The year is 2312. Scientific and technological advances have opened gateways to an extraordinary future." saith Amazon. Among those advances is designer brain surgery which uses chemicals, implants, and surgery to alter the operation of the brain. Libido can be increased. A sense of communing with and identifying with particular animals can be enhanced. And, a very popular procedure involves enhancing the spiritual and religious sense, which (in this book) resides in a particular sector of the brain.

http://www.amazon.com/2312-Kim-Stanley- ... 749&sr=1-4

Not to be blunt, but is that just an book recommendation or is there a point you're trying to make?

[Pope Joan]

The question reminds me of the fascinating book 2312 by Kim Stanley Robinson. "The year is 2312. Scientific and technological advances have opened gateways to an extraordinary future." saith Amazon. Among those advances is designer brain surgery which uses chemicals, implants, and surgery to alter the operation of the brain. Libido can be increased. A sense of communing with and identifying with particular animals can be enhanced. And, a very popular procedure involves enhancing the spiritual and religious sense, which (in this book) resides in a particular sector of the brain.

http://www.amazon.com/2312-Kim-Stanley- ... 749&sr=1-4

Not to be blunt, but is that just an book recommendation or is there a point you're trying to make?

It has to do with the idea that religious belief can reside in a physical section of the brain, which we could then alter. I think it fits in with the OP sufficiently.

[Alaizia]

Well the thing about "dude, chill, God will sort everything out when he comes down and judges everything" is that it does have the upshot that you don't get to be a dick either.

So yeah, you do get (indifferent) benevolence, and humbleness and you don't get to throw stones in glass houses.

But I will have to insist that saying "rich people are not as likely to get into Heaven" is not in any way shape or form progressive. It fixes nothing. And it does not encourage anybody to fix anything either.

The fundamental thing I am getting at is that Jesus's "philosophical" message is not a moral message you can underpin a good life, or a good society on. The message is basically, lay down and wait for God to fix everything. That will simply not do. It is not exalted, wise, or useful in any way shape or form. Nor is it good, whatever you want to take "good" to mean.

I don't think he said that and I also don't get that from his teachings. On the contrary, he basically said that "if you guys follow these moral teachings I gave you and also believe in me and my pop, you have a good chance of entering the Kingdom of Heaven. But I warn you that the road won't be easy, your faith and way of life will be tested every single day and mostly hardships will find you altruists in this selfish world" (very true and valid -selfish people always tend to be the majority).

I will not comment the "throw stones in glass houses" part because I think (hope) you are joking. This is clearly not what he meant by that.

You also left out the part for rich people that also says about giving stuff to the poor. How about that. More altruistic teachings from that Jewish fellow.....

As for your last comment, I disagree for the reasons I stated above. And how do you define "good" when you accuse these teachings of not be. Helpful? Practical? Ethical?

Not next to. But if you were to put them on a spectrum:

Charles Manson: psychopath, murderer and low-life sadist
Jesus of Nazareth: well-intentioned zealot who (unintentionally) got himself and droves of his followers killed for no obvious social gain for the poor and disempowered, or anyone really. If everyone followed his message we'd be living in caves and we'd have a Great Disappointment every year instead of Easter: https://www.gci.org/history/disappointment
Mother Thereza / Pope Francis: well-meaning and successful at being good people, preach a good message, live a good life, and if everyone followed their message the world would be a better place.

I tend to rate intentions very low. Good intentions are cheap. Everyone has good intentions. The world is still a hell-hole because most people with good intentions think that good intentions are sufficient. I rate people who produce actual positive results and do make the world a better place much more highly.

I am glad you agree that Charles Manson has nothing to do with Jesus as a person.
And no. Good intentions aren't "cheap". I assure you that not many people truely have good intentions for others. I will agree though that action is so much needed as good intentions, for them alone don't say much. But, again, they aren't cheap.

[Dinake]

First off, I doubt that atheism has a purely neurological cause. My faith is pretty clear that everyone has the ability to believe in God, although some may have it harder than others.
Secondly, it also condemns eugenics. Murdering children because there's a possibility they could become an atheist would certainly fall under that. If apostasy were genetically encoded, a better idea would be to place the child with protestants so that when they apostasize they will come to the true faith.
Besides, if atheism were a neurological condition, some would need to be kept around so that a cure can be researched.

[Alvecia]

Not to be blunt, but is that just an book recommendation or is there a point you're trying to make?

It has to do with the idea that religious belief can reside in a physical section of the brain, which we could then alter. I think it fits in with the OP sufficiently.

Well all due respect but I think you're gonna need far more substantial evidence for such an idea than a science fiction novel before anyone will take it seriously.