Re: The God Spots in the Brain

"Elroy Willis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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?

Sunday school failed in its attempt to brainwash the masses; let's see if
"science" will work instead. I believe that neurotheology is akin to
"creation science". ie. the use of pseudo-scientific nonsense to justify a
pre-excepted belief (God). Assume God and then use "science" to "prove" it.

>
> > 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...

I wonder if these neurotheologists have researched non-religious persons? It
does not surprise me that someone who has faith in prayer can experience
euphoria or whatever when they prey. A healthy mind, I believe, promotes a
healthy body and vice versa. However, none believers can have positive
attitudes too. I believe this is the crux. Positive attitude, prayer, hope,
huge ego - there all the same thing, but be assured that no neurotheologist
quack will admit to this. They'll preach the power of prayer and stick to it
like a fly on you know what. The God spot - ha ha ha ha ha.

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