Do atheist have brain damage?

[woodguard]

There is some research showing that we are hardwired to believe in God.
Some evidence shows parts of the brain when stimulated, cause a religion experience.

99% of humans believe in God, that is normal.

So if you don’t believe in God then there is something wrong with your brain, you have a undiagnosed head injury ?

I think we need research into your brain, so we can repair you defected brains.
Until this is done, we should place you in a home. For you own safety.
:D :D ;)

[UnrepentantSinner]

There's also evidence that we're hard wired to be polyamorous (or at least serially monogomous) and yet religious people insist we be strickly monogomous (or keep harems like gorillas). What does that say about the missing pieces of theist brains?

[Jesse]

ACK! Not the Earmouse!!! :(

[c4ts]

Oh, so a little excercise in free will results in brain damage?

Just because some study says you're hardwired to do something, doesn't mean you have to. And I wonder who actually drew this conclusion from whatever percentage you got. 99% of all human beings is highly unlikely, especially since a recent religious survey said the percentage of atheists is a lot greater than 1%.

[Torment]

Originally posted by woodguard
There is some research showing that we are hardwired to believe in God.
Some evidence shows parts of the brain when stimulated, cause a religion experience.

If by "religious experience" you mean hallucinations. You would be right.

99% of humans believe in God, that is normal.

So if you don’t believe in God then there is something wrong with your brain, you have a undiagnosed head injury ?

Not only is that percentage incorrect, but you have no logical correlation between it and your second statement. Normal doesn't mean good. Who's to say 99% of people don't have brain damage and we are not the superior, undamaged percent?

I think we need research into your brain, so we can repair you defected brains.
Until this is done, we should place you in a home. For you own safety.
:D :D ;) [/B]
Thankfully I realize that you are either brain damaged yourself, or this topic is a joke. Most likely the latter. Otherwise you might have made me angry. :D

[synaesthesia]

In the field of memetics, perhaps this constitutes a refutation to the idea that a beneficial mutation is a contradiction in terms. :)

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Jesse
ACK! Not the Earmouse!!! :(

:D Sorry, I should have PMed you with a warning.

[Questioninggeller]

Originally posted by woodguard
There is some research showing that we are hardwired to believe in God.
Some evidence shows parts of the brain when stimulated, cause a religion experience.

99% of humans believe in God, that is normal.

So if you don’t believe in God then there is something wrong with your brain, you have a undiagnosed head injury ?

I think we need research into your brain, so we can repair you defected brains.
Until this is done, we should place you in a home. For you own safety.
:D :D ;)

WOW... Okay, I'm suckered in. What "evidence" are you stating, and where did you get "99%"?

Let's be fair here. All humans have soemthing wrong with them, we are humans. That is a cheap shot with no proof and anyone could argue people who believe in God are trying to deal with death by assuming there is something beyond life without any objective evidence.

Afterall Christians don't have visions of Muhhamad or Buddha, they have it of their own conception of what they worship.

[DialecticMaterialist]

99 percent?

Wow you must not be able to do math. Especially seeing as China is predominantly an atheist-marxist country. And what religions it does have don't really contain a God. There's a good 20 percent already.

Makes me wonder who's really suffering from the brain damage.

[Darwin]

"Some evidence shows parts of the brain when stimulated, cause a religion experience."
You´re talking about temporal lobes.

"So if you don’t believe in God then there is something wrong with your brain, you have a undiagnosed head injury ?"
Actually they are those with religious experiences who evidently have neurological&psychiatric disorders (of course this only refers to some)

This thread is either lame or a joke,it could be lame joke though.

[Hazelip]

Cite your claims.

[GrapeJ713]

I found a religious survey done in America in 2001. And only 80% responded as religious. Europe is less religious, and as DialecticMaterialist stated, China doesn't have much religion at all. Of course most of the third world countries that have low literacy rates have high rates of belief.
American Religious Identification Survey (http://www.gc.cuny.edu/studies/key_findings.htm)
1. Religious Identification Among American Adults
The first area of inquiry in ARIS 2001 concerns the response of American adults to the question: "What is your religion, if any?" This question generated more than a hundred different categories of response, which we classified into the sixty-five categories shown in Exhibit 1 below.
In 1990, ninety percent of the adult population identified with one or another religion group. In 2001, such identification has dropped to eighty-one percent. Those considering themselves to be Christians stood at 86% in 1990, but now only 77% do.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Torment
[B]

If by "religious experience" you mean hallucinations. You would be right.


Are you able to give any reasons whatsoever to suppose these experiences are hallucinations?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Are you able to give any reasons whatsoever to suppose these experiences are hallucinations? Well, if Torment and Darwin are correct about the nature of the experience (I don't know since no one has sited a source yet), then the nature of the experience is an artificial one. In other words, it is created through artificial stimulation to the temporal lobes and not through devine intervention. So, the "religious" experience has a non-religious origin.

I don't know if that counts as a "hallucination", per se, but it is not a genuine religious experience. Of course, that leads to the question that if a religious experience can be simulated with the proper non-devine stimuli, how do we know that any religious experience isn't the result of a non-devine stimulous?

[Michael Redman]

All society is a result of overcoming our hardwired impulses to kill those outside our clan, and take their stuff. I got into an argument yesterday with a guy I had never met before. I didn't try to hit him with my club. I guess I'm brain damaged.

[woodguard]

CIA FACTBOOK

Christians 32.88% (of which Roman Catholics 17.39%, Protestants 5.62%, Orthodox 3.54%, Anglicans 1.31%),

Muslims 19.54%,

Hindus 13.34%,

Buddhists 5.92%,

Sikhs 0.38%,

Jews 0.24%,

other religions 12.6%,

non-religious 12.63%,

atheists 2.47% (2000 est.)

I am wrong again! Only 97.5 people believe in God.

[MRC_Hans]

Woodguard, you may not be brain-damaged, but your math sure stinks. And your knowledge of religions.

Can I call you Jedi Knight?

Hans

[Torment]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Are you able to give any reasons whatsoever to suppose these experiences are hallucinations?

Since he didn't name the exact study, I assume it is the one of the ones about people who see white lights, ect when stimulated.

These "studies" have come up often as evidence for religion.

As the other poster who responded said, a reaction to direct stimulation to the brain causing images to appear in your head hardly qualifies as a religious experience.

It also calls in to question why these are even considered religious experiences.

Maybe hallucination is the wrong word to describe it, but it certainly qualifies as a scientific reaction, not a religious one.

Anyways, if he was talking about some other studies he should post them, or else I'll just be forced to assume, for the moment, he was speaking of those ones.

[Marvel Frozen]

Originally posted by woodguard
CIA FACTBOOK

Christians 32.88% (of which Roman Catholics 17.39%, Protestants 5.62%, Orthodox 3.54%, Anglicans 1.31%),

Muslims 19.54%,

Hindus 13.34%,

Buddhists 5.92%,

Sikhs 0.38%,

Jews 0.24%,

other religions 12.6%,

non-religious 12.63%,

atheists 2.47% (2000 est.)

I am wrong again! Only 97.5 people believe in God.

Most, if not all, of the non-religious people don't believe in a god, and I'm sure some people in the other religions category don't. Buddhist don't believe in gods per se. So the actual number of people who believe in a god or gods according to your number is somewhere between 66% and 92%.
Of course, since you said 97.5% believe in God, rather than just a god or gods, we can rule out Hindus, Sikhs, and all other religions and non-religious people, so only 53% believe in God, according to your numbers.
Although Muslims and Christians might get upset if you say they worship the same god, so I guess that leaves only 33% of people believing in the Christian God.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by woodguard
CIA FACTBOOK

Christians 32.88% (of which Roman Catholics 17.39%, Protestants 5.62%, Orthodox 3.54%, Anglicans 1.31%),

Muslims 19.54%,

Hindus 13.34%,

Buddhists 5.92%,

Sikhs 0.38%,

Jews 0.24%,

other religions 12.6%,

non-religious 12.63%,

atheists 2.47% (2000 est.)

I am wrong again! Only 97.5 people believe in God.

Why are you assuming that "non-religious" implies a belief in God? What are you basing this assumption on?

[Darwin]

As has been pointed out and as UpChurch notes,we know that an experience with what could be considered spiritual (to each their own) can be produced artificially by stimulating brains,there is no doubt.
Actual conditions like temporal lobe epilepsy or schizophrenia may help as a trigger.
When it comes to other incidents that people like to link spirituality into,namely OBE (out of body) near death experiences,included brain regions (like anterior gyrus) have been identified,just like other "pathological" experiences to be associated with in such an experience.We shall say that such an experience can also be caused artificially to a degree at least.
Spiritual "awakenings" or what one ever calls them can also be helped by fasting and related activities "exposing" you to such,I´m sure everyone knows what I´m after.
I consider myself to be one among those not qualified to say whether these feelings do have something divine into them but on other hand we are pretty talented with Occam´s and do have a documented reason to cut down on metaphysics and add some psychophysics.

[woodguard]

I hope everyone know this was a joke and something to think about.

Only in a free society can you admit you are not part of state religion.
Some people are part of religions groups for social reasons.
So these number are way off.

So when you say it is wrong to believe in God, is it logic or chemistry in you brain.

I know my belief in God is part chemistry and part right-brain logic. (The right side is your creative half)


So if I meet an atheist in the street, I will check his ears for blood before calling 911!

[woodguard]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Why are you assuming that "non-religious" implies a belief in God? What are you basing this assumption on?

I think non-religious are undecided or don’t care one way or the other. Some would be closet atheist.

Atheist being someone who absolutely does not think God exists.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
[B]Well, if Torment and Darwin are correct about the nature of the experience (I don't know since no one has sited a source yet), then the nature of the experience is an artificial one. In other words, it is created through artificial stimulation to the temporal lobes and not through devine intervention. So, the "religious" experience has a non-religious origin.



Nonsense! That conclusion isn't justified at all! Suppose someone were blind from birth because the visual part of your brain wasn't functioning properly. Now by appropriate stimulation of that part of the brain a person may get to be able to see for the very first time. Would that mean that that everything he sees is an illusion? Using your reasoning you must say so! Ridiculous!

[triadboy]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Nonsense! That conclusion isn't justified at all! Suppose someone were blind from birth because the visual part of your brain wasn't functioning properly. Now by appropriate stimulation of that part of the brain a person may get to be able to see for the very first time. Would that mean that that everything he sees is an illusion? Using your reasoning you must say so! Ridiculous!

I keep trying to pinpoint your belief system and it's very difficult. I assume you believe in alien-driven UFOs, the Loch Ness monster, angels, the divinity of Jesus, God,...and maybe even fairies and leprechauns - simply because other people have consistently reported these creatures down through the ages. C'mon Ian, throw me a freaking bone. Tell me what you believe.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Nonsense! That conclusion isn't justified at all! Suppose someone were blind from birth because the visual part of your brain wasn't functioning properly. Now by appropriate stimulation of that part of the brain a person may get to be able to see for the very first time. Would that mean that that everything he sees is an illusion? Using your reasoning you must say so! Ridiculous! huh? You're "blind from birth" scenerio isn't even close to the question at hand. A more appropriate one would be this:

Suppose someone was blind from birth but were unaware of the fact because the visual centers of their brain were stimulated in such a way to make the person believe that they could see. Now, by appropriate medical proceedures, the person's blindness is corrected, allowing the person for the first time to see light reflected off of actual objects. How could the person tell the difference between the artificial stimulation and the "light from an object" stimulation?

Similarly (and back to the point of the thread), how could someone tell the difference between an artificially stimulated religious experience and a devinely inspired religious experience?
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
[b]
That conclusion isn't justified at all!
...unless you were talking about my "conclusion" that the religious experience is an artificial one due to the fact that it was generated by an man-made stimulous rather than a devine one. In which case, how do you rationalize that an artificially stimulated religious experience has actual (or devine) origins?

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by c4ts
Oh, so a little excercise in free will results in brain damage?



or Brain damage will result in the exercising of free will. Time to do some self inflicted brain damage on myself, I am tired of being a puppet! Where's the hammer and 9 inch nails?

Wait, binge drinking would be a better way to do it. 1 tequilla, 2 tequilla, 3 tequilla. ..........

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch


...unless you were talking about my "conclusion" that the religious experience is an artificial one due to the fact that it was generated by an man-made stimulous rather than a devine one. In which case, how do you rationalize that an artificially stimulated religious experience has actual (or devine) origins? [/B]

In the same way as I mentioned in my previous post. I'm unclear why you would conclude a particular experience is unreal simply because the experience can also be brought about stimulation of the brain.

Even if the experience were not real, this needn't have any implications that naturally occurring religious experiences are unreal.

I mean no doubt you can stimulate the brain so it appears that person is seeing a banana. It doesn't mean there's no such thing as real bananas though!

[Yahzi]

All society is a result of overcoming our hardwired impulses to kill those outside our clan, and take their stuff. I got into an argument yesterday with a guy I had never met before. I didn't try to hit him with my club. I guess I'm brain damaged.
Read the above quote until you understand.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


In the same way as I mentioned in my previous post. I'm unclear why you would conclude a particular experience is unreal simply because the experience can also be brought about stimulation of the brain.

Even if the experience were not real, this needn't have any implications that naturally occurring religious experiences are unreal.

I mean no doubt you can stimulate the brain so it appears that person is seeing a banana. It doesn't mean there's no such thing as real bananas though! I'm not concluding anything, Ian. I asked how would you know the difference between a real religious experience and an artificial one?

However, I will point out that if one sees something, a banana for example, one can verify it's existance by also touching, smelling, and tasting it. Not only that, but one can experience (through use of multiple senses) the banana repeatedly over a period of time. (Minds out of the gutter, kids. This isn't that kind of discussion board.)

Can the same be said of real religious experiences? Even after you've been able to differentiate them from the artificial religious experiences?

Actually, how would one be able to tell the difference between a real (i.e. devinely inspired) religious experience and a self-induced one? By that, I mean that if a person really wanted to have a religious experience and convinced themselves that they've had one, how would one know the difference between that and a devinely inspired reigious experience? The human mind is easily fooled. Magicians and charlatans do it all the time.

I'm not saying that all religious experiences are necessarily created by us here in the mortal plane, but what indicators are there that let us know that an experience is genuinly from the devine?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Upchurch
I'm not concluding anything, Ian. I asked how would you know the difference between a real religious experience and an artificial one?



Artificial one?? :confused: Surely a religious experience is a religious experience is a religious experience!



However, I will point out that if one sees something, a banana for example, one can verify it's existance by also touching, smelling, and tasting it. Not only that, but one can experience (through use of multiple senses) the banana repeatedly over a period of time. (Minds out of the gutter, kids. This isn't that kind of discussion board.)



Pointless nitpicking. Besides, I assume tactile, olfactory, and gustatory sensations of a banana could be in principle induced by appropriate stimulation of the brain as well.



Can the same be said of real religious experiences? Even after you've been able to differentiate them from the artificial religious experiences?



I really don't understand why we should wish to distinguish them. You seem to be just assuming that artificially induced religious experiences are not real. And I don't know what your argument is which justifies this stance.

[Jesse]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Now by appropriate stimulation of that part of the brain a person may get to be able to see for the very first time. Really? That's awesome! I'd like to read more about this. Maybe I could help a blind person to see?

[Jesse]

Originally posted by Upchurch
However, I will point out that if one sees something, a banana for example, one can verify it's existance by also touching, smelling, and tasting it. Not only that, but one can experience (through use of multiple senses) the banana repeatedly over a period of time. (Minds out of the gutter, kids. This isn't that kind of discussion board.) Also, since senses can easily be tricked, I surmise that the "sixth sense", if it exists, could also be tricked.

[Jesse]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Artificial one?? :confused: Surely a religious experience is a religious experience is a religious experience! Jim Jones and his cyanide-laced kool-aid drinking cult had a 'religious' experience. So did that other cult (whose name escapes me) several years back who believed that by killing themselves they would join the aliens in some UFO chasing around the comet Halebop, or something to that effect.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Jesse
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Now by appropriate stimulation of that part of the brain a person may get to be able to see for the very first time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Really? That's awesome! I'd like to read more about this. Maybe I could help a blind person to see?


It would depend on what's damaged, the eye itself or the part of the brain devoted to visual perception.

[Jesse]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It would depend on what's damaged, the eye itself or the part of the brain devoted to visual perception. Cool. But.... Where can I read about this?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Jesse
It would depend on what's damaged, the eye itself or the part of the brain devoted to visual perception.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cool. But.... Where can I read about this?


{Shrugs} Don't know. Do a search on google.

[JAR]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
All society is a result of overcoming our hardwired impulses to kill those outside our clan, and take their stuff. I got into an argument yesterday with a guy I had never met before. I didn't try to hit him with my club. I guess I'm brain damaged.
:D :D :D :D :D

[JAR]

Originally posted by woodguard
I hope everyone know this was a joke and something to think about.
What do you mean by "this was a joke."

[Loki]

Ian,

(following on from Upchurch)

Artificial one?? Surely a religious experience is a religious experience is a religious experience!
The question is really "are religious experiences what the experiencer thinks they are"? What's being discussed is what might the reality behind the experience be. In this sense, it's quite important to try and determine if there is such a thing as an "artificial" experience.

I really don't understand why we should wish to distinguish them.
Strangely enough, it would prove your position if we could!

You seem to be just assuming that artificially induced religious experiences are not real. And I don't know what your argument is which justifies this stance.
The argument is simple (but, of course, not conclusive) - basically, the "religous experience" has always been placed with a certain "framework". That is, a person experiencing it has certain attributes, the experience itself has certain attributes, and the surrounding environment has certain attributes (simple example - "religious experience" = "pentecostal christian at church service"). If you can reproduce the experience *away* from this framework, then you have taken a strong step towards showing that the framework is *not relevant*. If you can produce a "religious experience" in James Randi in a lab, then you've taken a big step towards showing the "experience" is not what it seems.

You're correct - it has not been shown to be "artifical". But it has been shown to be significantly different from what it was originally thought to be. You can argue "I don't care - I *still* think it's a true mystical/religious experience", but this just sounds (to me) far more like assuming your conclusion than letting the data guide you.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by woodguard


I think non-religious are undecided or don’t care one way or the other. Some would be closet atheist.

Atheist being someone who absolutely does not think God exists.

Fair enough, but that makes your 97.5% figure suspect.

[woodguard]

Originally posted by JAR

What do you mean by "this was a joke."

I don't real think atheist have brain damage. And don't want anyone to think I was insulting anyone. I’m Canadian and we don’t do here.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by woodguard


I don't real think atheist have brain damage. And don't want anyone to think I was insulting anyone. I’m Canadian and we don’t do here.

Speak for yourself fathead.:D

[c4ts]

Originally posted by woodguard
CIA FACTBOOK

Christians 32.88% (of which Roman Catholics 17.39%, Protestants 5.62%, Orthodox 3.54%, Anglicans 1.31%),

Muslims 19.54%,

Hindus 13.34%,

Buddhists 5.92%,

Sikhs 0.38%,

Jews 0.24%,

other religions 12.6%,

non-religious 12.63%,

atheists 2.47% (2000 est.)

I am wrong again! Only 97.5 people believe in God.

Some Buddhists may overlap with the atheist catergory, and they do not appear to be accounted for in this survey.

Also, Hindus don't believe in God, they believe in gods. Also, the 12.63% "non-religious" catergory means they don't believe in God, either. So it isn't %97.5, it's more like... let me get my calculator... what was that about brain damage again?

[JAR]

Originally posted by c4ts


Some Buddhists may overlap with the atheist catergory, and they do not appear to be accounted for in this survey.

Also, Hindus don't believe in God, they believe in gods. Also, the 12.63% "non-religious" catergory means they don't believe in God, either. So it isn't %97.5, it's more like... let me get my calculator... what was that about brain damage again?
Yeah, I was told by a Buddhist once that Buddhists are atheists, and the Dalai Lama, last I heard, considers himself an athiest.

[JAR]

Here is another link to a religion statistic: http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html
I think it agrees with the CIA one.

[JAR]

Here's a link regarding the Dalai Lama considering himself an athiest: http://www.celebatheists.com/entries/ambiguous_1.html

[Upchurch]

While Loki made some valid points, there is one more I'd like to address.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Artificial one?? :confused: Surely a religious experience is a religious experience is a religious experience!

[snip]

I really don't understand why we should wish to distinguish them. You seem to be just assuming that artificially induced religious experiences are not real. And I don't know what your argument is which justifies this stance.
Let us, for a moment, take a hypothetical (but familiar to this board) situation. A widow goes to a psychic. The psychic contacts the spirit of her late husband who then proceeds to give her financial advice.

If we consider the psychic reading an experience, perhaps even an religious one, is it genuine? I would say that I don't know because I can't tell if the financial advice actually came from the late husband or if it came from the psychic. You're telling me that it doesn't matter if the psychic is lying to the widow because the advice is real and thats what matters.

Do I have that right, Ian? After all, a little faith never hurt anyone, right?

I guess my question for Ian really is this: Do you believe that any religious experience is devinely inspired? That is, do you believe that there is ever an instance when that mechanism that gets the religious experience response in the human brain is triggered by a non-material force?

[Ruby]

Originally posted by woodguard
There is some research showing that we are hardwired to believe in God.
Some evidence shows parts of the brain when stimulated, cause a religion experience.

99% of humans believe in God, that is normal.

So if you don’t believe in God then there is something wrong with your brain, you have a undiagnosed head injury ?

I think we need research into your brain, so we can repair you defected brains.
Until this is done, we should place you in a home. For you own safety.
:D :D ;)

99%? I don't think so...although, maybe here in Texas it's true!:p

[Seismosaurus]

Originally posted by woodguard
There is some research showing that we are hardwired to believe in God.
Some evidence shows parts of the brain when stimulated, cause a religion experience.

99% of humans believe in God, that is normal.

So if you don’t believe in God then there is something wrong with your brain, you have a undiagnosed head injury ?

I think we need research into your brain, so we can repair you defected brains.
Until this is done, we should place you in a home. For you own safety.
:D :D ;)

I've often wondered if atheist's heads are somehow "wired differently". I've found it very hard to understand why most people have faith in deities of one sort or another, and yet I just don't.

However, you take quite a leap in defining the believers as "normal" simply because they are in the majority and then take an even bigger one in suggesting that atheists need to be cured. You're suggesting that it's okay to be crazy, as long as the inmates are running the asylum!

Right now, we only confine people with mental illness if they are a danger to themselves or others because of it. Since it is religion that instigates much of the trouble in the world and leads to so many deaths, it seems to me that if anybody needs curing it the majority.

[Dancing David]

Hmmm, if I press on my eyeballs I can see these cool patterns, imogenic(I don't remember), I sense them and percieve them, but they have no visual correlate : IE they are not created by photons bouncing off an object and into my eye.

So if we stimulate someones brain to create an experinece itr comes down to if there is an outside correlate to the experience.

Peace

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Hmmm, if I press on my eyeballs I can see these cool patterns, imogenic(I don't remember), I sense them and percieve them, but they have no visual correlate : IE they are not created by photons bouncing off an object and into my eye.

So if we stimulate someones brain to create an experinece itr comes down to if there is an outside correlate to the experience. So really, it's not about whether the experience is artificial or genuine but whether the cause behind the experience is artificial or genuine. In this case, I would consider colors generated from photons to be genuine color and colors generated from one's eyes to be artificial color. Both are still colors, but in the latter instance, our minds are mis-interpreting the stimulous as light information when there is none. Would you agree?

Likewise, I consider the devinely inspired religious experience to be genuine and an electrode stimulated religious experience to be artificial.

[Dancing David]

Funkographicaly stated oh Funkmeister.

Funk On.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Funk On. Peace Out.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Upchurch
So really, it's not about whether the experience is artificial or genuine but whether the cause behind the experience is artificial or genuine. In this case, I would consider colors generated from photons to be genuine color and colors generated from one's eyes to be artificial color. Both are still colors, but in the latter instance, our minds are mis-interpreting the stimulous as light information when there is none. Would you agree?

Likewise, I consider the devinely inspired religious experience to be genuine and an electrode stimulated religious experience to be artificial.

Photosphenes are not quite hallucinations. They're not shaped like Jesus, and they are directly connected with what's happening to your eyes. For example, if you press on your eye, you can see a white dot where pressure is being applied, and you can kind of see your retina... wheeeeee!