A Free Plug For Roy Zimmerman

The latest episode of Ask an Atheist is in the can, but it's not up yet over at askanatheist.tv, so until that gets posted, here's a taste of Roy Zimmerman. I was turned on to this guy by Dretlin over at The Happy Atheist Forum. Pretty funny.

I know, I'm probably one of the only atheists left who haven't run across this guy, but in case there are a few trailing me, here you go. =D

Is Atheism Also Based On Belief?

Blah. You can skip this post. Why? Because if you read this, you're probably an atheist and so you've probably heard this before. Why then am I going to say what has been said to the point that I'm annoying myself by saying anything more about it? Because it keeps coming up! It's the point that will not die, the argument that has no end, the correction which is continually ignored!

To say that atheism is a lack of belief in god is not the same thing as saying that atheism is believing there is no god.

I know, I know. Sorry to waste your time, but evidently this is STILL an issue for some people:

Casey Doran of Seattle scolded me, as others did, for not defining atheism correctly. "I wonder how much you bothered to research what atheism actually is before you wrote this piece. Atheism is the rejection of the claim of a positive belief that god(s) exist, not the assertion that no god(s) exist. It's an important distinction, the default position is a response to a claim, not a claim in and of itself, and I would hope that the press (especially the print press) would work a little harder to get it right."

My exact words were: "Atheists simply believe there is no God, or no evidence to support the existence of God." Isn't "rejection of the claim" similar to a belief (claim) there is no God?

Atheists reject the positive belief there is a God. Well, I accept the positive belief there was a man called Jesus; that is my belief, but that doesn't necessarily hold true in some people's eyes.

Just because a person claims there is no God — that is their belief — doesn't necessarily make it true in some people's eyes.

Look, there is a big difference between saying 'you know, I just don't think, given what we know, that it makes sense to say for certain that a god exists.' and saying 'There is no god, no possibility, won't even consider it.' Trying to sell both versions of opinion as one in the same is not correct.

Given this, I think that the two last paragraphs about Jesus and belief amount to a strawman argument. Yes, claiming that there is no god is a statement of belief. But the majority of atheists don't claim to know for certain that there isn't a god, they state that there is insufficient evidence to believe that there is one.

Ahh, but what about those atheists who would self identify as a 7 on Dawkins scale? Though not representative of all atheists, the authors definition of atheism would apply to them. I'm not one, but I can understand their position of sure. Let's look at both sides of belief regarding god:

Some atheists feel comfortable stating that there is no god. Those atheists are stating a well supported belief based on what we know at this time to be true about the universe, the earth, etc., but a belief just the same. Theists claim that there is a god. Those theists are stating a poorly supported belief based largely on feelings, anecdotal evidence, or old books that are largely unverifiable.

I think it's incorrect for the author to try to insinuate that all beliefs are created equal when they obviously aren't.

Regardless, the initial definition of atheism that the author suggests - Atheists believe that there is no god- is incorrect. If they honestly don't understand the difference between saying something doesn't exist and saying that there is insufficient proof of something existing, that's a personal problem.

Why Argue Against Something You Don't Believe Exists?

An interesting question was posed to me, one that I feel every atheist should consider and take the time to respond to -

If God is nothing more than a human fabrication then what is there to disprove? Why do atheists spend time arguing about something they don't believe exists?

My personal response is as follows, and though I know for a fact that my response isn't the same as the response others might put forth, I felt it was beneficial to myself to be reminded exactly why I concern myself with what other people believe.

I don't think of myself as wanting to disprove god, I think of myself as wanting to communicate with people of faith to the point where they have to accept that my position has validity. I don't want to change anyone's mind because I honestly don't care - pray to a popple and worship cinnamon toast crunch, it's all the same to me. The issue I see is that there are people in positions of power and influence who use religion to convince the masses of certain ideas which then are put forth as laws with lots of support from said masses. I don't have a lot of money so beyond making phone calls and voting, I can't take an active stand against the people of power, so I do what I can and reach out to people who follow the people of power and try to explain to them why it's wrong to legislate their religion.

I would love to not feel the compulsion to do this and to simply live my happy atheist life, but I can't do that unless other people wake up and realize that belief, even in mass numbers, does not equal a free license to start dictating how others live. I don't go out of my way looking for confrontations or arguments, but I don't back down if I come across them and I rarely ignore them - even if the argument is about something as stupid as whether or not Jesus was a historical figure or if God definitely exists or not. These discussions are less about the subject for me and more about being continually active as yet another voice of atheism. I think, this is stupid to argue about, but maybe if I make enough good points, it'll add to all the other good points this person has heard and they will at least THINK about why they're supporting what they're supporting. Maybe if enough people say they disagree, religious people might stop blindly following that random religious person in a position of influence and start thinking for themselves a little more, and things will get better.

Another reason I willingly engage in conversations and arguments with theists is because I feel like science needs a voice in the everyday world. I am by no means a scientist and I don't have a degree in a scientific field. Most of what I know about science is self taught, and that self taught knowledge is constantly changing with every bit of new evidence which I come into contact with. My point in making this distinction about myself is that I feel like I'm on a level playing field with any random person who is approaching scientific data. I'm not trained in how to read studies and I have trouble at times understanding complex scientific ideas, but the awesome thing about science is that you don't have to be an expert in a field of study to learn more about a particular subject. You do, however, have to learn to tell science from pseudoscience and I feel like that is an area where a lot of people go astray. It would seem that there is a stigma about science that a lot of my fellow laymen fall into where they feel that if someone has a PhD or a degree in a certain subject that they must know what they're talking about. However, from my experience, it doesn't take an academically trained scientist to distinguish good science from bad. It does take a little bit of effort and skepticism toward what you are reading, especially if you're exposed to an idea which you would like to be true, even though it has been proven false by countless other sources. The argument of whether evolution is real is just as ridiculous to me as the argument of whether god is real, but I still participate in these arguments because though I know the argument against evolution has little to no scientific validity, there are still those people in positions of power and influence telling their supportive masses that evolution is a lie and that preposterous pseudoscientific ideas such as Intelligent Design should not only be taught in schools, but should be taught as science.

This might seem like a huge deviation from the initial question, but it's not. One thing most theists agree on is that for them, god is important in every aspect of their lives. It was, and sometimes still is difficult for me to understand the scope of this kind of thinking as I was never personally religious and didn't grow up with religious parents, but once I understood how truly intrinsic the concept of god is to people, I realized how equally important it was for someone like me, someone who doesn't believe in god, to have their voice be heard.

Misinformation in the name of god is still misinformation, and I feel a personal responsibility to speak out against it wherever it's found. Maybe it's a naive waste of time or delusions of grandeur on my part, I don't know, but at least I'm doing SOMETHING to help spread the word that atheists exist, we're rational people who deserve the same rights as everyone else, and even though people may not agree with us that doesn't give anyone the right to treat us like we count less or don't count at all.

The Closest I've Come To Believing in God

A forum I participate on, The Happy Atheist Forum, had a post which quotes Trent Reznor as saying:

I just don't understand how people can blindly believe a bunch of the shit they're fed, to believe it so that they don't think too hard about other issues. 'Be a good boy and you'll go to heaven.' If it works for you, fine, but it doesn't work for me and that pisses me off because I kind of wish it did.

They then asked if we had ever felt a similar desire to be religious.

I'm going to skip all the usual snarky 'sure, I'd love to happily live in ignorance' shiz and share a story about the only time I ever felt a longing for god to be real.

It was after my dad died. My mother had called me in hysterics and told me my dad was dead, had died in his sleep. I went to his house and it was true. He looked like he was sleeping, but his lips were a frosty blue and his face was the color of dusty miller. I remember not feeling anything at first and then having intense waves of grief and fear and sadness break over me, over and over again.

I went outside and shouted, then threw up. My dad had been sick for so long, I stopped being afraid of him dying. I was so used to him being sick it hadn't worried me when he told me a few days before that he was having problems breathing in the mornings. He was dying for over a decade and the decline was so slow that his death was a complete shock.

I remember being outside and for the first time in my life and the last time since, I looked up and I really wanted to feel something. I wanted to feel that god feeling people talked about, and I wanted to feel it right then. I stood there long enough to end up surrounded by my family and I didn't feel a damn thing.

I realized later that I wasn't really expecting god to bestow me with his lovey glow, I just felt really scared about the end of my father's life and I wanted there to be a god because a god meant an afterlife than an afterlife meant my dad wasn't gone forever. Hangin' on clouds in heaven or fact checking the internet in hell, I would see him again, talk to him again, hug him again.

That's pretty much the closest I've ever come in my life to believing in god. A fleeting moment, brought on by extreme sadness and loss.

Response to a Christian's question - Why does Dawkins hate God?

On the Twitter, I find myself having an interesting conversation with a Christian who began the talk by asking me if I felt that Dawkins was helping anyone when his message seems to be that he hates God. How can hate be helpful, he asked, and why don't more atheists dedicate themselves to building relationships with the religious community rather than isolating themselves from the religious by way of harsh criticisms of God.

I feel like these are all really good questions, not because of the questions themselves, but they're good questions because they expose a fundamental difference in thought that makes it difficult for theists and atheists to get along.

First off - atheists don't hate God. Some of us hate the concept of God, but to say that an atheist hates God is like saying a Jewish person hates Satan. They don't hate Satan, they don't even believe in Satan. The same is true for atheists and God. Hating a concept is not the same thing as agreeing that a concept physically exists.

I told my twitter pal that if he had questions about Dawkins' personal motivations that he would have to ask him, however I did say that for a lot of people in a lot of areas of the world - the US included - being an atheist openly was a great way to lose your job, lose the support of your family, or otherwise be treated badly. People like Dawkins are appreciated in the atheist community not because they're perceived as being hateful but because they give a lot of people hope and encouragements about themselves as human beings.

How many times have you heard from one source or another that atheists lack morality? That atheists are sub human, incapable of being parents, are inherently selfish, shouldn't be allowed in positions of influence, are untrustworthy, and on and on and on? Is it any surprise that there is an outpouring of support for authors like Dawkins and the like who are publishing books that say - "you're not a bad person for thinking this way. I think this way too, and here's why." Of course people who are atheists are going to look at the bible and say 'why does it contradict itself? If God is loving, why did he kill so many people? Why did he kill babies and tell men to stone their wives and sell their daughters?' When you reject the divinity of something, it's far easier to see all of the parts that comprise the whole.

Logically, this criticism is going to be offensive to the religious. Of course it will be. But I think it's unfair to say that people like Dawkins are wrong or destructive in their actions because they offer the kind of support that a lot of non-religious people need right now. Would it be fair to say that slaves in 1870 who distrusted the forces that oppressed them and worked to create support structures for their people were being unhelpful or hateful because they weren't trying to build bridges with the people who were in positions of influence and power over them? Of course not. Slavery and atheism are vastly different circumstances, but the social repercussions of being an outsider in a society is the same regardless of who is being excluded. I don't think atheists are to a point yet where we have the political or social clout to build bridges - we're still convincing ourselves that we're not broken human beings for rejecting God despite a large, vocal, and powerful group of people who still have no qualms telling us we are!

So no, I don't think Dawkins is a bad guy for what he says or even how he says it. I think he's a reflection of how a lot of atheists feel around the world - we are good people with strong moral values and our lack of belief in God is not an excuse to marginalize us.

Hitchens 2007 Seattle Town Hall And The None Zone

I just ran across this article from a year back in Seattle Magazine online and I thought I would share:

Grey Matters: Just Say None
By Knute Berger

What is the None Zone? It’s a term coined by religious researchers who reported in 2004 that the Pacific Northwest—Washington, Oregon and Alaska—is the only part of the United States where a majority of people (more than 60 percent) check “none of the above” when asked their religious affiliation. That compares with 40 percent nationally. And nearly one-third say they are purely secular “humanists” or have no religion at all. That compares with 19 percent nationally and a mere 11 percent in the South.

In short, the None Zone is the opposite of the Bible Belt.

Seattle has gained a reputation as a particularly godless corner of the None Zone. For a time last summer, the most-watched video on the Seattle Channel Web site was a Town Hall lecture by Christopher Hitchens about his provocatively titled book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

During the City Council races last fall, candidate Tim Burgess was put on the defensive for being a Christian “values” voter. In Seattle, that made him suspect despite his liberal, green and pro-gay politics. And in November, Seattle Post-Intelligencer columnist D. Parvaz was excoriated by right-wing Web sites and the Fox TV crowd for seeming to condone “church burning” in a piece about a self-proclaimed performance artist who was alleged to have contemplated torching a church for the sake of “art.” One Northwest Republican blogger concluded that Parvaz “obviously hates Christians.” Though a complete misreading of what Parvaz said, it fit the image that liberal Seattle’s idea of religious tolerance is to tolerate people who would burn churches.

Seattle and the Northwest are not completely irreligious. There are plenty of Catholics and Protestants, and there’s a yeasty fermentation in the number of evangelical entrepreneurs, New Age groups, neo-pagans and other nonmainstream religious groups that call the area home. The West has always been ripe for religious and utopian experiments. And many Nones still profess a belief in God. They may not sit in a pew on Sunday, but most aren’t atheists. They may simply be skeptics of organized religion.

Perhaps the largest contingent of Nones are nature worshippers. In an article on specific Northwest religious trends, called “Secular But Spiritual,” Mark Shibley of Southern Oregon University wrote that “nothing is more central to Northwest nature religion than the idea of wilderness.” Preserving wilderness, therefore, is a sacred act. As a result, he says, “Much contemporary environmentalism in the Northwest is a religious system.” You get a sense of that zeal in the growing movement led by Al Gore, Greg Nickels and others to save the world from the apocalypse of global warming.

The source of Seattle values would be a private matter if it wasn’t for the city’s widespread cultural and technological influence; it matters to people everywhere if Microsoft supports gay rights or whether Starbucks shows a mermaid’s bare breasts on its logo (it once did, but no longer).

Few expect perfect moral behavior from corporate players—heaven help you if you raised your child to be like Boeing, a company that has a history of bullying and cheating to get what it wants. But knowing the source of a company’s values can offer insights into its behavior. Newspaper and magazine columnist (and founder of Microsoft’s Slate magazine) Michael Kinsley says that Ayn Rand is popular at Microsoft. She was an atheist who originated the philosophy of Objectivism and touted the virtues of selfishness and dog-eat-dog competition. No wonder she’s the darling of Redmond’s chosen.

Another reason values matter: Seattle is a biotech research center, and we stand at the threshold of fundamentally changing the world with cloning, gene manipulation, nanotechnology, the wiring of human brains, the impact of new drugs and genetic treatments. We also are home to global organizations that will spread these techniques and technologies to the world. What do these people who carry our future in their hands ask themselves when they go into work each day? “What would Jesus do?” “What would the Dalai Lama do?” “What would Ayn Rand do?” “What would Gaia do?” “What would Darwin do?”

Here in the None Zone, there is no single answer, but the answers are still important.

In case you're interested, the Hitchens Seattle Town Hall can be found here.

Tithe - A Divine Insurance Payment

I am so excited. At work today I found a tithe envelope! Now, I have explained at length on this blog about how I wasn't raised in a religious atmosphere, so there's a lot of things about religion that I know next to nothing about. When I found out that tithe was supposed to be 10% of your income I was truly flabbergasted. 10% toward an imaginary friend? Cheese-sauce, that seems a bit steep. Now that I've been to a few churches and I see the expensive cars a lot of pastors have and the nice tailored suits, I understand why (the word of god doesn't come cheap, evidently) but I still didn't understand why someone would actually fork over 10% of their income to a church as if that's what Jesus wanted. Didn't he bust up a church at some point, calling the leaders out for being crooks and telling people they didn't have to go to any specific place to worship? Yeah yeah, I know, I just don't 'get' it, whatever.

I found this tithe envelope for Seventh-day Adventists. The image on the front of the envelope is thoroughly christian, it's two hand overlapped holding with bloody nails out as if in offering. Hello, would you like these bloody nails? Why no thank you, sir. The writing on the front of the envelope says "Tithe Love Offerings" in pretty quasi-cursive font. I appreciate when being swindled out of my money to have it done via nice fonts. No Comic Sans BS, that's for sure.

On the inside flap of the envelope there is quite a bit of writing. First in bold and prominent lettering you see a truncated bible verse. It reads:

A tenth...is holy to God. Lev. 27:32

The actual bible verse reads:

And concerning the tithe of the herd, or of the flock, even of whatsoever passeth under the rod, the tenth shall be holy unto the LORD. Lev. 27:32 (KJV)

Ok, so that adds up. The text under the heading is bit more clear and references another bible verse to back up their logic:

Tithe, the first 10% of our income, serves as evidence of our covenant relationship with God and our desire to place Him first in our lives (Matt 6:33). Tithe is used for the benefit of the ministry of the church and support of gospel workers.

To give this verse a bit of context, Matt 6:31-33 reads:

(6:31)Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?
(6:32)(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.
(6:33)But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

So basically, they're referencing a part of the bible where people are being told not to worry about food or clothing - basic needs - as long as you believe in god, you'll be provided for. This pamphlet seems to indicate that belief in god is good, but you have to put your money where your mouth is and keep up with tithe. What if you need the tithe money to buy food and clothes for yourself?

It seems to me like tithe is the equivalent of an insurance payment. God is on your side, watching over you and caring for you as long as you believe in him with all your heart - and pay your bill. God takes 10% off the top. You know, like the mafia.

The envelope is not done! The envelope is asking if you can't afford just a little more. The next bold heading reads:

Responding to God's goodness. Ps. 116:12

Ps. 116:12 reads:

What shall I render unto the LORD for all his benefits toward me? Ps. 116:12 (KJV)

Wait, didn't I just give 10% of my paycheck to god? I'd say I already did my rendering. No, the envelope insists, you should give a bit more.

In response to God's blessings, He asks us to give an offering out of our heart as an extra measure of supporting church ministry in our community and around the world.

The percentage recommendation is: 4-7% for local church expenses; 2% for conference ministries - evangelism, Christain Education and Sunset Lake; and 2-3% for world missions such as television and radio ministry, disaster and famine relief, and higher education.

There are no biblical verses attached to justify this secondary request for funds. I have to wonder, if the additional 4-7% is for local church expenses, what the hell does the first 10% go to? In 2005 the average salary in the US was 31,410 and according to the website (see link) inflation hasn't affected that amount. 10% of 31,410 is 3,141. Divide that by 52 and you're supposed to give 60.40 to the church every Sunday? God is billing you three Jacksons a week for salvation insurance. 241.60 cents a month 'offering', even though offerings were no longer needed with the whole Jesus thing, but whatever. That seems like a lot to me. I know, I know, there is no price too high to pay for salvation, but has it ever occured to the religious people who go in for this scam that they might be getting one put over on them? It seems suspect, I guess that's my point.

They include a very handy and considerate recap of of all of the offerings requested - tithe and local church budget which includes evangelism and conference ministries including evangelism and world budget which...you get it. It looks pretty obviously similar to a bank deposit slip which strikes me as ballsy. This is a pull no punches request for cash.

On the back of the envelope there is a thank you in advance a bit about stewardship:

Stewardship is the personal acknowledgment on our part that God is owner and provider of all the basic goods of life - spiritual, physical and material. As Christians, we are called to be faithfully responsible with the resources entrusted to us by God. We are to manage God-given gifts of time, talents, money and the use of our spiritual strengths.

This entire paragraph is just a reminder that you've done nothing - the only thing that has brought you happiness or prosperity is your belief in god. This is the part where they remind you how comprehensive the God insurance that you're purchasing is. That's how it sounds to me. What's interesting is while a believer might find that kind of message to be uplifting and hopeful, I see it as entirely insulting and condescending. It's difficult for me not to see it as simple manipulation. Maybe I feel that way because they follow it up with this:

Planning for the Future. One practice of stewardship is arranging your estate plan and will. This allows biblical principles of stewardship to continue beyond your life. To talk with professionals and arrange your estate plan and other documents, call xxx.xxx.xxxx

Also...when you die we want your shit.

Kissimmee, FL "In God We Trust" Ordinance Withdrawn, Bigot Pissed

KISSIMMEE, Florida - Kissimmee commissioner Art Otero is not letting go of his effort to add the words "In God We Trust" to the city logo and says he will take the initiative to a referendum if needed.

An ordinance that added the motto passed on first reading through the City Commission last month but was withdrawn last week by the board, after Mayor Jim Swan said that Otero's comments had brought "ridicule" on the city.

Swan read a statement at the meeting saying that the commission's original intent to add the motto for "patriotic purposes" had now been "tainted."

"Staff has been distracted from its normal duties responding to citizens comments and demands on the issues. There have been threats of boycotting local businesses and future businesses looking elsewhere," his statement said.

Otero had told the Orlando Sentinel he started the logo effort because he feared the country was moving toward "liberal postures such as homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion and the legalization of marijuana." He also referred to the Obama administration as "socialist."

Read More...

It's simple, Otero. You had a chance of getting this BS passed until you showed your cards and left no doubt that this ordinance was not proposed by an American Patriot (tm) in the name of American Patriotism (tm) but rather as an anti-gay, anti-Obama extremist hell bent on pushing your god in any way possible in order to quell your own unfortunate fears about the big bad pace of social progression.

You forgot the cardinal rule of underhanded religiously driven politics - never be honest about your motivations or intentions. Stick to secular-based patriotism arguments and pretend the religious motivations don't exist AT ALL COSTS.

I have to thank you, however, for removing all doubt in regard to what the motivations behind this and no doubt most other pro-"In God We Trust" implementations really are.

Being Proud of Being Atheist

On the No God Blog there was recently a post referring to the Brad Pitt story which was titled 'Brad Pitt Admits His Atheism.' The issue, of course, was the wording of this statement as if to imply that atheism is something which requires admittance.

The writer of the original story is Trina Hoaks, an atheist blogger, so I doubt her choice of words was meant to imply any kind of negative connotation with atheism but the fact remains that the term 'admit' carries with it negative connotations. One admits things that they are embarrassed about or that are weaknesses. For example, no one would admit they got into an ivy league college, they would joyfully celebrate it. That same person, however, may admit that they're a drug addict. You admit things that you are ashamed about and atheists should not be ashamed or embarrassed about their atheism.

A couple of comments which peaked my interest at No God Blog was an exchange between a proud atheist and a resident fundamental christian. I think Joe Zamecki's response in the last comment says it all:

joe zamecki says:

This seems like another good reason to capitalize “Atheist.” We’re proud. It needs to be celebrated. The world needs to hear about our positive message. If nothing else, I want Atheism to get the respect it deserves.

phreedm says:

Two questions…

1. What’s positive? There is no positive way to define atheism.
2. Why does the world need to hear? Sounds like evangelism to me.

joe zamecki says:

To me, Atheism is positive because religion is so very negative. Religion has so much power, and Atheists have so little, it seems. So common sense has helped our numbers increase, that and mass communication.

I’m proud to be an Atheist because that’s what I graduated to, when I figured out that religion is a scam. I was lied to, and then I figured out the facts. To me, that’s a reason to celebrate. I bettered myself.

But that religion put me down so LOW, and I’m way above that now, is special. I’ll capitalize that.

I know that a lot of atheists don't see atheism as something to be anything about, prideful or otherwise, because it's such a simple thing - a rejection of an idea. I sway that way myself from time to time because when you remove all opposition from atheism it really is as unimportant as not believing in fairies or men on the moon.

I think what makes me proud of being an atheist is in part what makes Joe proud - the fact that religion is so negative and I feel so positive knowing that I'm not under the control of something so massive, ugly and cruel as belief in a mean spirited, vengeful, jealous god. I am proud of being a part of something that isn't afraid to stand up to the big bad bully of organized religion and say that it's wrong, even if it opens me up to ridicule and abuse.

This is Your Brain on God

NPR has a fun little interactive page about religion and the brain in which there are 5 basic subtopics:

The God Chemical
The God Spot
Spiritual Virtuosos
The Biology of Belief
Near Death Experiences

Reading through the articles I had some positive and negative reactions to what was being said. I want to focus on the first topic, the god chemical, as this was both the most obvious explanation for people's passionate belief in god and the article which inspired the most negative response from myself.

Under the first category, the god chemical, it reads:

research suggests that chemicals that act on the serotonin system trigger mystical experiences that are life-altering. Serotonin is a chemical messenger that helps regulate mood and sleep. Now those neurologists -- and others -- are replicating studies from the 1960s in which patients with end-stage cancer were given LSD to see if they were convinced that life exists beyond death. The research raises the question, is God a delusion created by brain chemistry, or is brain chemistry a necessary conduit for people to reach God?

Now, I have had my assumptions all along that there must be some kind of correlation between brain activity/chemical balances and the passionate adherence to beliefs which logically seem entirely ridiculous. The thing that bothers me about this is the question which is posed at the end - The research raises the question, is God a delusion created by brain chemistry, or is brain chemistry a necessary conduit for people to reach God?

This question is only raised if you are somehow inclined to believe that god exists in the first place. Given the overwhelming evidence that points to god not being real, it seems ludicrous to say that in this instance brain chemistry and activity might exist as a conduit for holy interactions when in most other cases brain chemistry and activity is considered with far more scrutiny - certainly more scrutiny than would allow such a theory in any other area to even be proposed.

This begs the question: why is it that the rules seem to change whenever god is brought into the picture?

Now I admit I'm treading into unknown waters here as I am not a biologist or scientist of any kind and so I also freely admit that there could be information which I don't know about which could solidify the suggestion of there being a god connection wired in the brain. I know that the brain is one of the most unknown organs of the body despite decades of dedicated research, but that to me seems to weaken the argument that because x part of the brain reacts in this way when exposed to god, that means that x could be necessary in talking to god. That seems like more of a logic jump than what should be allowed with the amount of information we currently have available.

Logic jumps like these seem to only be widely permissible when kept within the context of religion, and so to a skeptic like myself that makes these allowances all the more suspect.