It’s not the imagining of these imaginary beings that is problematic. No …it’s believing that the imaginary beings are real to the point of persecuting and killing others for not agreeing with you - that is the problem.

Thanks skado, leaving aside the cognitive evolutionary, neuroscientific and biological imperatives of religious leaning and the scribblings of those that make a career in the belief sideshow of woo, and in keeping with an understanding of intent, are you an agnostic?

@David1955
Yes. I don’t see how their existence can be questioned. It is their nature that is at issue.

@Marionville That’s true. And….
I tend to think persecution for not believing the same is more the result of ignorance and tribalism than a result of imagination. Indeed, maybe a lack of imagination.

@waitingforgodo
I don’t identify as agnostic or atheist or theist because those are all terms of religious literalism, and I’m a religious figuratist. I can’t think of any reason to even consider the existence of a literal deific personage, let alone take up an identity relative to its presumed existence or non-existence.

On the other hand, imaginary entities, like numbers, or abstractions, personified or otherwise, self-evidently do “exist” and play a central role in H.sapiens’ evolved capacity to dominate the entire Earth, for better or worse.

@skado If, figuratively of course, you "can't ...think of any reason to even consider the existence of a (god) " then you've already taken "up an identity relative to it's presumed existence ..."

Naturally (and logically) I concur with the exquisite cut and thrust of your central theme.

@waitingforgodo
Thanks but I don’t see how not seeing evidence for the existence of something constitutes an identity. Others may call me whatever they think I am, but I don’t see myself (take up an identity) as any flavor of religious literalist. If you want to say I’m taking the identity of “religious figuratist” then I probably couldn’t argue against that.