Re: The God Spots in the Brain

Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in alt.atheism

> Elroy Willis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Tim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in alt.atheism

>>> We evolved memory. The God Spot (Dog Stain) is a mere product of that
>>> memory. As is language, intuition, inference, etc. All human beliefs and
>>> knowledge rely on memory. Equivocating God w/ grand organizing design
>>> is, well, equivocation. This helps in no other way than confounding the
>>> already bloated garbage pile of dogma and nonsense surrounding theism.

>> A lot of that memory is planted into young impressionable minds during
>> Sunday school or some other religious indoctrination.  Without that
>> underlying garbage pile of dogma in the back of the mind of people as
>> they get older, I suspect a lot of the god experiences would never
>> even happen.  People are taught that there's some god out there who
>> loves them and watches over them, then when something goes wrong,
>> they have to try to figure out what's going on with regards to that
>> god.  If that idea were never planted in the first place, then there
>> would be less stress, imo, and less chance of some mental breakdown
>> on the part of the religious believers.

>>> Why don't these researchers spend there time trying to help people with
>>> legitimate brain problems. Looking for God in the head. Ha ha ha. They'd
>>> have better luck looking for him up their asses!

>> I don't see what's so funny.  The research they're doing could indeed
>> help people in the future.

> I fail to see how "neurotheology" (ROFLOL) will help anyone;
> except theists who realize that there dogma is ineffective and who
> attempt to use scientific means to justify their beliefs.

How do you think they could use it to justify their beliefs, exactly?

> Neuroscience and brain surgery help people; neurotheology is proof that
> religion is scrambling to justify itself. Why waste time on a dying dog?

I actually foresee the god helmet that Persinger uses being simplified
and the components miniaturized and made available to the consumer
to use in the privacy of their homes, as a meditation aid, or as a way
to relax or get high without any drugs.

Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, I don't know, but it would
probably threaten the churches if people could get high on god without
going to church.  The government would probably get involved as well,
maybe even the FDA, who knows?  I actually wonder what department of
the government might try to intervene in such a case. The helmet
wouldn't really be a food or a drug, so maybe it's out of their
bounds?  Hmm... 

-- 
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news