Creating God on Demand

[StuartJ]

I've been preaching "God" as never being shown to be anything more than the invention of human imaginations.

From my Sunday school and Bible class days, I recognised that "God" was only ever happening inside my head and the heads of those around me.

So have others ... and not JUST in the parietal cortex.

"In the last few years," says Dr. Anderson, "brain imaging technologies have matured in ways that are letting us approach questions that have been around for millennia."

"If the equipment and the experiment produced the presence that was God, then the extrapersonal, unreachable, and independent characteristics of the god definition might be challenged."Dr. Michael Persinger

Such neurophysiological effects of religion seem to give the dictum "Religion is the opium of the people" a new level of meaning. https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/322539.php

For what reasons should believers in "God" continue to believe that their "God" exists outside their minds ...?

[Jagella]

Sheesh. I'm not a Christian nor an 'apologist'...

I never said you were either one although I have some suspicions. But let's take a look at what I did say:

You then are using another common apologetics' tactic...

OK? Please read carefully what I post. I said you are using an "apologetics' tactic." I did not say you are a Christian nor did I say you are an apologist.

Sloppy rhetoric yet again...

No. Poor reading comprehension on your part.

I have encountered people in online forums claiming to be atheists yet who fight tooth and nail against criticisms directed at the Christian religion. I suppose it's possible that some atheists might like Christianity or some aspects of it. Another possibility is that they are Christians posing as atheists.

Anyway, you haven't replied to most of the points I made in my last post. Do you concede those points?

[Mithrae]

Sheesh. I'm not a Christian nor an 'apologist'...

I never said you were either one although I have some suspicions. But let's take a look at what I did say:

You then are using another common apologetics' tactic...

OK? Please read carefully what I post. I said you are using an "apologetics' tactic." I did not say you are a Christian nor did I say you are an apologist.

More correctly, you said "You then are using another common apologetics' tactic of playing the hurt-feelings card..." Of course you are keenly aware that I never said my feelings were hurt (you know, because I'm not a Christian or 'apologist' in order to be hurt by your disparaging generalizations against them) so to downplay the hypocrisy you obviously had to snip that bit before launching your 'I never said' spiel... even while confirming that your thoughts mirror what your words implied. Some would view all this as disingenuous, at best.

Anyway, you haven't replied to most of the points I made in my last post. Do you concede those points?

You didn't raise any new points, nor refute what I said in my previous post, and I really have nothing new to add. Not much point going 'round in circles, is there? Sometimes I enjoy spinning words to pretend like there's more to said or in the belief that there's room for understanding and common ground given further discussion... and sometimes it's just tiresome. For reasons which may or may not be evident to the keen observer, this is one of the latter occasions.

[Jagella]

Of course you are keenly aware that I never said my feelings were hurt...

In most cases I don't need a person with hurt feelings to tell me that their feelings have been hurt, but if you insist that your feelings have not been hurt, then I will believe you.

(you know, because I'm not a Christian or 'apologist' in order to be hurt by your disparaging generalizations against them)

OK, but what are you then? By all means set me straight.

... even while confirming that your thoughts mirror what your words implied.

So you are assuming that I was implying that you are a Christian apologist. I don't know what you are because you seem to like to keep it a mystery.

But yes, you sure seem to argue like a Christian apologist. "If it quacks like a duck."

You didn't raise any new points, nor refute what I said in my previous post...

I must insist I did make some good points in Post 19. I demonstrated that stating general truths is a universal practice that in almost all cases is appropriate. I also asked you for substance to back up your words, and it appears you have no such substance. And finally, I pointed out that brain science should make more discoveries that should shed light on what causes religious experiences.

Not much point going 'round in circles, is there?

That's up to you, of course. If you can't take the heat, then get out of the kitchen.

Anyway, I should reiterate that the science cited in the OP demonstrates that no gods are needed to explain religious experiences. To make your case that gods might be responsible for those experiences, you can look for evidence that gods exist and cause such experiences.

[Guy Threepwood]

[Replying to post 10 by StuartJ]

Nobody ever demonstrated that the creator of the Rosetta stone ever existed outside their minds.

But our minds are capable of deducing creativity from it's artifacts

[StuartJ]

For what reasons should believers in "God" continue to believe that their "God" exists outside their minds ...?

It appears to me that the only "reasons" believers continue to believe that THEIR version of "God" exists OUTSIDE their minds ...

Is by accepting what is going on INSIDE their minds as reality.

And the merry circle of faith and fantasy is NEVER shown to dance around and around ANYWHERE but in the minds of believers ...

Swirling to the garbled rhythms of the human-composed "scriptures" ...

Chanting that they are communing with "God" ...

And mud-men and rib-women and virgin-born self-resurrecting god-men not delusion.

[Mithrae]

I've been preaching "God" as never being shown to be anything more than the invention of human imaginations.

"Preaching" was an honest choice of words there, as your most recent post illustrates quite nicely