People who believe in god are broken

[tar]

Off topic?

 

How exactly do you discuss a concept without expressing your ideas about it, and your arguments for and against the arguments others raise?

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

Free advice:

Off topic?

How exactly do you discuss a concept without expressing your ideas about it, and your arguments for and against the arguments others raise?

The best way to do that is by making sure your final conclusion of your post is back on topic. It's ok to bring in all kinds of ideas/arguments... as long as you get back to the main topic at the end. Then other members can discuss your individual ideas/arguments... but they too should finalize their posts going back to the main discussion topic.

Writing an on-topic conclusion assures that the discussion does not slowly drift off topic, discussing only a small aspect of the larger topic.

For us moderators, it is pretty difficult to keep such a long thread like this on topic. Some arguments are obviously off topic, and some are on topic. And then there's the large grey area in between...

If you're wondering if you are on/off topic, then just read the opening post (post #1) again.

(And yes, there are probably still some posts off topic in this particular thread... if you spot some, then feel free to propose that we split it off).

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

The moderators have discussed the initial premise of two recent threads "people who believe X are broken" - whilst this has engendered discussion, the debate has been, and will continue to be tainted by the personal attack inherent in the title of the thread.

Rule One of SFN is as follows

1. Be civil.
a. No flaming. Refrain from insulting or attacking users in a discussion.
b. Avoid the use of vulgar language.
c. Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited.
d. Please refer to SFN's etiquette guide before posting.

Describing a portion of the SFN community as 'broken' because of their beliefs (whether scientific, politcal, cultural, or religious) is insulting and a slur.

Rule Four of SFN is as follows

4. The use of logical fallacies to prove a point is prohibited. The use of fallacies undermines an argument, and the constant use of them is simply irritating.

This form of post is potentially "poisoning the well" - in which an ad hominem characterisation of the opposition is part of the opening statement.

Both threads contain important questions which SFN must debate - but the consensus is that this form of opening gambit is more likely to be divisive than discursive. Any further threads opened using this format will be locked immediately and other sanctions may follow. Please do not derail the thread further by discussing this mod note.

[iNow]

So, back to the OP... I think we've established that the primary challenge is to those who accept truth claims based on faith alone, especially as pertains to the extraordinary claim of god(s).

 

Is that a fair assessment? Is it fair to suggest that a persons reasoning is broken if they accept extreme claims on faith alone?

[zapatos]

So, back to the OP... I think we've established that the primary challenge is to those who accept truth claims based on faith alone, especially as pertains to the extraordinary claim of god(s).

 

Is that a fair assessment? Is it fair to suggest that a persons reasoning is broken if they accept extreme claims on faith alone?

I don't believe that is a fair assessment. If you were to say that a person's reasoning is broken if they accept extreme claims on faith alone, and in the face of contrary evidence, that would be a lot closer. If I believe but have doubt, and see no contrary evidence, I don't think that suggests I am unable to reason properly.

 

I also don't think that it is as simple as a 'reasoning' issue. For example, I imagine that there are those who 'want' to believe and it never gets to reasoning. Possibly the problem is that they trust too easily, trusting that their parents and clergy would never tell them something if it was not absolutely true. If I accept them at their word and don't even try to reason it out myself, then I think the issue occurs prior to reasoning.

[iNow]

I agree with you that theists reasoning abilities are fine in most aspects of life. Many are quite reasonable, in fact. However, not with god(s). Isn't that a sign of a fracture... an inconsistency... a double standard?

[zapatos]

Yes, certainly inconsistent and a double standard, but that does not necessarily mean broken. People do that kind of thing everyday.

 

I know parents who are blind when it comes to their kids. They can see the faults in other kids but not their own (thank goodness I've never seen this behavior by me regarding my kids!). They overlook, minimize, and rationalize, always coming to the conclusion that their kid is better, faster, smarter. If their kid doesn't get into the game to play as much they always feel it is because some other kid is unfairly given advantages. They never seem to see where their kid is lacking. These parents have an issue, but I don't think it is their ability to reason. I cannot really say what is going on in their minds, although it is probably different for different parents.

 

I see a similar problem with some atheists on this site (putting on my kevlar). People who are sticklers for detail and accuracy in science threads are suddenly very loose with their facts on the religious threads. They get angry much more quickly, treat people with disdain, and they often times refuse to accept reason. But I don't think they suddenly broke something in their reasoning ability. It seems more like they let emotions take over and just won't back down.

 

On many occassions I've had people lump me in with a 'type' of person simply because I took the side of religion on a certain issue. They don't concentrate on what I say but instead attack the beliefs of the 'type' they believe me to be. Again, I don't think their reasoning failed, I just think other things are going on in their minds that take precedence over reason.

 

All of these examples show people whose reasoning abilities are fine in most aspects of their lives. But in some areas there is an inconsistency and a double standard. It is not simply with those who believe in God, and I don't think it indicates a fracture in reasoning for any of them.

[questionposter]

I agree with you that theists reasoning abilities are fine in most aspects of life. Many are quite reasonable, in fact. However, not with god(s). Isn't that a sign of a fracture... an inconsistency... a double standard?

 

There's many psychological elements, such as the environment religious people tend to grow up in, but it's still not "illogical" to believe in a god, since you can't prove it doesn't exist, and I'm sure there's plenty of things atheists believe in that seem illogical in the same sense as god, like thought matter. Really, no one can be completely logical, so it's just a matter of what you use your logical capabilities up on first.

Edited May 5, 2012 by questionposter

[tar]

Inow,

 

I remember a night, when I was around 13-15 years old, where I "reasoned" to God. That is, I looked very closely and deeply at everything I knew, everything I had been taught, everything I felt, everything that was evident, and everything that made "sense'. I could not be all that there was, because there was my sister and mother and father, and there were other families and so so many other people, and they could not be all there was because they were all on Earth and Earth was not the only planet, and the solar system not the only solar system, and the Galaxy not the only Galaxy. Perhaps even the universe was not the only universe, but just one universe in a greater Cosmos. And I thought "the other way", my body composed of cells and they of atoms, so small I couldn't see them even with a microscope. There could be a tiny person whose whole universe was contained in a small particle in my room. To that tiny person I would be immense beyond his imagination. And I myself, for all I knew, could be in a universe that itself was a particle in an immense boy's room. All a bit too much to handle, too big, too small, too numerous, too fast, too old, but so real. There must be some one, who could concieve of the whole thing at once, and I was just a peice of that God who knew everything, from beginning to end, from the tiniest to the biggest. So I talked with this God and understood him, and understood me, as a part of him, that was not supposed to know everything. I was supposed to see things from just the perspective I had, as a boy, on Earth.

 

And here I sit, in much the same situation as I was in then, a half century ago, but now I consider myself an Atheist, and I notice the made up, untruths that many attribute to the Gods of their religions, but I do not see any broken logic on the part of my 13 year old self, that night. So I cannot agree that people who believe in God are broken. I don't think I was broken then. And I don't think I am broken now.

 

Regards, TAR2

[John Cuthber]

There's many psychological elements, such as the environment religious people tend to grow up in, but it's still not "illogical" to believe in a god, since you can't prove it doesn't exist, and I'm sure there's plenty of things atheists believe in that seem illogical in the same sense as god, like thought matter. Really, no one can be completely logical, so it's just a matter of what you use your logical capabilities up on first.

Is "thought matter" well defined? If so is there any reason to suppose that any significant number of atheists who believe in it?

 

"but it's still not "illogical" to believe in a god, since you can't prove it doesn't exist, "

And it's not illogical to believe in a six foot invisible rabbit because you also can't prove that the rabbit doesn't exist.

But, as has been pointed out before, most people would agree that anyone who did believe in it was, in some way, broken.

Specifically, I think they would be classed as psychotic.

 

I'm still waiting for someone to satisfactorily explain why it's thought mad to believe in one invisible thing, but not another.

Why does religion get special exemptions from the normal rules of human behaviour?

[Moontanman]

Is "thought matter" well defined? If so is there any reason to suppose that any significant number of atheists who believe in it?

 

"but it's still not "illogical" to believe in a god, since you can't prove it doesn't exist, "

And it's not illogical to believe in a six foot invisible rabbit because you also can't prove that the rabbit doesn't exist.

But, as has been pointed out before, most people would agree that anyone who did believe in it was, in some way, broken.

Specifically, I think they would be classed as psychotic.

 

I'm still waiting for someone to satisfactorily explain why it's thought mad to believe in one invisible thing, but not another.

Why does religion get special exemptions from the normal rules of human behaviour?

 

 

I am going to second that question as well. I have heard some of the most outrageous claims made by religious people as "reveled truths" or as amazingly convoluted interpretations of written scripture. In all cases I am aware of not only is the "interpretation" or "reveled truth" completely self serving they never have any real world evidence to back up the claim either.

 

Make even a slightly off beat claim about anything else and people will crawl up your ass 'til next Tuesday to check the details. People who really have no idea about the veracity of your claim will jump to point out how impossible it is and even when you show evidence they still carp and accuse you are somehow distorting the truth.

 

For instance, I keep aquarium fish, sometimes due to my connections with breeders and fisheries people I get unusual specimens. I've had paddlefish, Polyodon spathula, for about two years. on forums where aquariums are the topic i am regularly called a liar, accused of all sorts of deception even though I have both picture and video evidence of my paddlefish, i have written about them and how to keep them, how to feed them, their behaviors in captivity, just lots of things about a fish that was always assumed to be impossible to keep alive in captivity and very little was really known about it's habits. I have even been called a liar by a scientist who studies similar fishes.

 

It's wild how crazy people get over something so easily verified but a religious leader can make sweeping claims about things impossible to test or even know and or even demonstrably false and people suck it up like honey...

[zapatos]

I'm still waiting for someone to satisfactorily explain why it's thought mad to believe in one invisible thing, but not another.

Why does religion get special exemptions from the normal rules of human behaviour?

I don't think you'll find this satisfactory but to me there are two big differences:

 

First is the continuous support for believing in God from others. It starts out at birth and never stops. Baptism, confirmation, mass every Sunday, Christmas, Easter, marriage preparation counseling, radio, television, Rush Limbaugh, almost all politicians, almost all neighbors, almost all family, billions of people worldwide, pronouncements from the pope, holy wars, houses of worship on every other corner, catholic schools, baptist schools, lutheran schools, and on and on and on.

 

And the support comes from people you trust, who are educated, well trained, wealthy, poor, and people who have dedicated their lives to God.

 

Not to mention the negative feedback that comes to those who question God. The priest keeps you after school, your mother yells at you, your girlfriend refuses to marry you, you don't get elected to office, etc.

 

If you have even the slightest inclination for whatever reason to believe in God, it is very easy and comfortable to do so.

 

No such support exists for six foot rabbits, teapots orbiting Jupiter, lounge chairs around the moon, pink fairies and unicorns.

 

Second is that God serves a purpose. Suddenly things make sense. We know why we are here, what will happen when we die, where everything came from. It helps us through tough times, gives us confidence that things will be better, gives meaning to life.

 

No other invisible creature supplies those things, and those are things that people crave. Given that it is impossible to know one way or the other whether or not we will continue to exist after death, I don't in the least find it surprising that people choose God and an afterlife.

 

I understand your frustration with those theists who ignore your reasonable arguments and are what seems to be completely illogical. But I think it is a mistake to lump together the radical fringe with all other theists. Theists fall on a very wide spectrum of beliefs and behaviors.

 

Personally I find the constant comparison of God to unicorns and other creatures to be rather tiring. Not because it is inaccurate, but because it trivializes the human psyche. To me it is no different than the theist who keeps quoting the bible.

[questionposter]

Is "thought matter" well defined? If so is there any reason to suppose that any significant number of atheists who believe in it?

Well who's to say every single religious person is an orthodox Christian? Most Christians aren't complete church-goers, they usually have some of their own interpretations of god.

 

"but it's still not "illogical" to believe in a god, since you can't prove it doesn't exist, "

And it's not illogical to believe in a six foot invisible rabbit because you also can't prove that the rabbit doesn't exist.

But, as has been pointed out before, most people would agree that anyone who did believe in it was, in some way, broken.

Specifically, I think they would be classed as psychotic.

I think someone who believes someone is broken for believing in something would be broken in the same way. It's not illogical to think there could be an invisible rabbit, but if your in a small area, you can just feel around. God has an entire universe and possibly infinite dimensions to possibly occupy.

 

I'm still waiting for someone to satisfactorily explain why it's thought mad to believe in one invisible thing, but not another.

Why does religion get special exemptions from the normal rules of human behaviour?

Because god is an axiom in mono-theistic religion.

Edited May 5, 2012 by questionposter

[iNow]

I know parents who are blind when it comes to their kids.

Interesting comparison, but parents don't do this because they have "faith" that their child is better. They are simply biased due to the rewiring which took place in their brains after their child was born/conceived.

 

The oxytocin and vasopressin, even dopamine, seratonin, and adrenaline our system floods us with when our kids come into the world ALL make the way we approach our children different to the way we approach others.

 

That is not, IMO, equivalent to accepting an extraordinary claim as true based upon wish thinking and faith alone.

[zapatos]

Interesting comparison, but parents don't do this because they have "faith" that their child is better. They are simply biased due to the rewiring which took place in their brains after their child was born/conceived.

 

The oxytocin and vasopressin, even dopamine, seratonin, and adrenaline our system floods us with when our kids come into the world ALL make the way we approach our children different to the way we approach others.

 

That is not, IMO, equivalent to accepting an extraordinary claim as true based upon wish thinking and faith alone.

Yes, I didn't mean to say it was 'faith' in their child's abilities, simply an example of not being reasonable. I was trying to show that things other than faith cause this type of behavior. Back to my long ago point of 'if theists are broken, then we are all broken'.

 

I'm unfamiliar with the rewiring of parent brains after birth. Do you happen to know if anything similar happens to those of faith? Would you say that the rewiring of parent brains means their ability to reason was once normal and is now 'broken'?

[tar]

I am going to second that question as well. I have heard some of the most outrageous claims made by religious people as "reveled truths" or as amazingly convoluted interpretations of written scripture. In all cases I am aware of not only is the "interpretation" or "reveled truth" completely self serving they never have any real world evidence to back up the claim either.

 

Make even a slightly off beat claim about anything else and people will crawl up your ass 'til next Tuesday to check the details. People who really have no idea about the veracity of your claim will jump to point out how impossible it is and even when you show evidence they still carp and accuse you are somehow distorting the truth.

 

For instance, I keep aquarium fish, sometimes due to my connections with breeders and fisheries people I get unusual specimens. I've had paddlefish, Polyodon spathula, for about two years. on forums where aquariums are the topic i am regularly called a liar, accused of all sorts of deception even though I have both picture and video evidence of my paddlefish, i have written about them and how to keep them, how to feed them, their behaviors in captivity, just lots of things about a fish that was always assumed to be impossible to keep alive in captivity and very little was really known about it's habits. I have even been called a liar by a scientist who studies similar fishes.

 

It's wild how crazy people get over something so easily verified but a religious leader can make sweeping claims about things impossible to test or even know and or even demonstrably false and people suck it up like honey...

 

Moontanman,

 

But there is "ways we all have" of drawing ourselves "back to reality", by aligning our personal experiences and knowledge with "something" or somebody, outside of ourselves. If the people who you turn to, for this confirmation are delusional, you are likely to aquire a bit of the delusion yourself. Then you have to look for a way to turn to something that can not be delusional, to give you basis to identify the delusional parts and the "real" parts, in an "objective" way. Science is a good thing to turn to. It uses as its basis of comparasion, the actual objective reality that exists, stripped of as many delusional characteristics as is humanly possible. It exists, regardless of our knowledge of it, or our attidude toward it, or the false characteristics, we may assign to it. We can always turn to it to find the actual truth, and what must be "not delusion".

 

So what is it that a person on a mountaintop or in a cave, or high on mushrooms, or in a Zen zone, is turning to, for confirmation of what is "not delusion"? And if they should find something there, and report it to others, and the others soak it up like honey and experience it themselves, and add it to that portion of their understanding that is in the "objective reality" bucket, it is difficult to say that the whole of it is bunk, and that the some of it may not be OK to consider "not delusional".

 

But once their description becomes more real to them, than the actual thing described, it loses any value, to anybody else looking for confirmation of objective reality.

 

So "belief in God" the Abrahamic one in particular, has a lot of human, delusional baggage attached to it. Figurative things taken as having to be literal facts about objective reality. Disbelief in this God, as I have, is aimed at only the delusional attributes assigned to objective reality by the religion. I retain the right to believe in objective reality itself, without the permission of the priests and messengers. And to discount the judgements made by the priests on the behalf of objective reality, as indeed only the judgements of the priests. I will let objective reality tell me the truth. But I will have to accept some people's word on it, as long as it fits with my understanding.

 

"In conclusion" I would say that people that believe in God are not broken, but people that believe in delusional gods, are not much help, and can be quite a hindrance if they insist I cooperate with their delusion when I know it to be false.

 

Regards, TAR2

Edited May 5, 2012 by tar

[iNow]

I was trying to show that things other than faith cause this type of behavior.

That point was never in contention.

 

I'm unfamiliar with the rewiring of parent brains after birth. Do you happen to know if anything similar happens to those of faith?

You must first understand that absolutely everything we do, every passing moment, each activity and each thought we have will rewire our brains to some degree. As I type this, there is rewiring taking place in the centers involved with how I formulate a position, how I convey a point, how my fingers move when pressed against a keyboard, etc. Many of these neural pathways are already in place, but using them again will cause new connections to grow and old ones to sever, ultimately changing the infrastructure as a result.

 

With parents, they have this happen on a major scale. Those chemicals (primarily oxytocin and vasopressin) cause this rewiring (growing of new connections and pruning of others) to happen on a MAJOR scale and ultimately changes the way we think. The connections to the emotional centers are deeply amplified and that child becomes an extension of ourselves... They are more important than food or breathing for a while.

 

Now, with faith, I absolutely think that there is rewiring taking place. The repetition of those thoughts alone will cause different neural infrastructure. The fact that the teachings come from sources we trust (parent, tribal elder, preacher, etc.) just magnifies how willing we are to accept these things into our being.

 

Where I find myself getting frustrated with believers is in how their acceptance of faith becomes so important to them that they allow it to seep into other parts of their being. They begin to accept other things on faith alone... like global warming cannot be impacted by humans, or evolution cannot be true, or relativity is wrong, or obama is a secret muslim fascist communist socialist who wants to shoot rich people and give every one in poverty a nintendo... that level of stupid shit comes from the same place... It comes from the wiring that causes people NOT to value facts or confirmation of evidence and from the place where things are accepted based on what "feels right" or based on wish thinking or based on faith alone.

 

That's a problem, and it's impacting our society across the board in some fairly major ways. Back to your question, though... Yes, there is rewiring in the brains of the faithful, but it's distinct in important ways from the rewiring which takes place on the birth of a child.

 

---

 

"In conclusion" I would say that people that believe in God are not broken, but people that believe in delusional gods, are not much help

I don't understand what you posit is the difference. Both beliefs are based entirely on zero evidence, faith alone, and delusion. Neither are functionally different than belief in any of the other countless gods laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman,

 

"In conclusion" I would say that people that believe in God are not broken, but people that believe in delusional gods, are not much help, and can be quite a hindrance if they insist I cooperate with their delusion when I know it to be false.

 

Regards, TAR2

 

 

Seriously Tar2, how is anyone's idea of god any different than anyone else's? Thor, Zeus, Jupiter, Adriana, Venus, Aphrodite, Krishna, Allah, Yahweh, Quetzalcoatl, Jesus, none of them have any more objective reality or are any less delusional than any of the others...

[zapatos]

That point was never in contention.

So does that mean you believe that people who are parents are 'broken', but in a way different from those of faith?

 

You must first understand...

 

That's a problem, and it's impacting our society across the board in some fairly major ways. Back to your question, though... Yes, there is rewiring in the brains of the faithful, but it's distinct in important ways from the rewiring which takes place on the birth of a child.

Very good description. Thank you.

 

So if I can recap what I think you are saying:

 

While the reasoning of many people is affected by experience, the faithful are affected in a unique way.

The reasoning flaws in the faithful are more inclined to bleed into areas of reasoning other than areas of faith (e.g. global warming).

 

Is that correct?

[iNow]

I think that's largely accurate, and seems fair.

 

As an aside, it was really when studying neuroscience and psychology formally that I came more firmly to realize how unlikely it is that god(s) are real, and how much more likely it is that our brains are the source of belief and the fictional conjecture that is god(s).

[zapatos]

Hmm. Ok. I don't know if that is true or not but there certainly seems to be anecdotal evidence to support that position. Bush 'believing' we should do something rather than 'thinking' we should do it. People being 'called' to serve. Being subservient to husbands. Voting for a candidate with no more thought than does/does not support abortion. The list is long. I wonder if there is any hard data to support that.

[iNow]

To support what, exactly? That some changes in our brain wiring are not restricted to specific topics or subjects, but instead also impact other aspects of our mental life and decision making processes?

Edited May 5, 2012 by iNow

[zapatos]

To support what, exactly? That some changes in our brain wiring are not restricted to specific topics or subjects, but instead also impact other aspects of our mental life and decision making processes?

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I was under the impression that you were saying that the impact of faith on brain wiring was somehow unique when compared to the impact of other experiences on brain wiring. That it was in fact more detrimental to reasoning than brain wiring due to other experiences. I was asking about evidence to support that position.

[iNow]

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I was under the impression that you were saying that the impact of faith on brain wiring was somehow unique when compared to the impact of other experiences on brain wiring. That it was in fact more detrimental to reasoning than brain wiring due to other experiences. I was asking about evidence to support that position.

The challenge is that the moment you get into characterizations of what is "more detrimental" or "less detrimental" than something else, you quickly get into the realm of the subjective and we'll then spend seven more pages going back and forth about where is that threshold. I have no interest in doing that more, as I've been fairly articulate about my position already throughout this thread. The central point is that the use of faith in one aspect of life impacts the way people think about the world in other ways, and that acceptance of a faith based thinking result in downstream consequences and too easily cascade into other arenas of thought.

 

I have laid out why I think faith is perhaps one of the single worst reasons to accept a proposition as true.

 

I have elaborated that an affirmative belief that god(s) exists is an extraordinary one, and that faith alone does not adequately scale with the claim.

 

I have shared how believers present a double standard and appear as hypocrites since they ask their faith to be good enough to accept their god(s), but like me they reject the faith of others who believe in different gods.

 

I have shared how this double standard becomes even more readily visible outside the concept of deities, as believers themselves reject faith as a good enough reason to accept something as true in other aspects of reality, and they require evidence of claims and tend to value both logic and reason for just about everything else... it seems... so long as the subject of those thoughts are unrelated to religion or god(s).

 

I have explained that a person who uses faith to make a decision on something as important as the concept of god(s) is more likely to make decisions using faith in other areas of life, and so the use of faith on the concept of god is more likely to diminish their logic and rationality and reason on other subjects more tangible.

 

I have shared how many of those decisions effect all of us in this society, and that is part of the reason we should seek to minimize that type of thinking and more highly value evidence, reason, and consistency.

 

I have made this point more accessible by stating that if faith can be used to accept as true the proposition that god(s) exist, then it can equally be used to accept as true the proposition for just about anything... including the easter bunny, unicorns, leprechauns, or even more real life issues like humans can't impact climate, evolution can't be true, children should have their genitals mutilated, medicine is not to be used, or people who don't believe (or who believe something different) are to be murdered.

 

I have summarized this position by saying people who believe in god(s) are broken.

Edited May 6, 2012 by iNow

[tar]

 

I don't understand what you posit is the difference. Both beliefs are based entirely on zero evidence, faith alone, and delusion. Neither are functionally different than belief in any of the other countless gods laying dead in the graveyard of human mythology.

 

Inow,

 

My differenciation comes from my attempt to "fold in" the thoughts of objective really "I" as a generic human had, prehistory, 4000 years ago in Southeast Asia, 2000-3000 years ago around the Mediteranean, and 800 years ago around Mecca, with the thoughts my contemporaries and I are having today.

 

If there are chemical reasons for extending your "feeling of self" to include your children and pack, these reasons might also be involved in binding oneself to a nation or a religion.

 

As an Atheist, I many years ago had come to the conclusion that the big bearded gentleman in the clouds, was an image that was no longer viable. But the "ties" to him were still apparent in society. So I more or less threw out the Anthropomorphic God as a possibility, but retained the "ties" as an absolute fact. We DO associate with a greater consciousness. One that existed before we were born, and will exist after we die. And we CARE about this enity as if it was ourselves. Who cares if chemicals are doing the job. We already know that. We are made of atoms and molecules in a certain arrangement.

 

I differenciate between invisible Rabbits and God, because God is a delusion we have agreed upon, that we have built, and it need not have an actual body, or measurable presence to a piece of scientific equipment, inorder to activate the "kinship" chemicals.

 

If Mohammed saw the God of Moses (within the chemical brain) and described his images to bind together warring "idol worshipping" tribes in his area, into a cohesive whole that reaches around the globe, and includes literally billions of fellow humans, there must be something real happening there, a little more powerful than the Image of an Easter Bunny.

 

And as neither a parent or a child would doubt the love of the other, based on the fact that "it is just chemicals talking", neither should you or I doubt the reality of the "feelings for humanity" that we may hold.

 

Countless Gods may be lying in the graveyards, but new ones spring up, and old ones are given facelifts. We are still human, still have the same chemicals in our brains, and still exist of and in the same reality.

 

It may be just as "objective" and rational, to consider our glass half full and construe our history of religion as a constantly improving relationship with each other and the greater reality, as it is to imagine we know what a full glass would be, automatically, and figure anybody holding a half glass is defective.

 

Regards, TAR2