The Religion of Atheism

Personal experiences aren't evidence, because all you can do is make claims and describe them, but there is nothing visible or testable. There is also no guarantee whatsoever, again due to a total lack of evidence for gods of any sort, that such experiences are due to gods.

I don't see how any of that is reasonable. It's wild speculation with no basis in observed reality. Or would you care to describe how such a mind could exist, and how it can come to exist?

Neither is this reasonable. Too many suppositions about what would be needed in order for the universe to begin. A mind, according to all observation, is a biological system. It does not exist outside of such machinery. Further, let's way we managed to create a mind using computing technology, an A.I. This would still be the product of a machine, not something primal. Why does your author presume that there can exist a mind outside of the mechanical means we see are necessary to produce a mind, an intellect, in the first place? I suspect this is because he accepts the notion of spirit, of pure thought without the necessary physical structures which, in reality, make thought, and therefore minds, possible.

 

You won't get an answer.

Its a way to make people feel better about being intellectually dishonest.

 

I agree. Religous people as well as non-religous people have done bad things throughout history. The common thread seems to be intolerance.

 

I see they added the like/dislike feature I was talking about.

I would not believe they did it because of me but I'd hate to start another religion.

 

Heretic.

May Maynard forgive you.

 

A mind is not a biological system. A mind is a quality: the quality of consciousness and sapience. A mind might inhabit a biological system called the brain, but that does not show minds are identical to brains, arise from brains, are intrinsic to brains, or are intrinsic only to brains.

 

There is no evidence to suggest that the mind exists independently from biological systems.

The effects of brain injuries is a good demonstration of this.

 

As I said before, an all-encompassing Being would have to encompass all qualities of existence, including that of consciousness. The Universe is a conscious entity insofar as particular parts of it are conscious. They are simply divided from the parts lacking consciousness. But for an infinite and absolute Being, there are no such divisions.

Brain injuries do not demonstrate that brains are necessary for minds. Are minds the products of brains or merely the residents? If they are the residents, the affect of a brain injury is not to the mind directly but on to the prism through which the mind acts, much like a broken or warped window may distort the view of what we see through it. Or to use another example, when we sleep, our conscious minds may appear to have ceased existence. But they haven't; they are merely at rest.

 

The mind is connected to neuronal activity.

When that region of the brain is damaged or destroyed, that neuronal activity is lost.

There really much room for you to operate outside of this fact. Sure, conscienceless may exist outside of the physical structure of the brain, however they is not any evidence to suggest that to be true.

 

There's no empirical evidence to suggest that consciousness itself exists except that you experience it in you. Otherwise, there is no reason to assume that the rest of us are not merely organic robots engaged in stimulus-response reactions. But the question is whether or not consciousness can be logically inferred. And as I said, it can: "an all-encompassing Being would have to encompass all qualities of existence, including that of consciousness. The Universe is a conscious entity insofar as particular parts of it are conscious. They are simply divided from the parts lacking consciousness. But for an infinite and absolute Being, there are no such divisions."

 

Um... yes there is. Various brain scans show certain areas of the brain light up with internal and external stimulation. Damage those areas and those attributes are lessened or lost.
Brain damage alters personality and ability. The case seems to be pretty cut and dry. unless you are subscribing to philosophical skepticism as it seems.

Which is meaningless.

1. The existence of the being needs to be proven.
2. Its abilities and attributed defined.

Without that I can just as easily say that this being will include such divisions just for the hell of it.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- TORNADO SIREN:

My, aren't you smug. Well, let's see how much longer your smirk will last after you hear this: It was not me that decided Atheism is a religion. Two different U.S. courts did, and important courts at that, as follows.

1. In the 2005 ruling in the case of Kaufman v. McCaughtry, the WISCONSIN FEDERAL COURT of appeals ruled that Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion. The 7TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS said:

"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being."


2. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. SUPREME COURT (the highest court in the land) said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. Specifically, "secular humanism," which is the backbone of atheist philosophy was described by the Supreme Court as "a religion."
http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/

 

So atheism is a true religion then?

 

So you use court cases yet are unable to describe how atheism is a religion yourself?

So is not collecting stamps a hobby too?

 

Brain activity doesn't necessarily mean consciousness. Neither do personality or ability. An organic robot might have all those things and still not actually be conscious; it would only appear to be conscious due to extremely complex stimulus-response mechanisms. Indeed, there is nothing in biology that accounts for why you are self-aware, as opposed to an extremely complex robot.

No, you can't just as easily say that because it is not as plausible that an uncaused first cause would have divisions than that it wouldn't. For an uncaused first cause would more likely be a simple entity than a complex one. A simple entity is more likely to be a logically necessary, non-corollary entity than a complex one and, furthermore, complex entities, which have many parts, must derive from simpler entities, which have fewer.

 

Does it make a difference whether atheism is a religion or not? Atheism is a metaphysical claim, which is good enough to be going on with. The term "religion" does not have a concrete definition, so this line of debate is merely a semantic quibble over a word.

 

Consciousness is a collection of neurons. There is far more evidence on my side than to confirm your argument.

Actually I can say it just that easily. Without those parameters and qualifiers I can give god what ever attributes I like.

 

There's no evidence that consciousness is a collection of neurons. It's never been and can't be observed except in ourselves, so how can it possibly be tested scientifically. The existence of consciousness in anything other then myself is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. It may be that my mother is not a truly conscious being but that the chair I'm sitting on is; I don't know for sure. Therefore, since I don't even know whether or not anything else is conscious, I can hardly discover whence it derives.

What parameters and qualifiers? The parameter that God is an uncaused caused? Well, no you can't. Some attributes are logically more likely in an uncaused cause than others.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- WOLVERINE:
Secular Humanists aka atheists have used their "religion" status to get tax exemptions that are given to orthodox religions when it suits them to refer to themselves as a religion. Then when it suits their purposes, they claim they are not a religion so they can teach evolution in schools. This point is brought out by the following source quoted below.

http://vftonline.org/Patriarchy/definitions/humanism_religion.htm


NOW, IS THIS HYPOCRISY OR WHAT?

 

Actually, I'd just like to point out that by the modern definition of "religion," atheism does indeed apply.

 

and don't forget those trying to purify the world of Witches, we could add them in the mix as trying to spiritually purify the world

I do not know what it is that makes people follow crazy people, but it's happened throughout history

 

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

The Wisconsin Federal Court is not the only one that said atheism is a religion. The U.S. Supreme Court has said on numerous occasions that atheism is a religion, as you will see in the partial court transcript copied below. The U.S. Supreme Court in its 1961 ruling said: "a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being." In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.
http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/


An atheist is a secular humanist by default, because a secular humanist is someone who insists he/she can make wise decisions without the need of instructions from a supernatural god. In other words, arguing that atheists aren't humanists is a lost cause. Ask any of them if they can do better without a supernatural god, and see what they'll tell you. If they didn't feel that way about God, do you suppose they would have become atheists from the get-go?

Below is part of the Kaufman case taken from the official court transcript. Keep your eyes on the words in bold print.

http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/419/419.F3d.678.04-1914.html

 

What planet are you from where "equivalent to" and "non" somehow mean "is?" And one of those emphasized parts basically says "if we redefine 'religion,' then atheism is a religion." If I think of 'working' as doing something to gain money, then mining under my couch cushions is indeed working.

 

My question is: Why do atheists care?

Is this really about whether atheism is a religion (a strong case can be made) or not (a strong case can be made)? Or is this about perception?

IMHO, this is more about personal ideology then it is about fact. Most atheists, defining themselves in CONTRAST to religion, will highlight any differences and downplay and similiarities. Those wishing to call atheism a religion (and, in all honestly, I really don't care, but can argue both sides of the debate), will highlight the similiarities and downplay the differences.

IMHO, the perception of whether atheism is a religion of not really says far more about the personal opinion than it does about either atheism or religion.

Fact: Atheism is an ideology - there are many of them. Beyond that?

 

Atheists want to claim that atheism is just "a lack of belief in a god" but they want to treat it like a religion at the same time. They want to have their cake and eat it too.