Religious Brains vs Atheist Brains

[A Vestigial Mote]

The atheists are in a state of continual dissatisfaction and pain.

Where do you get this stuff man?

 

[Holdasown]

I'm not a believer in neurotheology, but I would think that there is more activity and awareness in the religious brain, especially the frontal lobes, versus that of an atheist brain. This isn't to say that atheists are dull thinkers, but that they do not experience the full sense of consciousness or awareness of that of a religious person. The atheists are in a state of continual dissatisfaction and pain. Through prayer, chanting and meditation, the religious are able to tap into their neurological selves better in order to better achieve a closer to Nirvana or enlightenment state. In this sense, I am for the better enlightenment of all here.

Neurotheology: This Is Your Brain On Religion

Not all theist meditate, some atheists do. This is a meditation/non meditation post. Not really religious vs. atheists.

 

[shunyadragon]

Where do you get this stuff man?

From the Lake of Fire.

 

[atanu]

I see this more as the meditative brain versus the baseline brain (more than atheist versus religious).
I think Meditation is so good for us and I am still too lazy to do it

Since Buddhism doesn't require a belief in God and these studies were done on Buddhists, I don't why atheism is referenced in the OP.
Meditation is meditation. Theism is not required to meditate.
Otherwise I'm comfortable with the idea that meditation improves one's mental state.

SECULAR MEDITATION

Yes, I agree there's nothing here about religion vs atheism. It's about what happens in meditation which can be done by believer and non-believer alike.

It is not the karma (physical mediation) that engenders the ultimate benefit but the knowledge/experience makes one free.

While meditation gives benefit to all sincere practitioners, a mind that still sees and/or believes that all living beings are separate body-minds cannot get the benefit a meditator who has experienced connectedness of all beings gets.

 

[Nakosis]

It is not the karma (physical mediation) that engenders the ultimate benefit but the knowledge/experience makes one free.

While meditation gives benefit to all sincere practitioners, a mind that still sees and/or believes that all living beings are separate body-minds cannot get the benefit a meditator who has experienced connectedness of all beings gets.

I don't think the feeling of oneness requires theism either.

A feeling is a feeling. What you feel may or may not reflect actually reality. Even if it did, there maybe other explanations for it.

I feel what I feel. I don't need to be able to explain the source of those feelings to feel them.

 

[Darkstorn]

I do not believe Buddhism is atheistic by itself. It is true that the 'Source,' such as Brahman, is not considered as other religions describe or define God, which is rejected by Buddha as not existing. There is in reality a diverse understanding among Buddhists from many Zen Buddhists that believe in absolute atheists to Bubbhists that believe in a pantheon of deities.

Buddhism itself is atheistic but its adherents can have multitudes of different beliefs. That's all I said, and that's all I think you're implying here so I don't know why you misunderstood what I was implying.

If you are implying that Buddhism itself is about some "source" - which implies a beginning - then I can say that I disagree.

Think it like this: The Buddha would most likely have taught his sermons from a perspective most familiar to his listeners.

 

[atanu]

I don't think the feeling of oneness requires theism either.

I agree because I have seen theists who uphold very strong notions of separateness. But my point is slightly different.

I have gone through two stages. There was a time when I did yoga and meditation for gains -- mental and physical and in general to be better than others. There was no loving kindness involved. I faced a lot behavioural stresses and fell sick again and again. Later, teachers told me that that was normal since meditation tended to bring out the seeds buried in the subconscious. If those seeds were not wholesome the fruits would be bitter.

However that changed when my paradigm changed from an outlook of separateness to an outlook of 'same river passes through all'.

Anyway, this is woo.

 

[shunyadragon]

Buddhism itself is atheistic but its adherents can have multitudes of different beliefs. That's all I said, and that's all I think you're implying here so I don't know why you misunderstood what I was implying.

It is not a matter of misunderstanding. It is a matter of disagreement, I do not believe Buddhism itself is atheistic.

If you are implying that Buddhism itself is about some "source" - which implies a beginning - then I can say that I disagree.

I never proposed nor do believe there was a beginning.

Think it like this: The Buddha would most likely have taught his sermons from a perspective most familiar to his listeners.

Pretty much universal.

 

[Darkstorn]

It is not a matter of misunderstanding. It is a matter of disagreement, I do not believe Buddhism itself is atheistic.

You're welcome to believe that. But we both know what the Buddha said about belief. And he specifically denied Brahman.

I never proposed nor do believe there was a beginning.

"It is true that the 'Source,' such as Brahman, is not considered as other religions describe or define God, which is rejected by Buddha as not existing."

Brahman specifically is rejected. Not only as "god", but in general.

Pretty much universal.

I was trying to imply that's where your Brahman misconception arises from.

 

[George-ananda]

I would think the baseline is the "atheist" brain else it would be the religious brain.

My point was that the purely intellectual belief/disbelief in God (atheist versus religious) is not what is important but rather it is that religious/spiritual practices make a difference in the brain (like meditation and focused prayer).

 

[LuisDantas]

It is not a matter of misunderstanding. It is a matter of disagreement, I do not believe Buddhism itself is atheistic.

I agree. It isn't. Nor is it theistic.

Buddhism isn't IMO even agnostic. It just doesn't emphasize god-ideas enough to have a clear stance on those matters.

One of its virtues

 

[james bond]

Prayer at it's best can be compared to meditation, but pure meditation is better if you can do it.

Yes, I agree. I have seen Buddhist monks who can mummify themselves by meditating before their death. Also, the freedom from intense pain due to being in a meditative state. The start is to close one's eyes and empty the mind while sitting cross legged. One may not always be able to do this, so closing one's eyes and emptying the mind is a start at work. Maybe for a few minutes, at least. Group meditation is good, too, as it adds the radiance from others to the session. I've experienced reverence, the sky, the sun, music/hearing acuity, being in an egg and soaring (highest level reached) of consciousness. It's difficult to describe the experience unless others have tried it for themselves. It's about doing by one's own powers.

 

[Jumi]

Yes, I agree. I have seen Buddhist monks who can mummify themselves by meditating before their death.

The monks mummification isn't from meditation, but from slowly poisoning their bodies while they are still alive and enduring it with meditation so they don't decay. They believe it gives them the power to resurrect in the end times to help fight against the bad guys on the side of Buddhas. It was only done in a few sects of Buddhism to my knowledge.

 

[james bond]

Where do you get this stuff man?

Observation.

 

[james bond]

The monks mummification isn't from meditation, but from slowly poisoning their bodies while they are still alive and enduring it with meditation so they don't decay. They believe it gives them the power to resurrect in the end times to help fight against the bad guys on the side of Buddhas. It was only done in a few sects of Buddhism to my knowledge.

Interesting. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Darkstorn]

First, I'm not a liar like you. You're just mad because atheists are losers.

This isn't kindergarten level, no matter how hard you are trying to present your arguments as such.

They do not want to admit religious brains have more activity in their frontal lobe due to meditation, prayer and chanting.

I'm guessing you have enough activity in your brains to understand that the picture and link you gave us doesn't support your position or argument. You're just being deceitful on purpose to try and peddle your snake oil.

One may question how scientific these experiments are, but Newberg is trying to apply scientific method to religion.

The article has much less to do with religion than you're trying to imply. Yes, you imagine this is just one way to justify your faith. Fair enough, but it fails to justify your position in this argument. It doesn't actually support your statements. You can read, i'm quite sure you're aware of this. Maybe you're just making a gamble whether or not we're able to read the article and make that realization. Well, I can read.

It's not my picture, but atheists try to paint Buddhists as atheistic in the West. Gautama Buddha, its founder, believed in gods as divine beings. So who's the liar here?

You're the liar. Even if he did, all examples of deities in Buddhist texts have only limited powers and are just as fallible as humans. But also this fails to understand the following point: None of Buddhism's teachings have anything to do with belief in deities. Except perhaps that it might be a hindrance.

Remember: Buddhism's target audience was Hindus. There are many mentions of deities in Buddhist texts, but all of them are written hundreds of years after his death. Even so: I personally get the idea that all mentions of deities are used as metaphors, examples, or criticisms of Hinduism, and especially in the latter case, to justify the rejection of Atman and Brahman. But there is no lesson where one is encouraged to believe in gods. Meditation has nothing to do with gods.

/E: I think it's still important to note that while the article does talk about religion, and studying the effects on one's mind, the picture you used is pretty specific to one group: Tibetan Buddhists. And i would say it's pretty unlikely that they are thinking about gods when meditating. At least in general.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Observation.

If the only observation you've had of atheists is at your church when they sit in on sermons, then I suppose I can understand the "state of continual dissatisfaction and pain" perception you have. Otherwise, I'm not buying it.

 

[QuestioningMind]

First, I'm not a liar like you. You're just mad because atheists are losers. They do not want to admit religious brains have more activity in their frontal lobe due to meditation, prayer and chanting. One may question how scientific these experiments are, but Newberg is trying to apply scientific method to religion.

It's not my picture, but atheists try to paint Buddhists as atheistic in the West. Gautama Buddha, its founder, believed in gods as divine beings. So who's the liar here?

"You're just mad because atheists are losers."

Just when I thought your silly arguments couldn't get any more pathetic. There's nothing quite as pitiful as someone claiming to know what other people think and feel. You are truly clueless.

 

[james bond]

This isn't kindergarten level, no matter how hard you are trying to present your arguments as such.



I'm guessing you have enough activity in your brains to understand that the picture and link you gave us doesn't support your position or argument. You're just being deceitful on purpose to try and peddle your snake oil.



The article has much less to do with religion than you're trying to imply. Yes, you imagine this is just one way to justify your faith. Fair enough, but it fails to justify your position in this argument. It doesn't actually support your statements. You can read, i'm quite sure you're aware of this. Maybe you're just making a gamble whether or not we're able to read the article and make that realization. Well, I can read.



You're the liar. Even if he did, all examples of deities in Buddhist texts have only limited powers and are just as fallible as humans. But also this fails to understand the following point: None of Buddhism's teachings have anything to do with belief in deities. Except perhaps that it might be a hindrance.

Remember: Buddhism's target audience was Hindus. There are many mentions of deities in Buddhist texts, but all of them are written hundreds of years after his death. Even so: I personally get the idea that all mentions of deities are used as metaphors, examples, or criticisms of Hinduism, and especially in the latter case, to justify the rejection of Atman and Brahman. But there is no lesson where one is encouraged to believe in gods. Meditation has nothing to do with gods.

/E: I think it's still important to note that while the article does talk about religion, and studying the effects on one's mind, the picture you used is pretty specific to one group: Tibetan Buddhists. And i would say it's pretty unlikely that they are thinking about gods when meditating. At least in general.

I can't be the liar because of the meditation, prayer, chanting leading to brain activity according to the article. I left out incense and that's part of it, too. None of it was achieved through atheism. None of the Buddhism's teachings have anything to do with belief in deities? Just exactly what do you think they are meditating on? Part of it is reverence and thankfulness to the deities. It just goes to show atheists are wrong again. Atheists love wikipedia, so for once I'll use it to nail them.

"Buddhism includes a wide array of divine beings that are venerated in various ritual and popular contexts. Initially they included mainly Indian deities such as devas and yakshas, but later came to include other Asian spirits and local gods. They range from enlightened Buddhas to regional spirits adopted by Buddhists or practiced on the margins of the religion."

Buddhist deities - Wikipedia

Thus, it just goes to show it's a western atheist myth about Buddhism. The Buddah believed in gods, but did not teach about gods. Yet, part of Buddhist meditation is to honor and worship their gods. Other meditations have to do with the self. All I can think of is atheists got their idea of Buddhism as atheistic because Buddhists do not believe in creation, judgment from their gods or an afterlife of heaven and hell like Christians. Heaven and hell I think is part of the earthly existence or birth and re-birth.

The Six Realms of Desire in the Buddhist Wheel of Life

Furthermore, the Tibetan monk, Dalai Lama, said so, "God exists or God does not exist. Leave it for us. Your task is to learn how to live peacefully." He didn't say God does not exist as atheists want to believe.

AWAKENING FROM THE DREAM: Dalai Lama Speaks - What About God?

Of course, the Dalai Lama believes in the afterlife and judgment in the form of karma. Yet, this karma does not involve a judge, but cause and effect or actions and consequences.

More from the Dalai Lama on the afterlife, science, China and Tibet's future

 

[james bond]

If the only observation you've had of atheists is at your church when they sit in on sermons, then I suppose I can understand the "state of continual dissatisfaction and pain" perception you have. Otherwise, I'm not buying it.

Far be it for me to explain dissatisfaction and pain from a Christian view to an atheist. It's one of the observations made of atheists by Christians.

Thus, I present it as one of truths taught by Buddhism as dukkha. In it, one of the noble truths is samsara or suffering.

What Buddhists Really Mean by 'Life Is Suffering'