Slashdot Mirror


Religious Experiences Have Similar Effect On Brain As Taking Drugs, Study Finds (cnn.com)

A new study published in the journal Social Neuroscience finds through functional MRI scans that religious and spiritual experiences can trigger reward systems like love and drugs. "These are areas of the brain that seem like they should be involved in religious and spiritual experience. But yet, religious neuroscience is such a young field -- and there are very few studies -- and ours was the first study that showed activation of the nucleus accumbens, an area of the brain that processes reward," said Dr. Jeffrey Anderson, a neuroradiologist at the University of Utah and lead author of the study. CNN reports: For the study, 19 devout young adult Mormons had their brains scanned in fMRI machines while they completed various tasks. The tasks included resting for six minutes, watching a six-minute church announcement about membership and financial reports, reading quotations from religious leaders for eight minutes, engaging in prayer for six minutes, reading scripture for eight minutes, and watching videos of religious speeches, renderings of biblical scenes and church member testimonials. During the tasks, participants were asked to indicate when they were experiencing spiritual feelings. As the researchers analyzed the fMRI scans taken of the participants, they took a close look at the degree of spiritual feelings each person reported and then which brain regions were simultaneously activated. The researchers found that certain brain regions consistently lit up when the participants reported spiritual feelings. The brain regions included the nucleus accumbens, which is associated with reward; frontal attentional, which is associated with focused attention; and ventromedial prefrontal cortical loci, associated with moral reasoning, Anderson said. Since the study results were seen only in Mormons, Anderson said, more research is needed to determine whether similar findings could be replicated in people of other faiths, such as Catholics or Muslims.

228 comments

  1. Or other things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    more research is needed to determine whether similar findings could be replicated in people of other faiths, such as Catholics or Muslims.

    Or favorite sports teams, or social movements, or fandoms, or whatever else makes people tick.

    1. Re:Or other things by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 2

      Or favorite sports teams, or social movements, or fandoms, or whatever else makes people tick.

      Yep, exact same regions of the brain in fact:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10...

      So next time somebody talks about how wonderful Steve Jobs was, you can tell them to lay off the drugs, and still mean it both figuratively and sincerely...and hell...probably literally too.

    2. Re:Or other things by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 1

      more research is needed to determine whether similar findings could be replicated in people of other faiths, such as Catholics or Muslims.

      Or favorite sports teams, or social movements, or fandoms, or whatever else makes people tick.

      Or dead salmon.

    3. Re:Or other things by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      So next time somebody talks about how wonderful Steve Jobs was, you can tell them to lay off the drugs, and still mean it both figuratively and sincerely...and hell...probably literally too.

      Dopamine and Serotonin, technically the only two things you enjoy.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    4. Re:Or other things by sudon't · · Score: 1

      more research is needed to determine whether similar findings could be replicated in people of other faiths, such as Catholics or Muslims.

      Or favorite sports teams, or social movements, or fandoms, or whatever else makes people tick.

      Eh, not quite the same thing. That stuff exists. And as far as further research being needed, I thought Tim Leary pretty much settled the question.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    5. Re:Or other things by Place+a+name+here · · Score: 1

      How about opioids? It may be more accurate to say that opioids produce liking while dopamine and serotonin produce wanting.

    6. Re:Or other things by stealth_finger · · Score: 2

      Ok, ok, among the things you technically enjoy are such compounds as ....

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    7. Re:Or other things by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And smashing red outfits!

  2. In other news... by Patent+Lover · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...taking drugs has a similar effect on the brain as having a religious experience. Without the guilt.

    1. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except that with drugs you (usually) know you're just tripping (at least pre and post event), whereas religious people seem to think that what they experience/believe is actually real. Think "Oh my god I saw pink talking bunnies" vs "god told me to circumcise my son/daughter".

    2. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...taking drugs has a similar effect on the brain as having a religious experience. Without the salvation.

      FTFY

    3. Re:In other news... by ls671 · · Score: 1

      But, but, it costs me way too much money...

      So, with this breaking new knowledge, I am starting to look for a religion that is going to cost me less...

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    4. Re:In other news... by Patent+Lover · · Score: 0

      ...taking drugs has a similar effect on the brain as having a religious experience. Without the Delusion.

      FTFY

    5. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You don't fix LSD, man. It fixes you.

    6. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...taking drugs has a similar effect on the brain as having a religious experience. Without the TRUTH.

      FTFY... again!

    7. Re:In other news... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      ...taking drugs has a similar effect on the brain as having a religious experience. Without the guilt.

      I note that everyone seems to be ignoring the non-clickbait part of the summary. Religious experiences affect the brain the way drugs and love do....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    8. Re:In other news... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You know, that is probably the whole real justification for the "war on drugs": Getting rid of competition that has a better product. Tragic.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    9. Re:In other news... by gweihir · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Religious people have a problem with separating fantasy from reality. What else is new?

      If these people were not willing to kill, maim (circumcision of people unable to give informed consent very much counts) and slaughter to support their fantasy, it would not be much of a problem.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    10. Re:In other news... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Indeed. As love is an unauthorized surrogate for a religious experience, it must immediately be outlawed and punished harshly. Life in jail seems too good for these criminal elements.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    11. Re:In other news... by rfengr · · Score: 2

      Is it the Church of LDS, or church of LSD?

    12. Re:In other news... by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      ...taking drugs has a similar effect on the brain as having a religious experience. Without the TRUTH about DELUSION.

      FTFY... again, and again!

    13. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, it can be both - acid don't discriminate.

    14. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Buddhism Without Beliefs is where I started...

    15. Re:In other news... by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      So, legalizing drugs, is the same as supporting religion?

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    16. Re:In other news... by gweihir · · Score: 0

      Oddly enough you have that wrong. First, they are not the worst by far (they just were up at a time when technology allowed killing to be industrialized). But I take a relatively quick death-by-gas or firing-squad over a typical medieval torture-interrogation by Christian fanatics every time. And second, both 3rd Reich Fascism and Stalinist Socialism are quasi-religions, where a person takes the place of "God". Just look at North Korea for a current example of that.

      You may also notice (if you are not completely indoctrinated), that "atheism" is not a defining criterion of these both. In fact, the NAZIs did collaborate with the church and the only problem Stalin had with the church was that it claimed to much authority for his tastes.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    17. Re: In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      +1, really?

      You ignorant fuck. Did you learn that on TV or the back of a cereal box?

    18. Re: In other news... by coteriescavenger · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually, Nice logic, but it's not supported by history. Billions have been killed for the sake of land and resources, much more than the mere millions killed by industrialized nations. Worldly conflicts dwarf religious ones in every era. You do correctly point out, though, that people oppress or kill others are usually radicalized to believe they are "doing good", such as their leader being a god. How much more important then that they already know their creator, and that he calls for love and peace? Any good cause is an excuse for a tyrant, but Christianity is a hard one.

    19. Re: In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that has nothing to do with what was being discussed.
      Firstly, a war fought over resources or land does not make it an atheist war or the fault of atheism, as opposed to a religious war caused by religion. It makes it a sectarian war, ie. not concerning religion.
      Secondly, just because a war is not a religious war, doesn't mean the people who started it (or participated) aren't religious.
      How many lives have been lost due to wars caused by religion?
      How many lives have been lost due to wars caused by matters other than religion?
      How many lives have been lost due to wars caused by atheism?
      Then is religious body count greater than the atheist body count? Yes? Then that's what his point is, and you should shut the fuck up you have no idea what you're talking about.

    20. Re: In other news... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Any good cause is an excuse for a tyrant, but Christianity is a hard one.

      I recommend some study of the Middle Ages and some study of modern Christian fanatics. Even investing only a bit of time immediately shows that the Christian religion is just as suitable as a pretext for violence and oppression than any other one.

      The only thing the Christian faith has going for it is that it is old and stagnant and hence fewer and fewer people really care about it and more and more people dare to admit this.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    21. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Socialism as an ideology is just as bad as Christianity or Islam as an ideology. Socialism is just like Christianity 2.0, now without a superstitious believe in a omnipotent, transcendental god!* Requires a superstitious believe that total equality will make the society a workers paradise.

    22. Re: In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your claim that "Christian religion is just as suitable as a pretext for violence and oppression than any other one." only reveals your ignorance of religions. Clearly you have no idea about e.g. Aztec religion.

      Philipp

    23. Re:In other news... by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I initially thought the headline read "Religious Experiences Have Similar Effect On Brain As Taking a Dump."

    24. Re:In other news... by swb · · Score: 2

      Religion generally is largely opposed to drugs because they threaten the religious leadership's monopoly on spiritual experiences.

      The Christians mostly co-opted alcohol consumption into their religious practices because it was already culturally endemic in the areas where organized Christianity took root and their religious orders often turned production of alcoholic beverages into an economic asset. Of course later Protestant denominations often rejected alcohol, too, although it's muddier as to whether this was a function of rejection of alcohol in the culture generally or a means of differentiating themselves from Catholicism which had embraced alcohol consumption.

      Islamic religions managed to reject most all of it, although this may have been easier because the climate and geography may have made alcohol precursors (grapes, grains or abundant fruits) less available and thus less endemic to the culture. I wouldn't also put aside the notion of differentiating from Christian religions and Western cultures.

      Hallucinogenic drugs though have seemed tightly controlled or rejected by religious authorities. Even in non-Christian religions where they formed part of the culture, access has been controlled to an extent by shamans or medicine men who also exercised influence over the local religion. I'd also argue that opium would fall into this category as well since opium smoking produces a delirium which may also serve as a replacement for religious experience.

    25. Re:In other news... by Tranzistors · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cool story, bro. Any citations?

    26. Re: In other news... by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Your claim that "Christian religion is just as suitable as a pretext for violence and oppression than any other one." only reveals your ignorance of religions. Clearly you have no idea about e.g. Aztec religion.

      You shouldn't speak of ignorance. Do a little history reading, and I think you'll find that far more people have been murdered in the name of Christ than in the name of Huitzilopochtli.

      Also, followers of the Abrahamic religion - all three varieties - continue to kill today. I'm not so worried about the Aztecs, but followers of JHVH are direct threats to me and my descendants.

    27. Re:In other news... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Indeed. As love is an unauthorized surrogate for a religious experience,

      Love is a driver for the evolutionary drive to procreate.
      Religion is an effect of the evolutionary drive to avoid death.
      While both are delusions, one still serves a useful purpose, while the other is now a dead end. Where it earlier could have a positive net effect of groups of humans protecting each other and each others' offspring, in modern society with ultimate mobility religion has become a cause of death more than a deterrent.

      We may one day evolve into not needing either delusion, but we're not there yet. We are at the point where more and more of us see that the supernatural hypothesis has failed, and that death cannot be cheated.

    28. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yea man, but first hit this

    29. Re: In other news... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Buddhism rejects the concept of self or soul, but does teach that rebirth occurs, which is a difficult concept to consider - rebirth, but no continuity. So what is reborn?

      But the vijñna, or commonly called in the west your consciousness, is the basis of rebirth, not a soul, but a continuum of existence. And so skirts the question of soul v existence.

      All of which, to atheists, is 'magic', and dismissed.

      SO, stop reading cereal boxes, and at least pick up a systematic theology text and conduct a minimal study. Or not, and harp from the back benches, a sport cherished here.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    30. Re:In other news... by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      "The Christians mostly co-opted alcohol consumption into their religious practices because it was already culturally endemic"

      Wine and strong drink are well documented in the Christian Bible, and from times long before Christianity came to be. Some Hebrew sects rejected alcohol also, most notable manifested in Samson, a Nazarite at birth. Even his mother abstained after visitation by an angel.

      Alcohol was an issue for Jews well before Christ, and well before Israel even.

      For all the declarations of understanding Christianity sufficiently to discredit it, few can even get the plain stories straight. C'mon, man.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    31. Re: In other news... by vel-ex-tech · · Score: 1

      Right. When Christians maim and kill, it's just culture or territory or something else. When Moooooooooooooooooooslims maim and kill or when Aztecs maim and kill, the problem is obviously their religion.

    32. Re:In other news... by swb · · Score: 1

      I can't remember the title, but what I posted largely came from a somewhat academic history of drug use in America I read last year.

      Another interesting factoid -- smoking opium was the predominant form of illicit opioid use into the late 1920s, despite the obvious notion that more concentrated preparations like laudanum, morphine and heroin had been widely available and generally unrestricted until 1914. Most notably smoking opium remained dominant even after the restrictions of the Harrison Anti-Narcotic Act of 1914.

      The author cited a number of reasons for it, from existing supply and distribution networks to the relatively high costs associated with synthesized preparations leaving them oriented towards upper class addicts, who were mostly maintenance users who had obtained the habit due from generally legitimate health conditions otherwise untreatable.

      The most interesting argument he made for smoking opium's durability was user preference. A smoking opium habit was more manageable due to its reduced strength relative to purified morphine or heroin, and smoking opium required somewhat complex preparation techniques that led many to dependent on opium dens.

      What I find interesting about that is that many drug prohibitions often make the problems worse the more successful they are. Raw opium is harder to surreptitiously traffic, and as prohibitions become more intensive, supply and use become oriented to more concentrated formulations volumetrically easier to smuggle. In other words, we're better off managing a drug's less concentrated variation because prohibition leads to its more concentrated use which has vastly more significant negative effects. A 1000 opium addicts are easier to deal with than 100 heroin addicts.

    33. Re:In other news... by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Both

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    34. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it the Church of LDS, or church of LSD?

      To a dyslexic, they're the same church!

    35. Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Christians mostly co-opted alcohol consumption into their religious practices because it was already culturally endemic in the areas where organized Christianity took root and their religious orders often turned production of alcoholic beverages into an economic asset.

      There was once this horrible decease called Cholera which still raises its dirty head today in areas were a drinking water spoiling catastrophe and avoidance of soft alcoholic beverages consumption combine. Drinking of vine, primitive beer and other fermented drinks were much safer than water at that time. The funding of the monasteries by brewing beer and vine came later.

    36. Re: In other news... by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Another lens to view this through:

      The one commonality between religions of all types that kill people and political pursuits that also kill people: people that kill people.

      Funny how stupid humans point out religions and political ideas as the definitive reason that people are persecuted and killed throughout history. When someone does this they prove they are compromised mentally. Humans strive to create power structures that allow them to do as they wish without recourse. The ideology changes constantly. The behavior stays the same. That is a human quality, not a result of some external force.

      Even religions that say "Don't kill people. Love all humans. Treat other humans as you would treat yourself. Love your enemies" have resulted in power structures that wage war, commit genocide, murder, and destroy. Only the ignorant would attribute that to a religion that specifically forbids it.

      You want a definitive reason why these terrible things happen? Look in the mirror. Quit passing the buck. Realize this is what humans do.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    37. Re: In other news... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Or maybe the difference is that Christians kill and torture out of love, while all the others, including atheists, do it out of hate. Give the way these people "argument", that would make perfect "sense" too me: "We had to torture the people and kill them to prevent them from going to hell! We only did it because we love them!". I do not think it gets more vile than this.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    38. Re: In other news... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Well, yes and no. Religion (and quasi-religious ideologies) act as concentrator, amplifier and direction-giver for people that have not mastered these urges. A single homicidal maniac is not so much of a problem and more of an annoyance on a macroscopic scale. A few million of them all going into one direction are a massive problem. Or to put it differently, while Jack the Ripper is/was just about as vile as ISIS, he was very limited in what he could do, which unfortunately does not apply to ISIS.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    39. Re: In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An atheist-compatible version of rebirth would involve the understanding of conditional existence and seeing how ideas are recycled and transformed over the generations of people and different periods of the life of the individual every time the conditions are right. Buddhism was born within the concepts and world of another religion and have mostly assimilated rather than replaced the spiritual beliefs of a place of migration. Similarly, an atheistic Buddhism is quite conceivable idea but requires some work.

    40. Re:In other news... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      While love is significant in human reproduction, it covers a much wider range. That I love my wife and child makes evolutionary sense. However, I also love people I can't reproduce with and who don't share any of my chromosomes.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    41. Re:In other news... by arth1 · · Score: 1

      However, I also love people I can't reproduce with and who don't share any of my chromosomes.

      Do you really, or are you using "love" in the inflated modern sense as a synonym for "like"? If you really love them, when did you fall in love with them?

    42. Re:In other news... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The concept of "agape" isn't exactly modern, and it's part of what is generally considered "love". I come to love people over time. Participating in reproduction-related acts adds something to it ("eros"), but there's many commonalities between how I love my wife and how I love some of my male friends. Are you using "love" in some restricted modern sense to mean "eros" only?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  3. Rick James was wrong by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Religion is a helluva drug." And far more destructive than heroin.

    1. Re:Rick James was wrong by gweihir · · Score: 0

      And what is worse, religion is massively destructive to others. Medical-grade heroin, used competently, apparently only has very limited detrimental effect on the user and basically none on others. Not counting effects from criminalization, of course. Which is the thing that made it a big criminal business, as it is rather cheap to produce in medical grade when it is legal.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  4. Opiates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You could say it's the opiate of the people.

    1. Re:Opiates by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You must be a stinking Communist!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Opiates by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      I intended to reply to this but instead replied to the comment below, which see.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    3. Re:Opiates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So ... just say no, to Jesus.

  5. This is your brain by Layzej · · Score: 1
    1. Re:This is your brain by ClickOnThis · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, the famous Karl Marx quote.

      Keep in mind that, in context, Marx was referring to opiates as something that relieves pain, rather than something that gets you high.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    2. Re:This is your brain by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Oops, disregard. replied to the wrong post. Should be the one above.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    3. Re:This is your brain by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Yes, the famous Karl Marx quote.

      Keep in mind that, in context, Marx was referring to opiates as something that relieves pain, rather than something that gets you high.

      [I posted this erroneously to another comment below.]

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    4. Re:This is your brain by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      Oh man, forget it. It must be too late in the day for me to keep my replies straight. Sorry.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    5. Re:This is your brain by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Surely it can work both ways. In fact, looking at religion in general, that seems to be the case in practice.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:This is your brain by Rei · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think you need to cut down on your opiate dosage

      --
      People said I was dumb, but I proved them.
    7. Re:This is your brain by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      /thread

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    8. Re:This is your brain by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      The pain of socialism?

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  6. Embedded Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    watching a six-minute church announcement about membership and financial reports

    That's right. The submission told us so. Alright, the joke is: "So how many of the Mormons felt religious feelings by listening the financial reports of their church? All of them?"

    1. Re:Embedded Joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's Kolob backwards?

    2. Re:Embedded Joke by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Lords of Kolob, hear my prayer...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  7. so that old saying was true by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It really is the opiate of the masses.

  8. Try Jesus!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trust us, its going to be alright...after one go, they always come back

    -Christ's Addicts

  9. So why are religions still legal? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

    If you pray, you're basically circumventing drug access controls. Also, cerebrospinal fluid should be banned due to its DMT content (not to mention vision problems in space).

    --
    Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    1. Re:So why are religions still legal? by quenda · · Score: 1

      We can try banning religion just as soon as the War on Drugs is won.

    2. Re:So why are religions still legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Religions teach obedience, and law enforcement likes obedience. In my town, the police put up billboards that literally say "Obey The Law!"

    3. Re:So why are religions still legal? by gweihir · · Score: 2

      You have it backwards. The whole "war on drugs" is an attempt by religion to kill competition from a better product. Organized religion is behind this.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:So why are religions still legal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the "war on drugs" is an effective means of price control.

      Watch the film "Machete", be amazed at how life imitates art.

    5. Re:So why are religions still legal? by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      If you pray, you're basically circumventing drug access controls. Also, cerebrospinal fluid should be banned due to its DMT content (not to mention vision problems in space).

      You're asking the wrong question. You should be asking "So why are drugs still illegal?"

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    6. Re:So why are religions still legal? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      That's total bollocks.

      1. Hemp competed with cotton -- by confusing the public over hemp by using a different name, marijuana, which was demonized -- hemp was outlawed.
      How America Lost the War on Drugs

      2. Hell, even the US Department of Agriculture in 1942 supported Hemp:
      Hemp for Victory

    7. Re:So why are religions still legal? by UnknownSoldier · · Score: 1

      Gee, religions are legal because in the US you might have heard of a LITTLE Law called the 1st Amendment.

      You don't get to dictate to others what they can or can't believe.

    8. Re:So why are religions still legal? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      That is just a copycat on the primary thing. They could only demonize marijuana because of the war on drugs. Or is a causality-chain with two steps in it too complicated for you?

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  10. missing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    WHy dont they study that people who believe in religion are gullible, stupid or fools for accepting something important as truth without bothering to check the facts.

    1. Re:missing... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      As this applies to the majority of people, maybe that would be a bit risky. Sure, it is an obvious fact for anybody halfway smart and free of this mental plague, but like all groups of authoritarian followers, religious people are willing to kill, maim and slaughter to protect their fantasy, and their authoritarian leaders tell them to whenever there is a credible threat to that fantasy.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:missing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Actually... almost half of the world's population in the very recent past, and still a large part presently, was/is (forced to) believe that "people who believe in religion are gullible, stupid or fools", and those people were (are) "willing to kill, maim and slaughter to protect their ATHEISTIC fantasy"...

    3. Re:missing... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You are making a fundamental mistake here: The ideology you are talking about is a quasi-religion in this form. A bit different in its "theory", but basically the same thing. And no, they are not representing atheism and neither is atheism an important characteristic. That was just something they adopted to fight competition for authority from theism.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  11. Small Sample Size by DERoss · · Score: 4, Informative

    Only 19 persons were tested. All were from the same religion. There was no control set of non-religious individuals tested to see if the MRI scans were indeed representative of "religious and spiritual experience".

    Most important, the Slashdot headline "Religious Experiences Have Similar Effect On Brain As Taking Drugs, Study Finds " differs from the title of the original study report. In the original report, the title is "Reward, salience, and attentional networks are activated by religious experience in devout Mormons", clearly limiting the scope of the study to one religion.

    1. Re:Small Sample Size by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      Didn't control for magic underpants as well.

    2. Re:Small Sample Size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is why I hate the skeptic body. It's another religion.

      Or as I used to read a lot .. /r/atheism is leaking again.

    3. Re:Small Sample Size by Aristos+Mazer · · Score: 2

      The summary of the article explicitly mentioned the limits of the study and the need to broaden it. See final sentence. Nothing underhanded here.

    4. Re:Small Sample Size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That and also the fact that what is measured is the experience of a reward. Obviously, you stick to a religion because it makes you feel better, at least sometimes. Since the outcome is a pleasant one, you will tend to repeat the experience.

      The other point is about the reliability of fMRI, until someone has repeated these very same results more than once, I doubt we can give it much credit. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/01/10/reliability-fmri-brain-activity-memory-encoding/#.WD5kvHVElhE

    5. Re:Small Sample Size by ckatko · · Score: 1

      I love how the one intelligent, skeptical comment on a site full of "skeptics" is always half-way down. You'd think "skeptics" would be more skeptical of everything. Turns out, they're just skeptical of things threatening to their ego. But their egos are just as threatened as everyone else's apparently. In other words, they're just as religious as religious people, they're just meaner and smarter at being mean.

      "Ha ha! Look at these stupid religiouses!"

      "The study was poor science."

      "The study is still correct because my FEELINGS are more valid than SCIENCE! Therefor my ego is no longer threatened and I may continue about my life without experiencing mental pain. Mental gymnastics for the win!"

    6. Re: Small Sample Size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that were the case then skepticism should light up the fMRI in the same way as religion.

    7. Re:Small Sample Size by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      Of course the study was limited to one religion. The sample size was small.
      Of course the sample size was small, putting 19 people through an MRI imaging an area over and over in different scenarios costs real money.
      Of course there was no ability to extend this due to a lack of funding.
      Of course there's a lack of funding because science is just garbage making conclusions from small sample sizes and insufficient control groups.

      I suppose you'd only be happy if we abandon all science completely.

    8. Re:Small Sample Size by rickb928 · · Score: 1
      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  12. A lot of folks won't like this by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    One conclusion that might come out of this is that it's sometimes appropriate to treat religion as an illness, as drug addictions are treated. Now, this is done today for some people in cults, generally by their relatives and against their will. It brings up all sorts of problems regarding freedom of belief. For some people, religion appears to be a beneficial part of their personality. When does it become an illness?

    Before you dismiss this, consider how many people historically, and today, are killed for religious reasons or at least by people who use religion as an excuse. People of my ethnicity haven't forgotten the Spanish Inquisition, the Holocaust, etc.

    1. Re:A lot of folks won't like this by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Another conclusion is that we shouldn't make all that much out of small functional MRI studies done by random researchers since they're hard to do correctly.

      Of course, we could also use a dead fish as a control.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:A lot of folks won't like this by borcharc · · Score: 1

      Or the conclusion that we should leave the drug users and religious people alone. For at least one very large subset of drug users, it basically already is a religion. They have music, dancing, community, charity, and pilgrimages. Let adults live the life they choose.

    3. Re:A lot of folks won't like this by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 0

      This reminds me of a prayer I've heard: "Oh Lord, protect me from your believers." Sure we should leave them alone, it's convincing them to leave others alone that can be a problem.

    4. Re:A lot of folks won't like this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sometimes appropriate to treat religion as an illness, as drug addictions are treated

      Some people are more sensitive to suggestion, more submissive, or have the known genetics to support alcoholism and addiction. Perhaps propensity for strong religious and political devotion is also, at least partially, an inherited trait.

      For some people, religion appears to be a beneficial part of their personality

      Similarly to the way certain amount of alcohol is good for the arteries (at least for the mice) while any more than that is more harmful than not using at all due to the infection caused by the leaking bacterial products from the intestine.

    5. Re:A lot of folks won't like this by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Almost all mental illnesses include as a diagnostic criterion that the behaviour is detrimental to yourself or others. You're not clinically depressed until it negatively affects your life. Similar criteria could be applied to religion, except we're afraid to do it.

  13. Compare spiritual experiences and Diablo by TodPunk · · Score: 1

    They might be quite similar. Irony.

    --
    This forum Sig is licensed under the LGPL.
  14. Religion is the opium of the people by danlip · · Score: 2

    Sounds like Marx was right about that.

  15. Similar Effect On Brain As Taking Drugs by manu0601 · · Score: 1

    Similar Effect On Brain As Taking Drugs, Study Finds

    So does sport, sex, good food, and so on. Anything satisfying acts like a drug, without the drug side effects.

  16. Cheech and Chong... by GerryGilmore · · Score: 2

    ...had this nailed decades ago! "I used to be all messed up on drugs, man. Now, I'm all messed up on the Lord!"

    1. Re:Cheech and Chong... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...had this nailed decades ago! "I used to be all messed up on drugs, man. Now, I'm all messed up on the Lord!"

      And that right there explains both the Islamic conquest and the Crusades in one sentence, "Messed up on the Lord".

  17. Oh god my stomach by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    is usually what I say from certain weed that gives me hardcore munchies and makes me pig out. On the other hand first time I did shrooms a few months back and was like damn should have done this 20 years ago, mind you a bad acid trip at a night club put me off psychedelics so never go to shrooms. Good combo 1 gram of shrooms in chocolate and some spiced rum and a bit of MDAM + watching Star Trek.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Oh god my stomach by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MDAM? Is that a new acronym for a hottie?

    2. Re:Oh god my stomach by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      MDAM I mean hookers and blow in motel rooms.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  18. Well this explains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why I always get the munchies in church.

  19. Forced to go to church as a kid by Snotnose · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Think 60s/70s. Went twice on Sunday, then Wed night. I was 10 or 11 when I started asking questions that got answered by "ya gotta have faith". Um, if I had faith I wouldn't be asking these questions.

    Older I got the more I hated church. Not gonna lie, there were a lot of days when I thought about opening the car door and jumping out of the car. On the freeway. To this day I don't dress up, nor do I sing in public.

    Then Wizard of Oz was shown on Wednesdays for a few years in a row. I'd heard a lot about it, never seen it, wanted to see it. But no, I had to go to church Wednesday nights, cuz reasons.

    Moved out when I was 18. Only time I've been in a church since was when mom died 4 years ago. Dad keeps asking me to go to church with him, I demurr, he doesn't understand why I won't go.

    During my 20's and half my 30's, whenever I found someone was religious I'd goad them. Actively tried to piss them off. I grew out of that.

    I think if you have a rational, questioning mind, church is either a social thing or pure BS.

    1. Re:Forced to go to church as a kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I grew up irreligious. My parents used to take me to the UCC that they met (and got married at) and I sang in the children's choir, but that stopped while I was still a preteen.

      Now that I'm an adult, I've actually gone back. If pressured, I would describe myself as religious instead of agnostic, but only barely. I'm a tenor in the choir. I wouldn't call it precisely a social thing, but I enjoy it.

    2. Re: Forced to go to church as a kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've just described me. My mother is "spiritual" when I was young it was church. I grew to hate religion and its followers. I was firmly in the "lock the fuckers in and burn it down" crowd.

      An ex who was discovered by the 7th day cash grabbing direct debitists while I was in my late teens cemented that world view.

      It took a lot of time but I grew to accept that their opinion, while rubbish and wrong, is valid and they are entitled to it.

      I still despise religion but I don't despise the followers any longer. I've come to appreciate that their religious freedom is my atheist freedom.

      The late night beer fuelled religious arguments with my theology scholar friend tend to be quite enlightening and amusing.

    3. Re:Forced to go to church as a kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn.. Almost my EXACT situation with the only exception being 70s/80s.

    4. Re:Forced to go to church as a kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For reference, there are churches (and nonchurch religious experiences) which aren't at all like the ones you've been to. Showing the Wizard of Oz every Wednesday night sounds like a midwestern-Protestant peculiarity.

      (Captcha: parson. Uhh... sure.)

  20. Opium by StormReaver · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So we have conclusive proof that religion really is the opiate of the masses.

    1. Re:Opium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the opiate of the masses are the liberal media and the Democrats/Socialists.

    2. Re:Opium by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      So we have conclusive proof that religion really is the opiate of the masses.

      and we had it already 6 threads above..

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    3. Re:Opium by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      If anything, I would way it's more the Ritalin of the masses. A way to create greater communities and bind them to a common purpose. An interesting follow-up would be to take new-athiest SJW types and do a corollary experiment.

  21. Religous Neuroscience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But yet, religious neuroscience is such a young field...

    Um, this could be slicing it up a bit much.

  22. All messed up on the Lord..... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 1

    Cheech and Chong noticed this years ago....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  23. From 70's Cheech & Chong by stevez67 · · Score: 0

    I used to be all messed up on drugs, man. Now I'm all messed up on the Lord."

  24. God gene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And a simulated universe.... Our world wold be a dull place if it were not for religion... not at all worth watching. :)

  25. Still FTFY by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...taking drugs has a similar effect on the brain as having a religious experience. Without the OPRESSION

    FTFY one mo' time!

  26. Hrrrmmm by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    Fuck religion! I'd rather take a bong hit.

  27. I love devote 19-year-old girls so much! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, these little chickies provide me so much pleasure! I love them so much!

    Please don't stop your oppressive ways. It manifests in so much pussy juice!

  28. LDS LSD mostly didn't work for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I grew up in a Mormon (LDS) family, and don't remember too many significant feelings of the sort mentioned in the article. I eventually concluded the church was pulling my leg and dropped out.

    However, I once was visiting Utah on an informal tour of "important" LDS buildings, and had a strange feeling that brought me back to the days when I did believe. It was sort of euphoric relief that an omnipotent father figure "has our back" and that we, the LDS, are on the good team. It's roughly comparable to your town's sports team winning a big game where the crowd feels a togetherness and collective strength.

    I thought to myself, "Why am I having this feeling, I don't believe any of it." After pondering it for a while, I concluded that the tour triggered memories AND feelings of my younger days when I did believe.

    There's also negative experiences related to it, the reverse of the above, but they are kind of personal. Religion is a crazy mind-game either way. If you grew up with it, you can never get it out of your head: it shapes your thought process in that your mind-model of the world uses idioms from the religion. These idioms become a kind of meta language of the mind.

    For example, when I think of user usage log files, it triggers the concept that "God knows your every move, thought, and action". I don't actually believe that, but my mind uses that as the conceptual idiom for what log files do.

    Hierarchical file systems remind me of the church hierarchy. LDS-ers talk a lot about their organizational structure; sticking portraits of leaders on their walls. God is into org hierarchies I guess. I suspect it's actually an fringe ego benefit because most leaders have zero or small salaries from the church: it's largely volunteered "labor". The top leaders are usually wealthy by other means.

    The idea of other planets is natural to LDS-ers because of the concepts like planet Kolob (which is not official doctrine actually, long story). Thus, an enjoyment of space sci-fi came natural.

    I like to document rules, procedures, and assumptions; which may be traced back to scriptures, commandments, and rule lists like what LDS calls "Words of Wisdom", which the "coffee is bad" concept derives from. It also says oats are bad, but for some reason that's not enforced and barely mentioned. Go figure. (I almost typed "barley mentioned").

    1. Re:LDS LSD mostly didn't work for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I grew up an odd mix of RC and evangelical. Very devout. I genuinely believed until my early 20s and then experienced a very abrupt 'loss of faith' that triggered a disintegration of sense of self, so deeply was that belief ingrained and so central was religion to my life.

      In attempting to define my self without reference to church or god, I recognised that I had a pattern of thought, a mind-model as you say, that was shaped to fit religion and it was going to take a while before that could change. In the meantime, I didn't want to have it fill with the next thing to come along, or to become a kind of mental abscess, scabbed over but not healed. So I packed it, so to speak with a self-created 'religion'.

      A polytheistic belief, to counter the monotheism of Christianity. Fictional characters (Pratchett's the Lady, Gaiman's Death and Eris from the Principia Discordia - although this last is more historic than fictional). Female vs male. Whenever I reflexively prayed, it was to one of those three. My ritualistic behaviour became not mentioning the Lady's name, hot dog buns and the like. I knew, on some level, that I was making this up, but it gave me something for my habits to work with while they wound down and were replaced with different patterns of thought. And for a while, part of me believed. That habit of belief didn't really care what the subject was, it just needed a focus.

      It took years, but the habits eventually were replaced by different (better?) ways of thinking and it's been a long time since I can remember reflexively winging off a quick prayer when anxious.

      Yeah. Religion. It's a hell of a drug.

  29. Re: More important question by rfengr · · Score: 0

    I'd call Islam a cult bent bent on world domination. Convert or die.

  30. Some one has to say it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being LDS is like being on LSD!

    I'm so funny. (Lifelong believing mormon here.)

  31. Re: More important question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    islam are a race but muslim are a fabric stupid

  32. So what by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The brain, a bio-chemical machine, has measurable state changes when you ask it to do something else.

    If it changes state when you think of X and doesn't change when you think of anything else, then X is interesting.
    From the bulk of functional MRI experiments, this is not the case, so this experiment is not evidence that X is special.

    New theory:
    Perhaps X is special in that it appears to have a negative effect on folks ability for critical thinking.

  33. Religion is worse by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    At least with drugs you may voluntarily find a way to quit, and people are here to help you do that. Most of the religious people I know are so deeply and blindly involved in their own beliefs that nobody may change their mind, ever.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  34. Alcoholics Anonymous LSD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill Wilson (founder of Alcoholics Anonymous) got into LSD after 20 years of sobriety. He wanted to distribute it to all the meetings in the country. He found it almost replicated his initial spiritual experience that lead him to found AA.

  35. Why no non-religious people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It would've been really interesting to do the study but have non-believer do the same thing and compare the response.

  36. Re: More important question by rfengr · · Score: 2

    That would be muslin.

  37. Drugs made me feel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Drugs made me feel bored. clumsy, stupid and paranoid.

    Yeah, sounds a lot like religion, actually.

  38. You have to do better than this. by jensend · · Score: 1

    That conclusion can no more come out of this research than could the idea that listening to music is an illness.

    The research simply said that people reporting a positive experience showed activity in the reward centers of their brains. Big surprise! Hey, going outside in the sunshine activates the reward center of my brain, maybe that's an illness too.

    The slashdot headline is there because people who are irrational and partisan want to ignore what the research actually said and use lies about it to bludgeon others. Your silly attempt to join the dogpile amounts to using your fame to act as a bully. It's shameful.

    1. Re:You have to do better than this. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you look at the report, even at the start they state:

      doctrinal concepts may come to be intrinsically rewarding and motivate behavior in religious individuals.

      and at the end

      Ultimately, the pairing of classical reward responses with abstract religious ideation may indicate a brain mechanism for attachment to doctrinal concepts and charismatic in-group religious leaders.

      So, this is stated very carefully in scientific language, but what they are discussing is how religious ideation and the following of religious leaders can bypass rational centers of the brain and create a self-reward loop in which these acts become their own reward.

      It doesn't seem to me that it's being a bully to be concerned with why religion leads some people to kill and prompts others to acts of violence and oppression. The study is a start toward an answer. One could connect this study, for example, with the Stanford Prison Experiment, and research whether the same reward mechanisms were activated. Leader-following and an in-group were involved in the Stanford student's behavior. Do self-rewarding loops of religious ideation and leader-following reinforce such behavior?

    2. Re:You have to do better than this. by jensend · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ultimately, the pairing of classical reward responses when hearing music with learning a smattering of music theory may indicate a brain mechanism for greater music appreciation. So what?

      That's not "bypassing rational centers of the brain and creating a loop." It's simply "these people had a positive experience and there were ideas that were associated with that positive experience." If anything, the fact that brain regions which are active in moral reasoning were especially active in these people suggests the opposite of "bypassing rational centers."

      You've conveniently ignored the actual data and results of their study entirely and instead taken a couple of speculative comments ("here's an idea, please fund us") out of context and twisted them.

      The old baloney about religion being a primary cause of violence is a ridiculous urban legend. Ultimately you can trace the exaggerations back to centuries-old partisan tracts. Actual historians (e.g. Encyclopedia of Wars) find religiously motivated wars to be roughly 2% of the total death count.

      If what you get out of the Shoah is that Hitler was right on both counts - Judaism is a disease, as is Christianity - there's something fundamentally wrong, not just with your understanding of history but with you.

      The Inquisition killed about 3,000 people over the course of 350 years. (Secular courts, of course, killed people at a much faster rate.) For some perspective, the Great Leap Forward killed 30,000,000 people in 3 years.

    3. Re: You have to do better than this. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      The assertion that the Inquisition only killed 3000 can't take into account the repeated forced migrations of the oppressed populations. It's sort of like saying the Trail of Tears only moved people. And we need only look at the Syrian refugee crisis today. And please don't imply that it's no problem because Mao was worse.

    4. Re: You have to do better than this. by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 1

      Also, besides the consequences of migration, you should count those who were not executed but died in prison or under torture. Which were probably around 100k.

    5. Re:You have to do better than this. by arth1 · · Score: 1

      That conclusion can no more come out of this research than could the idea that listening to music is an illness.

      It probably is, at that.
      Both religion and music might have conferred evolutionary net advantages at one point, which explains the existence.
      Both music and religion might have served to keep bands of nomads together, increasing survival chances through mutual protection.
      The rhythm part of music might also have served to increase our mobility, adding the ability to pace. That we prefer tempos in the range we do is notable.
      Harmony might be a side effect of our brains greatly enhanced pattern recognition abilities.

      However, the negative side effects of music appears to be far less severe than those of religion. There seems to be little advantage to curing music. While it's still part of being human, I'll gladly succumb to it, because it gives me pleasure with few negative side effects.

    6. Re:You have to do better than this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget about Jesus's younger Chinee brother whose conflict killed about the same number as Mao. This happened while Americans were slaughtering each other over the right to own people, oops. I mean states rights. LoL. I do like your totally unqualified attack against OP based on the views you assign him. A grand demonstration, there.

    7. Re:You have to do better than this. by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      On its own this isn't bypassing rational thought and decision making. However when you look a little deeper you'll see that those good feelings are attributed to a mystical source, instead of conditioned chemical reactions in the brain prompted by specific stimuli. Spiritual leaders then play on that miss attribution to manipulate the congregation. Now those spiritual leaders very likely believe what their saying because it affects them as well, but that doesn't really change reality. And of course other people throughout history have manipulated this quirk of our physiology, not just religious leaders.

    8. Re: You have to do better than this. by jensend · · Score: 1

      (hit submit on this just before leaving this morning, didn't see till I got back there was an error.)

      The Alhambra Decree etc weren't part of the Inquisition itself; that's changing the topic. There weren't 100,000 prisoners who died in the Inquisition; that's roughly the total number of cases they heard. Estimates vary but all the ones actually based on the historical data say less than 10,000.

      Anyhow, I'm certainly not saying that the existence of Mao means the treatment of Jews in Spain over the centuries wasn't a problem.

      I am saying your perspective is skewed. The data really don't show that the share of violent behavior that's associated with religion is large compared to the share of total social behavior associated with religion.

      The result of this study says that people reporting a positive religious experience really have areas in their brain active that are active in other experiences people report as positive.

      There's no more justification in history or in these studies for claims that religion is a disease that causes violence than there is for saying the same of commerce or love or any of a number of other basic human behaviors.

  39. If religious reperianses are like drugs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think my church is a sedative.

  40. Strange, I thought that was all religion. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except in the case of modern Christians it's cutting you off from work, society, etc.

  41. Re: More important question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Passes the popcorn

  42. Re: More important question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Whahaha you don't know your history. Christians never did that you think? Even mother Theresa wasn't that holy my love...Hahahahaha!

  43. And now for our guest speaker by laurencetux · · Score: 1

    We have RainBow Dash.

    DUH!!!

    of course religious experiences trigger the reward bits of the brain

    THATS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE LABELING!

  44. Re: More important question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'd call Islam a cult bent bent on world domination. Convert or die.

    That's exactly how Christianity became a dominant religion. Convert or die and if anybody thinks that I'm trying to defend Islam here, think again. I dislike all the Abrahamic religions equally since they are all missionary and violent.

  45. Not just religion and drugs by bluegutang · · Score: 5, Informative

    Don't ALL subjectively enjoyable experiences have the same effect on the brain, releasing dopamine and serotonin, and activating particular pathways? Not only religion and drugs, but also sex and chocolate and cat videos and the election of your preferred candidate?

    1. Re:Not just religion and drugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, alarm bells should be ringing when they start talking to you.

    2. Re:Not just religion and drugs by bluegutang · · Score: 1

      Who, the candidate?

  46. Idiots, idiots everywhere. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How neuro-chemical changes caused by some drugs at the level of neurotransmitters could be compared to a much higher "language" level?

    If we talk about similarities in operand conditioning, why, almost everything that is not hardwired (instincts, reflexes, environmental conditioning) is operand conditioning (cultural, social, linguistic, dogmatic).

    So everything has similar effect with any other feedback based conditioning. Is this what we call hipster meme-science?
    Publish any sophisticated crap to gain attantion?

  47. Re: More important question by dave420 · · Score: 1

    And you'd be wrong. Just think about it - if you were right, everyone would be dead or Muslim. As that's patently not the case, you are incorrect.

  48. Grass is green by m76 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So they discovered that participating in what they have been brought up to rejoice and be in awe of actually causes them joy. I'd be more surprised if the result were the opposite.

    That's why people sign up and most never get rid of these delusions because it makes them feel good about themselves. They realize that santa and the easter bunny are not real, somehow they can't do the same thing with their deity and it's prophets.

    1. Re:Grass is green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please allow me to clear up your misconception and misunderstanding of Christianity, in particular.

      Christianity has nothing to do with feeling good about yourself. In fact, doing things to feel good about yourself is a grievous sin. The only reason to do things, especially good works, is to glorify God. One must not puff ones self up with conceit over good works.

      Worship and prayer are a sacrifice of ones self, with the goal of the realization that we can never measure up to God's yardstick. We live our lives trying to be more Christ-like, as Christ made himself nothing, a servant, setting aside his equality with God as something not to be grasped. He humbled himself and was obedient to the point of death.

      The goal of Christianity is the opposite of making us feel good about ourselves. It is making ourselves humble, without conceit or self-importance, realizing that everything we have in strength and spirit is through God's divine and unmerited grace, and should be given back to Him through obedience to His word.

      Jesus came to fulfill the old Jewish law, and he did. In doing so, left us with three basic commandments: to love God with all of our hearts, to love each other as we love ourselves, and to spread the good news of Jesus to all who will listen - sowing the seeds of salvation in all of God's children.

      As a former atheist, I can say first hand that living a life for ones self is ultimately self-destructive because one can never satisfy his own desire to be equal with God - the atheist becomes his own God, and men are incapable of being God. He constantly reaches and grapples for more and more of what doesn't matter. More stuff. More recognition. More earthly rewards. He inflates himself with conceit.

      My road to God was long and difficult, but the first step was realizing that my conceptions about God and Jesus were 100% wrong, as are yours. I pray you will allow Him to lead you down the right path.

    2. Re:Grass is green by swillden · · Score: 1

      Christianity has nothing to do with feeling good about yourself. In fact, doing things to feel good about yourself is a grievous sin.

      There are many strains of Christianity. This is a common view among them, but by no means universal.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Grass is green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, there are many, but there is only one strain of God's word. And, according to God's word, there is but the Glory of God to motivate.

    4. Re:Grass is green by swillden · · Score: 1

      Yes, there are many, but there is only one strain of God's word. And, according to God's word, there is but the Glory of God to motivate.

      Clearly there is not only one strain of God's word, else there wouldn't be so many interpretations of it.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    5. Re:Grass is green by PPH · · Score: 1

      As a former atheist,... one can never satisfy his own desire to be equal with God

      I se a major flaw in your logic here. As an atheist, there are no gods to be measured against. You can only be the best person you can through self motivation. Not because some guy is watching you and will withhold his love, send you to hell or deliver a lump of coal in your Christmas stocking.

      Religion in general and Christianity in particular are all about the priests (or politicians) controlling uneducated masses. Postpone your rewards in this lifetime so that you may receive them in the next. Work harder for us for less. The check is in the mail. Trust me.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    6. Re:Grass is green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You stopped reading too soon. Atheists desire to be their own Gods *so to speak*. But, man is not able to handle being God, or God-like, *so to speak*.

      I thought I'd made that point but maybe I didn't make it as eloquently as I could have.

    7. Re:Grass is green by PPH · · Score: 1

      Atheists desire to be their own Gods *so to speak*.

      Nope. I'm not a supreme being. I don't go around creating universes. I don't go around smiting people who don't live up to my expectations. But I am responsible for my own morality. In that sense, my conscience is responsible for my own morality. I don't delegate responsibility to a God, Pope, book written by Jewish high priests, or local minister.

      IMO, people who don't have an 'internal compass' need a God or counselor to stand in for that missing function. It's like all those bible-thumpers who claim that, if not for God and the Bible, people would be having sex with their dogs. Nope. I have what it takes to recognize that this is wrong. They evidently don't. But there is no need to invoke a mystical being to set down guidelines. Just realize that something is broken within themselves and they need help.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    8. Re:Grass is green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize of course that the moral compass you speak of came from the Bible and it's predecessor documents.

    9. Re:Grass is green by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      The above is a glimpse into the mindset that is necessary before one becomes a suicide bomber and detonates in a crowded marketplace, or perhaps, someone who sets a person on fire for whatever reason and feels self righteous while watching them burn. It's always a little disturbing to be reminded that these self-flagellating and mentally scarred people exist.

      Religion seems to evolve in a way that modifies human behavior much like this brain fungus alters the behavior of ants in order to best propagate itself. Here you see it compelling its host to spread itself, like some sort of ephemeral parasite.

    10. Re:Grass is green by PPH · · Score: 1

      It's the other way around. The bible (and its predecessors) picked up rules and social etiquette from societies that developed it from before the existence of the written word. The bible is targeted at people who couldn't be trusted on their own without the threat of an all-seeing, all-powerful being to keep them in line.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    11. Re:Grass is green by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be different if Santa and the Easter bunny had building of worship all over the place and there was a punishment of eternal torture if you stopped believing. They don't even have any books written about them and what they said about human social order and behaviour, nevermind ask people to kill other people.

  49. I can confirm that. by Qbertino · · Score: 2

    In my teens I praticed meditation in general and, more specifically, what is called "astral projection", basically inducing out-of-body-experiences. I practiced it for six years just about every evening. In the end I finally made it, achieving that higher state of mind, where you experience the buzzing and humming, your body shrinking and your soul expanding and see "the tunnel" and such. It's the most intense state of being I've ever experienced and I doubt any drug can push you further. You're basically hyper-awake while it happens. And it's scary. Turns out we don't like to leave our body most of the time. :-)

    The difference in state of mind and awareness compared to normal as normal compares to vivid, semi-lucent dreaming. I stopped it after this event, but one effect is that I don't fear death as much as I used to.

    I cant say for sure that we are still around after death, like the mystics like to point out, but it sure felt like it.

    My 2 cents.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:I can confirm that. by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sigh.

      I never get why we have to overblow this.

      Do you know, I drove home last night and have no memory of doing so? Automatic pilot, driven by my brain, while I thought of "higher" things.

      I changed gear, negotiated roundabouts, kept to speed limits, stopped for pedestrians and red lights and navigated home without giving it a single conscious thought.

      I also know that every night I fall unconscious, hallucinate vividly and then have complete amnesia about the whole event if I'm not interrupted before my brain is finished with it. It's called dreaming.

      If I was sitting in a room for six years trying to do something, my brain would hallucinate the same (that's not meant to be an insulting word, it's quite literally what imagination and dreaming are) and believe I was outside my body. Yet, nobody, ever, in any controlled experiment, even when saying they ARE in that "special place" has ever demonstrated knowledge of, say, what's on top of the dresser behind them that they couldn't see from inside their body, or similar. You can even awake completely relaxed, unstressed, energised, without even having an hour's rest if you've had the right dream.

      In the same way as out-of-body near-death experiences and suchlike, attributing it to some other existence seems, to me, to be entirely insulting to the capacity of the human mind under normal circumstances.

      We have composers who see colours, artists who can paint pictures that don't complete until the final brush stroke but they can see it in their head in vivid detail, and story-writers who live in their heads most of their lives even if they can't write it down to save their life.

      When the brain is then deprived of sensory information, and forced to entertain itself, it's no wonder that such experiences happen. To push them to "something else" rather than "Woah, my brain is capable of stupendous feats" is, I feel, condescending.

      It doesn't require a supernatural explanation, or even comment. We've probably all done more amazing things in our sleep, or driving home from work.

      Hell, I dreamed a "movie" from start to finish in twenty minutes of being asleep one night and still, to this day, I like to fold back into that dream or even write it down (which has taken YEARS of my life to do so). My brain was on-form that night, and I awoke exhilarated and haven't forgotten that experienced in 20+ years.

      I really find it annoying when people then - as you just did - write it off as supernatural and, having "mastered" it in what sounds like a repeatable way, then ignore it and never do it again for fear of... what? Discovering some truth? Angering some god?

      What if that's the way to escape the Matrix? What if that's the way to gain insight from your own mind on things nobody else has ever managed? What if that is the way to Heaven/Hell or whatever?

      As someone of a scientific mind (can't you tell?), it drives me mad that people get near the equivalent of the next level of human existence, then never repeat it, wrap it in crap like "astral projection" and meditation, and basically forget it ever happened.

      If it made you not fear death, surely you could do it again and be less scared, and not fear dying in the process?

      But, maybe that would then conflict if - actually - it turns out just to have been a particularly vivid dream?

    2. Re:I can confirm that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What if that is the way to insanity? How about psychosis? Or neurosis? Seems just as plausible as the way to "Discovering some truth".

      What if that is the way to escape the Matrix? After having spend your whole life in the matrix, why should the prospect of abandoning it not be met with some trepidation? What if it is truly the way to Heaven/Hell? Why shouldn't leaving your current life be frightening or disturbing? In both examples you are leaving behind literally everything that you know, sound like a scenario ripe for uncertainly, and perhaps fear.

      From my point of view it seems entirely reasonable that sudden profound experiences could be emotionally unnerving as easily as they could be enlightening.

  50. Re: More important question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    learn to spell. you were raised by islam werent you?

  51. Re: More important question by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    I'd call Islam a cult bent bent on world domination. Convert or die.

    That's exactly how Christianity became a dominant religion. Convert or die and if anybody thinks that I'm trying to defend Islam here, think again. I dislike all the Abrahamic religions equally since they are all missionary and violent.

    What do you mean? The crusades were full of very reasonable gentlemen going door to door offering to share their love of jesus with you. If you said no they gave you a piece of cake and went next door. Am I thinking of the right thing?

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  52. Re: More important question by sky_khan72 · · Score: 1

    So thats how you're thinking about it ? Dude, if your logic were true there could be only one person on earth any time. In other words, You attribute islam followers unstoppable powers.

  53. Religion same response as drugs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... and eating... and sex... and exercise... and anything else that produces a hormonal endorphin response.

  54. Schizophrenia by zifn4b · · Score: 1

    Religious experiences also have some of the hallmarks of mental illness. I suppose the DSM IV should have criteria like this: Did the voice in your head identify itself as God? Yes? Phew, you're not schizophrenic and have nothing to worry about.

    --
    We'll make great pets
    1. Re:Schizophrenia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hearing voices" is not one of the diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia. Hallucinations in general can be diagnostic however.

      Holding religious beliefs and feeling spoken to by God are not even in the same ballpark as symptoms of schizophrenia, which also include a detachment from reality and difficulty distinguishing the real from the fantasy.

      Obedience to God also does not involve twisted or antisocial behavior. Obedience to God is the STANDARD of behavior, not an aberrance of behavior.

    2. Re:Schizophrenia by zifn4b · · Score: 1

      Obedience to God is the STANDARD of behavior, not an aberrance of behavior.

      Alright then, let me just go buy some slaves and while I'm beating my slaves in accordance with Jewish law, I'll declare men of more value than women (in shekels mind you) and also berate women for the uncleanliness of their menstruation during that time of the month. Sources: Exodus 21:12-28, Leviticus 15:19. That's quite a standard for reasonable behavior.

      --
      We'll make great pets
    3. Re:Schizophrenia by PPH · · Score: 1

      Obedience to God is the STANDARD of behavior,

      Say that often enough and maybe you can convince yourself. Perhaps you need to read another book.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Schizophrenia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus fulfilled the Jewish laws. Old Testament Jewish laws no longer are required for salvation or obedience to God. This is what atheists (and many so-called Christians) fail to understand about what Jesus did in his payment of our ransom.

    5. Re:Schizophrenia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not proof by assertion. It is proof by evidence.

      All of modern societal moral law is rooted in Abrahimic religious text, whether it is common law or codified law.

      Murder, theft, etc... all are illegal because they were illegal under religious law during the development of modern society. Like it or not, God shaped our laws, and whether or not you are a believer, you are living under His law.

  55. Re: More important question by freak0fnature · · Score: 1

    How are the crusades any different than today? We are actively trying to eliminate all the radical muslims that we can...we just do it safely from unmanned drones. It was a political response to the violent spread of Islam, very much like today.

  56. a personal experience by gordona · · Score: 1

    First of all, I'd like to distinguish between what is called a religious experience and what might be called a spiritual experience. Lets not flame this please. Many years ago, I went to a meditation camp let by Pir Vilyat Khan, the sufi leader in the US. This was held in an open air tent with a couple of hundred people. At one time, we chanted the Zhikr. The actual transation of the words were unimportant (I don't speak arabic), but the sounds resonate. I found myself having an experience as somekind of self observer--kind of looking down on myself from outside, watching my thoughts but not being connected to any of them. Kind of like a description of the Buddhist observer description. At one point however, a thought came up, "who is watching the watcher". This caused be to experience being back in my body. I had a similar experience doing a chant from the Kabbalah and is similar to the descriptions in "The Cloud of Unknowing" by a christian monk. When my son was 10 years old, his mother had him on ADD drugs. When he came to visit me, I had him do a short meditation. He told me that it felt similar to taking the medication (which he was not doing when he visited me).

    --
    "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
    1. Re:a personal experience by ledow · · Score: 1

      Can you please distinguish between religious and spiritual when your own explanation contains:

      "who is watching the watcher"

      It sounds immensely like you belief you hit an existence controlled or observed by an entity other than known ones. Sounds exactly like a religion to me!

      Honestly, I'm not being facetious here... what's the difference? Absence of a belief-in-god does not make something non-religious. Absence of knowledge of any-god-or-not doesn't either.

      What's the difference between spiritual and religious?

    2. Re:a personal experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the difference between spiritual and religious? is an interesting question.

      I think spiritual is more about there is something interesting that I don't understand, but still celebrate.

      Religious seems more about trying to define what this is with a sometimes complex mythology.
      The original motive may be noble to bring more folks closer to this neat thing.
      The path puts a middle man between a person and the thing which often leads to power structures (See Pope) and war (See Middle East).

      Perhaps some would say that spiritual is a personal relationship with a higher power without the other things that come with an organized religion.
      Despite what some religions say, it seems there are many paths to this relationship. Definitely a case of different strokes for different folks.

    3. Re:a personal experience by gordona · · Score: 1

      I don't attribute a spiritual experience to a divine or higher being. I really don't know how to explain what I experienced. I never had a sense of another outside of myself. I don't think or ascribe it to a religious experience. My experience with religion has been less than satisfactory over the years. This is the kind of thing that is beyond normal waking experiences. Yet I was awake during the chanting, maintaining a kneeling position with my back straight--difficult to do if one is sleeping. So the observer that I described is not something outside of me, its another part of me. I can't say that I believe in a god, at least a god that religious attribute their devotion. Rather, it seems to me that what might be called god is the laws of the universe. As far as I'm concerned, meditation is simply being quiet and listening. Some christian brothers from Canada a few years ago produced a 3 volume set of christian meditation audio tapes. In it they described prayer as not talking to god but listening. To me that listening is to ones internal voices. Experience has shown me that after a time, the noisy voices quiet and the "real" internal voice is heard. Yeah this is all very non-scientific, which is something I find interesting since my training is in engineering and science. Anyway, thanks for your questions. But for me to describe this is like trying to describe the color red to a blind man.

      --
      "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
    4. Re:a personal experience by gordona · · Score: 1

      Like I said, the only higher power that I am referring to is the physical laws of the universe, which of course, like a higher power, we don't fully or otherwise understand. I don't pray to those laws however, I hardly think of them, unless gravity gives me a reminder or I read something about physics.

      --
      "Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!" -- Dr. Strangelove
    5. Re:a personal experience by Jamie+Lokier · · Score: 1

      It sounds immensely like you belief you hit an existence controlled or observed by an entity other than known ones.

      It sounds to me like the GP hit upon a mode of perception of their own internal processes, by their own mind, and that no "outside" observer was invoked in these perceptions.

      It sounds to me like a thought arose that contained an interesting question and jolted them from that mode of perception. But nothing in the GP's post sounds to me like it confirmed or stated any belief in kind of entity,

      So the parent's message, quoted above, sounds to me *almost entirely* a statement about the author's own beliefs, masqueraded as a statement about someone else's. I.e. a projection, seeing things in the GP's post which aren't there.

      With regard to saying anything about "known entities" as though those are factual things. It is debatable whether one's mind, one's internal process, and consciousness and sub-consciousness, are "known entities" or simply fantasy constructions or theories. I've met people I respect who hold that those ideas are dubious and should not be taken too seriously when making important decisions. Which leaves me wondering, what is meant by "known entities"?

      Out of the two messages, the parent and the GP, the parent message strikes me as the more religious and dogmatic. This is because the GP showed that they were exploring a question about what is known to them personally by the best available empirical means, while the parent's message contains only statements about their own beliefs (as I see it, masqueraded via projection) without any empiricism indicated.

  57. Re: More important question by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 1

    I dislike all the Abrahamic religions equally since they are all missionary and violent.

    actually the Jews aren't missionary - but hey, that's not enough to like them either, for me.

  58. Re: More important question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They are all radical

  59. This is a non-experiment by davide+marney · · Score: 1

    Why is it worth looking for experimental proof that when people feel emotions, their brain chemistry will be involved in the experience? This is already well understood. I don't understand the point of this study at all. You might as well conduct experiments to determine whether water is wet. Was there any question that a religious experience is also an emotional one? ANYTHING deeply felt will be physically manifested. Duh.

    Man, I hope the taxpayers didn't pay for this.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  60. Then again, there are the facts by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    The Inquisition killed about 3,000 people over the course of 350 years.

    "The inquisition" comprises a combined series of undertakings beginning with Pope Lucius III's instigation in 1184 CE and terminating in 1834 CE - a span of about 650 years. The Spanish Inquisition was one chapter of this, but by no means can be reasonably considered an isolated or peak event.

    Perhaps you'll find this of interest.

    Historically speaking, Christianity, between the inquisitions, the crusades, the pograms, blood libel, and just general oppression of various and sundry kinds, has a great deal of theism-based violence to answer for.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Then again, there are the facts by jensend · · Score: 1

      That guy may know Prolog but he doesn't know history. The vast majority of his citations are 19th-century Protestant anti-Catholic tracts, with one of his few 20th-century sources being a conspiracy-theorist type Baptist missionary writing in 1960.

  61. Religion: opiate of the masses. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Quite true.

    1. Re:Religion: opiate of the masses. by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      And Socialism is the opiate of the intelligentsia. If Marxist, you can always say it's the fault of class structure, if cultural Marxist then blame racism. Either way you get to ignore the vast majority of philosophy, evolutionary ethics, game theory, economics, and history, and take pleasure in you're self-declared intellectual and moral superiority.

  62. Re: More important question by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    How are the crusades any different than today? We are actively trying to eliminate all the radical muslims that we can...we just do it safely from unmanned drones. It was a political response to the violent spread of Islam, very much like today.

    How is it different? Because then we went over there in great numbers and killed basically everyone who didn't convert radical or not. Nowadays we're more discreet about it and all we really give a shit about is the oil.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  63. Which drug? by richardkettle4 · · Score: 1

    Was it like crack, MDA, heroin or what? Let me guess, they were happy doing what they enjoyed and surprise surprise, they enjoyed it. Nothing to see here.

  64. Nice to see it confirmed. by fish_in_the_c · · Score: 1

    Religious folks have been claiming for years that they help people feel more loved. That prayer can help you feel better and to form a bond with god. Also, they claim has been made for many years that part of the reason we experience that feeling is because we were created for relationship with God.

    So nice to see some scientific confirmation that praying and loving feel good.

    --
    âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
  65. Re: More important question by syn3rg · · Score: 1
    --
    The contents of this message have been doubly encrypted by ROT13
  66. Religion needs to be listed as a Sched 1 narcotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a known 3x risk of psychosis among religious users. It causes changes in the brain. It affects the reward system in the brain. Religion must be stopped! It's totally unregulated and is regularly exposed to kids who are unable to give informed consent.

  67. Religium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

    Seems he was correct,.

  68. My preference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll take cocaine and a stripper over going to church every single time and twice on Sunday.

  69. Re: More important question by JustAnotherOldGuy · · Score: 2

    I'd call Islam a cult bent bent on world domination. Convert or die.

    Yup, just like Christianity was, back when it could get away with lopping your head off on a whim.

    Christians would still love to be able to do that kind of thing, and they're jealous as hell that Islam is so upfront about it.

    --
    Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
  70. Explains the dilated pupils by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever look into the eyes of the televangelists or the preachers of mega churches? These jokers are high on their own neurotransmitters.

  71. And LSD? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, Timmy Leary was right in the first place, back in the sixties....

  72. Let me get this straight.... by Ronin+Developer · · Score: 1

    According to another article on today's /. feed, users of pot, a drug, have lower blood flow to the brain. This, according to the study, is a harmful effect.

    This article states that religious thoughts have similar effects on the brain as drugs.

    Ergo, religious thoughts are dangerous?

  73. Radical muslim by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Radical Muslim....that's redundant.

  74. glossolalia by orgelspieler · · Score: 1

    I was raised in the Assembly of God church, a "full-gospel" or "Pentecostal" tradition. The movie "Jesus Camp" was basically how I spent a few weeks every summer. Baptism in the Holy Spirit is manifested by speaking in tongues, also called glossolalia. The sensation of losing control of your verbal faculties is very ... bizarre. It is a strangely compelling reason to believe in an invisible man in the sky.

    Fast forward a few years. In college, I was getting stoned with some friends. One of them had been to church with me as a kid. She pointed out that at a particularly high point in the evening, I started speaking in tongues. I found this very interesting, and the sensation was indeed similar to what I had experienced in church. There is definitely something to the whole "opiate of the masses" thing. Drugs and religion very clearly change the function of the brain in dramatic ways.

  75. No, lets keep the Jews! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They make good accountants, plus who else would run the movie biz as well?

  76. And drug like drugs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And just like drugs, religion and the people who indulge in it are utterly repulsive to me.

  77. Re: More important question by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    I'd call Islam the same thing I call all religion: something that is 'interpreted', spun, taken out of context, bent, perverted, and twisted by power-seeking persons looking to control as much of a population as possible.

  78. Re: More important question by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

    There was once a group called 'Gnostics', and what they were about, was seeking actual truth, as individuals. They had no centralized, hierarchical power structure. What at the time was called 'Christianity', committed genocide on them.

  79. Re: More important question by AutodidactLabrat · · Score: 1

    Who is waiting for the separation between radicals and believers?
    Bush and his CRUSADE (sic) didn't, and murdered over 1 million innocent Iraqis.
    120,000 Christians signed up for this CRUSADE.

  80. Does that mean religion will be DEA controlled? by lpq · · Score: 1

    I can see it now... the DEA controlling religion as a mind-altering substance.

    Hmmm...

  81. Ass backwards study by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

    So more accurately, drugs stimulate the same reward centers of the brain that meaningful, rewarding activities like religious activities, doing well at work, being in a good, healthy relationship etc. (FTFY)

    Not sure how this is news, seeing that we have known for decades that illegal drugs that are addictive do this. This is just an ass backwards stab at religion. If you want to judge religions, go for it, but judge them based on what they do, not how it makes people feel to engage in their religious activities. Some religions are rewarding because they actually objectively do good in the world.

    A long time ago I boiled it down to these fundamentals. Some practitioners are better than others, but in theory this is what each religion yields if you take it to it's extreme practice:

    -Hindu: we are constantly reincarnated, so let people starve while cattle eat your crops because it could be grandma

    -Muslim: Muslims are superior, the whole world must be under Sharia law, convert or we will enslave you or cut your head off

    -Atheist: there is no higher order, we happened by accident so my personal morality is all that matters, if our morality differs, mine takes precedent

    -Buddhist: the world is suffering so even if others suffer, its OK as long as I attain peace and enlightenment

    -Christian: love God and love and care for your fellow human the same as you do yourself

    --
    If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    1. Re:Ass backwards study by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      That's a rather slanted view.

      Atheism means the lack of belief in a god. This doesn't mean abandoning the idea of morality in general. I'd guess that most people have non-divine ethical systems. Pick up an ethical question or moral view that a religious person agrees with and ask if it's good because God said it's good or if God said it's good because it's good. Lots of theists believe in good and evil that are logically prior to God.

      Both Christians and Muslims believe themselves superior, and want the world under God's law, and they typically aren't slow to punish people who disagree with them. Leviticus is part of Christian holy literature inspired (or written) by God, and lots of Christians like to cherry-pick that book to serve their prejudices. Muslims are also supposed to love God and care for fellow humans. Charity is one of the five Pillars of Islam (the others are the declaration of faith, scheduled prayer, the Ramadan fast, and the pilgrimage to Mecca). Christianity and Islam have different effects on the world today, but they're quite similar in extreme practice.

      Buddhism has branches devoted to individual revelation and the revelation of others, and I see no reason to believe that "I've got mine, Jack" is the logical conclusion. Gautama Buddha certainly tried to bring others along his path.

      Hinduism involves karma in the wheel of rebirth. Take that to the extreme and we'll all be behaving very well to each other to stock up karma.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    2. Re:Ass backwards study by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      You make my point about atheists. Without an absolute origin to morality, morality is relative. My morality and your morality may differ and there is no absolute to reference to so there is no authority to say what is right and wrong. You can appeal to majority or experts, but it is still a relative measure.

      You seem misled about Christianity. The Old Testament (Genesis through Malachi) describes the history of the nation of Israel. It informs the New Testament, but it does not guide Christians. Christians follow the teachings of Jesus Christ (thus the name Christian) as described in the gospels in the New Testament, who as I said previously summed up God's command to man in the following statement: "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself." Christians further believe that all are sinners, Christians should be humble and thankful that they have been forgiven and becoming a Christian is a decision of the heart between you and God; it is thus not something that can be forced. The idea of freedom of conscience is first and foremost among Christian concepts regardless of what you have been misled into believing. Do not confuse examples of those who do a poor job of following the the teachings of Jesus with the religion it'self. We are talking here about what you get following each religion to it's extreme practice, examples of poor behavior in the name of a religion but directly contrary to core teachings do not count against the religion conceptually. Those examples can be found with any religion.

      You could not be more poorly informed about Islam as well. Feel free to actually read the Koran (I have) or history if you want to be informed. Muslims are commanded to charity towards other Muslims (or non Muslims if it will help them convert to Islam). Infidels can be lied to, cheated in business, enslaved for profit (Muslims were responsible for enslaving ~20 million Africans from 650-1900 AD and around 2.5 million whites from the Mediterranean from 1450-1700 AD) and infidels can be taxed or beheaded for non-conversion (this has been happening since the founding of Islam, and is CURRENTLY HAPPENING RIGHT NOW IN THE MIDDLE EAST WITH ISIS). I don't know about you, but that is a huge freaking difference to the Christian command to love everyone like you love yourself... I dare you to find 5 cases of Christians murdering people who won't convert to Christianity in the last 10 years. I can find that for Muslims in the last 10 days. Also, 25% of US Muslims in a recent study agree with violent Jihad, which blows a giant hole in the violent but small minority canard that has been floated. Islam is and always has been a violent religion. Of the 22 world conflicts actively fighting around the world, 21 of them involve Muslims on one or both sides.

      http://www.centerforsecuritypo...

      Hinduisim and the karma and reincarnation thing is great in theory for people being nice to each other, but the problem is you can't have a healthy society when you believe that everything from a bug to a bull have the same value as a human life. That world view has lead to the needless suffering and starvation of millions, which is pretty horrible by most approximations of morality.

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
    3. Re:Ass backwards study by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      No, you miss my point about morality. You seem to think that absolute morality only comes with a god. Gods don't come in objective packages, so it's just as easy to pick a religion as to pick a morality. Morality and religion are equally subjective. Also, many who believe in a God don't derive their morality from religion. Ask one if murder is bad because God forbade it, or whether God forbade it because it's bad. You'll get some people who pick the second alternative, meaning that they don't get their morality from their religion. Logically, there's no difference in morality between these people and atheists, as they both get it from something other than a religion.

      You don't know that much about Christianity as a whole, do you? You're describing a relatively small segment, although one I approve of. IIRC, Jesus also said he wasn't there to replace the Law, so, whether you consider the Old Testament law binding or not depends on how you cherry-pick the New. The Old Testament is a canonical part of the Bible, and is not merely a history in any case. You're wantonly disregarding what hundreds of millions of Christians have believed and do believe.

      I've read enough of the Koran to know that it's self-contradictory, and I know enough of how it was written to understand why. I dislike Islam on theological grounds, and Muslim regimes on other grounds, but it looks like you're conflating the two. In one paragraph, you say that the whole mindset behind the Inquisition and conversion by the sword is an aberration from Christianity, and and in the next you take the behavior of a large number of Muslims to be exactly what Islam is. We're talking serious double standard here.

      I've read some Hindu holy literature, and don't remember reading that all lives are of the same value. It's true that a worm in the garden might be Aunt Bertha reincarnated, in which case Aunt Bertha must have done some really horrible things, and this is her karma. The Bhagavad-Gita is, on one level, Krishna talking Arjuna into killing as many people as he can. I don't remember Hindus I've known being particularly solicitous of nonhuman life. Methinks you've hit on a common attitude that got attached to Hinduism and ran with it.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    4. Re:Ass backwards study by LeftCoastThinker · · Score: 1

      The point you are missing about morality and God is the fundamental existence of good or bad/right and wrong. Without God, right and wrong would not exist, even as a concept, and much like other animals, we would just behave as we were driven to. Is it wrong that the lion kills the zebra or another lion? Usually the zebra is eaten, but many times one animal will kill another for no apparent reason, but it is not wrong because they are only acting out of instinct. They have no free will or understanding of right or wrong. The fundamental concept of right and wrong exist because of the Supreme. Without Him, everything is relative and our actions are at best driven by random electrochemical interactions in our randomly evolved brain. How atheists can even trust the ability of their brains to reason or follow logic is beyond me, considering that they believe that their brains evolved by random accident.

      Regarding the New Vs Old Testament, the old testament very much describes the history of the nation of Israel, and what Jesus actually said is he came to "fulfill the law". The law specifically was the ten commandments and Deuteronomy (literally means second law in Greek), not the entire Old Testament which contains history (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Kings, etc.) books of prophecy (Ezikiel etc.), books of song (Psalms, Song of Solomon) etc.

      The law was a myriad of rules that the Jews had to obey and if they broke them, they had to kill an animal to atone in their place for that transgression. In essence, the OT demands the death penalty for breaking any part of the law. Jesus came and replaced all of the rules with a simple command and he became the sacrifice and now directly offers us forgiveness, all we must do is ask. Jesus did replace the law, but before that he fulfilled it, so both are technically accurate to say. Christians today still follow the 10 commandment, but do not practice much if any of Deuteronomy. Even in the 10 commandments, Christians worship on Sunday (the first day of the week) and do not observe the Sabbath, which is technically Saturday, in violation of the 5th commandment. Christians do not restrict their diet to kosher foods (outlined in Deuteronomy) etc. So in a very real way, Jesus replaced the law of the old testament, and this is what Christians follow.

      Often people are misled (or mislead others) by specific, historical commands that God gave in the Old Testament to a specific person (go here, do this, go there do that). Those commands were specific to those people and that time. In the New Testament Jesus gives his followers specific commands that hold for all Christians to this day. Again, the discussion and my central argument revolves around the theoretical implementation of the specific tennants of the religion, not the implementations that are extraneous or directly contrary to the core principles. I do not cherry pick the New Testament, and I would challenge you to find any commands to Christians in the New Testament that are counter to the core command of loving God and your neighbor as yourself.

      Your reference to the Inquisition and conversion by the sword are conflating a religion with a cult (offshoots of a religion that set aside core principles) such as Catholicism. Catholicism started around 380 AD as the political religion of the Roman empire and became for centuries a very destructive cult and in the last century it may have just barely made it back into very edge of mainstream Christianity. (Note: Popularity does not denote accuracy of religious practices). For well over 1000 years, the Christian Orthodox Church (which directly descended from the 12 disciples and the early church starting around 36 AD) has viewed Catholicism as a cult. Nowhere in the teachings of Jesus or the New Testament will you find many of the practices of the Catholic church endorsed, and many teachings and actions are diametrically opposed to the core teachings of Christianity.

      You are confused somewhat about Islam. Islam is both a religi

      --
      If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
  82. Great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we finally start sending parents to jail for fucking up their kids with religion, just like we do with parents that fuck them up with drugs?

    Maybe, in a generation or two, we can finally get rid of all the fucktards that think that the earth is only 6,000 years old, that men used to hunt dinosaurs, and that everything was created in six days by a bearded white man who lives in the clouds and hates gay people and foreigners.

  83. Religions are just ~2000 years old; by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Religions are just ~2000 years old;
    And Humans are ~200,000 years old;
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_ancient_history

    Religion was born when first con-man met the first fool :(

    "Earth is Flat" --Religion
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_earth

  84. The Smoking Gun! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's it, the smoking gun, religion needs to be immediately classified as a Schedule One Drug.

    Stop the madness!

  85. Re: More important question by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    "If Hitler intended to kill 6 million Jews he would have done it by now"

    A.Frank, 1941.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."