
What Happens to Your Brain When You Stop Believing in God - elorant
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/8qjv7v/what-happens-to-your-brain-when-you-stop-believing-in-god
======
ASalazarMX
Didn't bother reading the article since most comments say it's worthless. I
expected a talk about measured brain activity.

I was raised a catholic, and the most prevalent feelings I got out of that was
paranoia and fear. They teach you there's an omnipresent, omniscient, all-
powerful being judging your every thought 24/7, for all your life. He's
personally interested in you, he says he loves you dearly, but for some reason
he won't speak to you at all. Only his priests know his will.

You can fool people, but you can't fool this being, and worst of all, you are
already in his debt since before you were born. Displease him and being
skinned alive by a drug cartel would feel merciful compared to your eternity
in hell.

Fortunately, it was common sense, knowledge and the numerous contradictions,
rather than fear, that opened my eyes out of religion. It took me years to
cope with the sequels of indoctrination, but I'm happier and more serene as an
atheist now.

In my book, religions that demand conversion are thinly-veiled attempts at
brainwashing. Religions like Buddhism I find more benign.

Edit: went and read it anyway, and despite the clickbait title, I agree with
the subtitle: "it's like going off a drug."

~~~
gremlinsinc
I agree w/ the parts that we aren't belief-less heathens. I'm still inspired
and awestruck as an exmormon/agnostic when I see a beautiful space image or
sunset. Or just watching my kids experience new things for the first time.

I find I'm more spiritual as an agnostic than I was before losing religion,
spiritual to me is just feeling inspired or 'touched' by a movie or book or
event in my life. It's about honoring the small parts of life because we don't
know what comes after.

I still believe an afterlife could exist, but it isn't controlled by a deity,
it'd just be energy being re-used which happens all the time in nature.

~~~
ASalazarMX
> I still believe an afterlife could exist, but it isn't controlled by a
> deity, it'd just be energy being re-used which happens all the time in
> nature.

It certainly would be amazing, but I chose to take a more pragmatic approach.
Since we can't disprove the afterlife, I live my life as if it's the only one.
That doesn't mean living feverishly, just enjoying the moment more.

~~~
gremlinsinc
I take a ... can't know so don't worry --stoic'ish point of view. I don't
worry or fret about it.. and I've replaced religion w/ some teachings from
stoicism --mainly the parts about focusing on the fact that one day I'll cease
breathing. Once you get over the fear of that fact -- there's peace in trying
to "live for today because tomorrow you may die".

My biggest fears/regret about that realization really is knowing I'll miss out
on so much life and experiences from my kids and someday grandkids, and I'm
still holding out that immortality tech gets some momentum... lol

Don't think I want to live forever, but if I can see FTL and first contact --
I'll be happy.

I also try not to focus on what isn't important.. i.e. what I have control
over. I don't have control over afterlife, death, and how/when it'll happen so
doesn't matter if we worry.

Taking away the things that don't matter from our worries column frees up the
stress centers in the brain. Now if only I could run a stress-free freelance
dev business.

------
dangerface
This is a trash article, it doesn't talk about how your brain changes when you
stop believing its just a bunch of personal opinion.

> Religion works exactly like a drug—like cocaine, or methamphetamine

No it does not, the chemical reactions in your brain are not like taking meth.
I see this constantly its like they think their audience are just a bunch of
druggies and to make something relatable they have to say "its like drugs!". I
have tried cocaine and can say first hand it's nothing like sitting in church.

~~~
cannonedhamster
Yeah the article really didn't have much interesting science in it. It was a
lot of presumption and story but nothing really other than a poll to back
things up. Anecdata isn't strong evidence at all.

------
kaolti
_Most non-religious people are "passionately committed to some ideology or
other," explains Patrick McNamara, a neurology professor at Boston University
School of Medicine._ \- so swapping one ideology for another.

Funnily enough a synonym for ideology is belief. I wonder if getting rid of
ALL beliefs (not just the unfashionable ones) is becoming more interesting to
people.

------
notus
I'm just going to talk about something semi-related since the article is
trash. This is all anecdotal btw. The concept of virtue. I find that people
who are religious talk about virtue more than those who don't. I'm not saying
that they are virtuous, just that they seem to think/talk about it more.

I see certain virtues on the rise like frugalness, humanity, wholesomeness,
but then there are others I see on a decline like gravity, dutifulness,
prudence, self-control, and not being petty (there is another word for this
but I forgot). Any thoughts on the matter? Am I just biased and not seeing the
whole picture?

I feel like people are really petty in general and growing drug use and
obesity problems demonstrate a lack of self control. Whenever I broach the
subject with people I find that many people do not think of morality in terms
of a list of virtues to abide by. That isn't saying they are not virtuous,
they just don't think about morality that way. I historically haven't either,
but I find it easier when I have something concrete to refer to when I'm
thinking about decisions or how best to accomplish a task.

~~~
benjohnson
>> I find that people who are religious talk about virtue more than those who
don't

There's a lot of practical stored up value in the religion that I practice -
listening to the wisdom of generations of people certainly helps with
discerning how it live well in the short time we have here on this earth.

While I have no doubt that a sensitive and intelligent person could figure
most of this out for themselves, it would take them most of their lives - and
I suspect that by then their life would be too spent to be able enjoy the
fruits of their labor.

~~~
notus
I think the ancients had it figured out more or less. The 12 roman virtues and
classical stoicism are still very applicable today. What religion do you
practice?

------
Jordanpomeroy
In Southeast Asia, people that don’t believe in religion are called “free
thinkers”. As someone that escaped the allegorical cave of religion, I really
love that. I can indeed confirm that the most intense feelings of communion
with God are replicable with expressions of music or philosophy, in the right
context. I really enjoyed this article!

------
magashna
I personally disagree with Thalia Goldstein's "Kids don't just turn [belief]
off,"

I remember specifically that my parents dispelled the Santa myth to me very
early, I think in or before 1st grade. One day at my Catholic school, each of
us had made little gingerbread houses and left them on a table by the windows.
After going out for recess, we came back to a few of them being broken (later
found out from the janitor trying to fix the blinds) and they told us it was
Santa coming by to check on us. I knew it was BS then and it made me a young
skeptic. I was obsessed with when they told us that the Holy Spirit was all
around us but couldn't be seen. I couldn't get over that and figured if they
would lie about Santa, they would lie about God.

It made for an unpleasant 12 years in Catholic schools. I've since let go of
any anger and active Atheism and am happy with a passive Apatheism.

~~~
joelx
I wonder if there are some sort of benefits from the Santa myth and subsequent
dispelling of it? Is this how you make people critical?

------
fxj
Fun fact: In the former GDR the percentage of people who never believed in god
was 59% and only 13% believed in god at all time. Contrast this to the
Philippines where the percentage of believers is 94%. In the US 81% believe in
god.

[https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article106198838/Kaum-
ei...](https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article106198838/Kaum-ein-
Ostdeutscher-glaubt-an-einen-Gott.html)

------
lorriman
A great deal of speculation in that article. Sounds more like psycotherapy
ideas than real psychology/neuroscience.

Meanwhile, let's look at the (paraphrased) claims:

"Science is not compatible with religion."

Yet the Big Bang theory was invented by a physicist who went on to become a
Catholic priest, George Lemaitre. And the father of modern genetics is not
Darwin but a catholic monk, Gregor Mendel. hmmm. Both had google doodles
recently.

"Evolution and creationism are not reconcileable."

But Christianity has never had a formal dogma that the Bible is literally true
as a historical document (but neither any reason prior to modern science to
think otherwise, but that misses the point). 3/4 of Christianity is fine with
evolution and the Big Bang, and 14 billion years, and for Catholics even the
existence of aliens. It's arguable that the rest are just reacting to Atheist
claims, clutching to a dogma that doesn't exist because they are simple and
uneducated Christians who don't know better.

"There is no evidence of a god."

But this claim has to discount those who claim to personally know a god as
deluded. That's clearly a fallacy. Sure, spiritual 'contact' doesn't give 3rd
party verification (the 3rd party being an agnostic who hasn't had such
contact), and will not satisfy the determinedly materialistic who will only
accept physical evidence, but what evidence of a spiritual God can we expect
in the material universe?

More importantly, wouldn't a god be able to give proof of itself? And wouldn't
that proof, if it were a personal god as claimed, be person to person
communing? The author evidently did not actually personally know the god she
eventually rejected and by a Christian standard never had faith.

Faith "Belief without evidence". Thanks for that presumptious redefinition,
Bertrand Russell, but that is not a Christian or religious definition and has
no etymological roots. Sure makes them look silly, though. The real definition
of faith is more to do with direct personal knowledge of a god.

Or let's take Dawkins favourite argument "Who made God?". But this was
answered by Thomas Aquinas centuries ago. A thing whose nature/essence is
existence, to exist, self-evidently exists. Since it must also self-evidently
exist of itself, and is therefore self-referencing, the real question is not
"Is there a god" but "Is this self-referencing fundamental thing also self-
aware?". Either Dawkins is ignorant or he's lying by ommission (which he
already does with evolution).

But here's the kicker: an atheist beleives that there is no god - which is why
they quite outrageously call religious persons deluded as no agnostic would -
yet there is no proof of the non-existence of a supreme being.

So while atheists are always irrational whether or not there is a god,
religious persons are only irrational if there isn't a god.

The irony is wonderful. Faith as "Belief without evidence" applies to atheists
more than religious persons.

What's your best atheist argument? I can pretty much defeat any atheist
argument.

~~~
dang
Please don't do religious flamewar on HN. It's all the same, and nothing good
ever comes of it. No one will be persuaded about such profound things on the
internet; all that happens is that people whose feelings get triggered show up
to carp at each other.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
lorriman
How was what I wrote a 'flamewar'? And especially in the context of the anti-
religious views that elsewhere were not flagged nor called flamewars. What's
your agenda, Dang?

Politics, religion, philosophy, these are worthwhile things to discuss.

And fun.

Now leave us be to have fun.

~~~
dang
HN is not for generic discussions about grandiose topics that always get
people riled up. Those discussions are not driven by intellectual curiosity,
which is the organizing value of this site. They turn into ideological battles
and tangents, which produce mediocre comments. It's a clear win for HN not to
host such arguments, so you should look elsewhere for that variety of 'fun'.

I know it always feels like the mods are biased against you, but I've scolded
plenty of anti-religious zealots for breaking the HN guidelines over the
years, including at least one in this thread.

------
lcall
I have learned for myself, with long effort and evaluation of when I was right
and when I was wrong, that God is real and does care, that He answers sincere
prayers in His time, and our choices matter. I have written how I know, here,
in detail (a simple site). It includes reason, and feelings that came as a
result of actions I chose.
[http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854587400.html](http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854587400.html)

But everyone will decide for themselves what they think is a good enough
reason.

Ps: do you know what an insomniac, agnostic, dyslexic does? Gazes up at the
stars, wondering: " _Is_ there ... a dog?" (I hope that's not disrespectful,
including to anyone who suffers dyslexia--I have enough oddities that you are
welcome to laugh at, but this isn't laughing at dyslexics at all---I don't
want to be disrespectful, to anyone. But it really made me laugh, what an odd
feeling that would be...)

[EDIT: slight changes for clarity.]

~~~
lcall
(If I could still edit this I would delete the joke.)

