Pris,
Re Scientists finding specialised brain cells in mice that appear to control anxiety levels, it is obviously too early to conclude that this will lead to treating anxiety disorders in human-beings. The article you provided a link to doesn’t claim anything about “treating” religion, belief in God or existential crisis, these are your assumptions. It is also your opinion / assumption that religion is a form of mental illness which needs to be treated. I don’t think there are sufficient grounds to claim there’s the correlation you’ve somehow identified between the findings and your views, so claiming that there’s causation seems to me to be a non-starter based upon the current evidence. In this case, there’s no need to provide evidence to refute your claim, disagreement is sufficient / reasonable.
Your arguments don’t reflect that though. Where is the justification for causation, that finding anxiety cells in mice means that anxiety cells are influenced by religious thought?
In terms of submitting logical arguments, forums like these act as a form of peer review. The consensus is that your arguments are flawed and that you’re wrong. Therefore you have to accept the possibility that you’re wrong – which is something you refuse to do. You don’t seem to understand, it is not a case of you “deflecting” all the counter-arguments, it is that your arguments don’t demonstrate what you think they do, no matter how much you attempt to defend them, they’re still not correct, that is the consensus. By defending them as you have, it appears to the consensus as though you lack an understanding of logic.
As stated, the consensus is that your arguments are flawed and that you’re wrong. You refuse to accept the views of your “peers”. The problem is, the issue regarding the correctness and incorrectness of your arguments is logic, not empirical facts. So you don’t agree with anyone’s logic who claims that you’re wrong. Since you’ve claimed that your syllogism re “God is an impossibility” is “perfect”, it doesn’t seem as though you’re going to… Even if the counter-arguments presented that refute your arguments are sound (which IMV they have been) you disagree with them, because you’re convinced that you’re right. However, you dismiss the consensus all to easily – which isn’t to your credit.