I see a lot of people here who believes in Yahweh and they think they have him all figured out. And I see a lot of atheists here who dismiss him.

According to statistics Christianity comes in with 2.1 participants, and Atheist with 1.1
So I have a question for the atheists: In the time we live in, if you only look at the biggest religious group, how can the number of the irrational believers be double the number rational thinkers? Surely there must be a reason for those numbers. would you suggest that 2.1 billion people blew exactly the same fuse to believe in the same god or how did that rumor start?

I see a lot of people here who believes in Yahweh and they think they have him all figured out. And I see a lot of atheists here who dismiss him.

According to statistics Christianity comes in with 2.1 participants, and Atheist with 1.1 So I have a question for the atheists: In the time we live in, if you only look at the biggest religious group, how can the number of the irrational believers be double the number rational thinkers? Surely there must be a reason for those numbers. would you suggest that 2.1 billion people blew exactly the same fuse to believe in the same god or how did that rumor start?

*************
M*W: Where did you find these statistics?

The differences in numbers between christians and atheists
are the result of christians being brainwashed and atheists using the logic and reason of their own minds to rationalize their position on religion.

BTW, where are your numbers for non-christians? They totally outweigh christians between 67-75% Christians in the world number 25-33% (give or take a few million who claim to be christians but don't practice their faith). Christianity is dying worldwide, so the numbers, they will be a'changin.

people only think what they think because of what they're used to. if there is a god, and he has a sense of humor, he'd be looking down at all of us and laughing at all the irrational and extraneous theories and beliefs we come up with.

we are all wrong, deal with it--that's why we take a leap of faith and thats why we also question it. can't have one side without the other.

*************
M*W: Where did you find these statistics?

The differences in numbers between christians and atheists
are the result of christians being brainwashed and atheists using the logic and reason of their own minds to rationalize their position on religion.

BTW, where are your numbers for non-christians? They totally outweigh christians between 67-75% Christians in the world number 25-33% (give or take a few million who claim to be christians but don't practice their faith). Christianity is dying worldwide, so the numbers, they will be a'changin.


Don't dismiss the obvious like Christians always do. It is obvious that there must be a valid reason why there are so many religious people with such specific believes.Like where does the bible fit in? Who wrote it and why?

So I have a question for the atheists: In the time we live in, if you only look at the biggest religious group, how can the number of the irrational believers be double the number rational thinkers?

A lot of the premise in the question is not correct. Atheists can hold irrational beliefs just like theists. My observation is that atheists tend to wield evidence-based thinking more than theists.

If the question were refactored to ask something along the lines of, 'how come there are more theists than atheists?' then you have a good question. Part of theism is religion and that is a complex method of human relationship. All the participants of a religion share resources and act as a unified power. Atheism has no religion counterpart and has been divided as a result in terms of resources and power. From a survival standpoint, theism therefore promotes survival much better than atheism and has historically been a better choice for very long time... to the point where humans are probably genetically inclined to 'believe' because that was historically a necessary trait. This is why there are more theists.

Now we're in a time where education, separation of church and state, religious diversity, anti-religious descrimination law, etc. have an infrastructure to persist and grow. This has been reducing and diluting the power of theism, but its still in its infancy; hence, it will be a while before atheism becomes dominant (I suspect it will require a non-magical religion counterpart to really take a foothold).

Like where does the bible fit in? Who wrote it and why?

My personal opinion on this after reading the bible is that the majority of the told testament was written down after the return from Babylon for nationalistic purposes.

I'm sure portions of it pre-existed in some form or another, but each was likely altered at this time to fit the nationalistic need of the recently freed jewish peoples. Hence the focus on the early hebrews being slaves, etc...

Also, it seems likely that even the earlier portions of the bible were written for reasons of nationalism. The Books of the Law being found in the temple by... forget his name.. starts with a J. This was a few generations after Solomon...
Anyway.
Up until this time, apparently, the hebrew people hadn't been following the torah... it had to be 'discovered'.

The New Testament, of course, was written a few centuries after the time it purports to write about, and was written to again provide a framework for a new form of nationalism. But, nationalism no longer works as the word has spread beyond the borders of any one nation and now reaches out to an arbitrary class of people called 'Christians'.


It's all about control and motivation from cover to cover.
Fragments of truth buried in mountains of embellishment and spin.


As to numbers.
They don't need to lie.
Whoever presents the numbers in an ordered presentation is quite capable of doing all the lying necessary.

So I have a question for the atheists: In the time we live in, if you only look at the biggest religious group, how can the number of the irrational believers be double the number rational thinkers?

First; welcome to sciforums! I'ts been noted that I'm one rude sob, so bare with me! k!

When an argument comes from ignorance, that is the apparently fallacy of religious nutters. Cause their lack of evidence of their claims. This is called
Argumentum ad Ignorantiam-An appeal to ignorance is an argument for or against a proposition on the basis of a lack of evidence against or for it. If there is positive evidence for the conclusion, then of course we have other reasons for accepting it, but a lack of evidence by itself is no evidence.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

And since you make the assumption that there's so many Christians here, that their argument is valid. Again this is a logical fallacy red herring:
This is the most general fallacy of irrelevance. Any argument in which the premisses are logically unrelated to the conclusion commits this fallacy. and the sub fallacy of Argument by Consensus.

What that well means is that your argument is moot, fallacious, and the point you want to make, is that if there's so many beliers in the world, perhaps they are right, and we atheists, since we number in less are wrong.

Fallacies been noted!

Self-consciousness is communal consciousness; it is dependent on the fact of otherness. Mechanism does not and cannot account for this sense of otherness. “The observer cannot be the thing observed; evaluation demands some degree of transcendence of [or separation from] the thing which is evaluated.” If consciousness were unapart from matter, it would be a mechanism; it would be unable to entertain concepts of truth, goodness and beauty—none of which are inherent in either physics or chemistry. Believing that the problem of consciousness is, or can be, resolved through science is not evidence-based thinking. Consciousness is not now, nor is it ever likely to ever be, explained in terms of matter. A hundred or a thousand years from now, it is far more likely that matter will be explained in terms of consciousness rather than the other way around. This will (I hope) thoroughly dismantle the traditionalized and dogmatized religions that I adamantly oppose notwithstanding my theistic point of view.

Godless, thanx for your warm welcome :)


What that well means is that your argument is moot, fallacious, and the point you want to make, is that if there's so many beliers in the world, perhaps they are right, and we atheists, since we number in less are wrong.


And thank you for your much needed explanation as I only have English as a second language... so please bare with ME ;)

I would like to point out that no instant I argued that "perhaps they are right". What I am trying to argue is that a certain amount of ignorance is to be found at both Christians and Atheists (a bit more at Christians of course)

What i would like to get at is that we shouldn't dismiss the bible entirely. Are you familiar with writer Alan F. Alford and his book Gods of the new millennium? He proposes the possibility of flesh and blood gods...Aliens if you will. He supports his theory with discoveries made over the last hundred years, of tens of thousands of clay tablets excavated in ancient mesopotamia (Iraq) dating back to 6,000 years ago.

"These clay tablets contain a wealth of information from the earliest civilisations, all of which believed in a bewildering variety of different gods. As a result of linguistic studies, it is now widely recognised that the original source of these ancient tablets (which I will call texts ) were the Sumerian accounts, dating from the beginning of that civilisation in approximately 3800 BC. The existence of that civilisation, the existence of thousands of clay tablets and their translation is not in dispute. Thanks to these archaeological and linguistic studies." - Alan F. Alford

If you recall the bell curve, most of the population is not that bright.

Never forget the bell curve when you think about trends. ;)

number lie...

but hips dont lie...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfXLEeBwcmE

This will (I hope) thoroughly dismantle the traditionalized and dogmatized religions that I adamantly oppose notwithstanding my theistic point of view.

Sounds like quantum physics.... :/

So I have a question for the atheists: In the time we live in, if you only look at the biggest religious group, how can the number of the irrational believers be double the number rational thinkers? Surely there must be a reason for those numbers. would you suggest that 2.1 billion people blew exactly the same fuse to believe in the same god or how did that rumor start?

I would find it somewhat of relevance to quote a Dire Straits line:

"First came the churches, then came the schools.." (Telegraph Road)

Since time immemorial people have 'taught', (indoctrinated), others into believing these things. While we might now have some freedom of belief - the same was not true throughout large portions of history. As a result it has become so entrenched in society that people just go along with it as default. You'll find a large portion of those 'christians' are merely christian by name and don't probably even have much of an opinion as to whether there is a god or not. They're like branded cattle, (as I suppose we all are in our own ways).

There are two main ways that a person becomes religious:

1) They were raised into it

2) They had some 'life changing' event occur that made believing in gods essential to their own wellbeing. Born agains will regale you with stories of how they were on the edge of death when 'god came to them'. Being under such emotional trauma, (be it a car crash or a spiralling alcohol problem), the brain gives these people what they need - an addiction that isn't in and of itself harmful.

This is why there are so many religious people. Whether a god exists or not is of little to no relevance. A theist doesn't search for evidence to support his god, he just believes it. A child born and raised into theism doesn't check for evidence to support existence of his god, he just believes it.

It fills a part of life that most people seemingly need.

"Nothing of great value was ever found in a crowd."
-Voltaire.

This just proves what I have been saying: most people are idiots...

P.S.: ...including the OP, who applied to the opinion of majority, which is a common logical fallacy...

And thank you for your much needed explanation as I only have English as a second language... so please bare with ME

That's ok, however these fallacies have nothing to do with your use of the English language, they are "logical fallacies"

I would like to point out that no instant I argued that "perhaps they are right". What I am trying to argue is that a certain amount of ignorance is to be found at both Christians and Atheists (a bit more at Christians of course)


I don't think ignorance is really the issue. The issue is acceptance of unsupportable claims, ignorance is simply not knowing something, however accepting assertions without one shred of evidence is plainly irrational. Atheists sometimes do support claims with no evidence or very little supportive evidence, or disputable evidence..However the only thing in common is that atheists don't accept religious dogma. Other than that we are plainly original people, some fascists, some liberals, some democrats, conservatives, what ever, the only commonality is our lack of faith in religious rhetoric.

What i would like to get at is that we shouldn't dismiss the bible entirely.

I think we know the bible more than some theists, we certainly read it more often it appears, so we are not dismissing it, we are critically examining it's content, and making objective, rational, and logical decisions to dismiss the dogma of religion. It is said in some circles, "the bible is an atheist best weapon" ;)

Are you familiar with writer Alan F. Alford and his book Gods of the new millennium? He proposes the possibility of flesh and blood gods...Aliens if you will. He supports his theory with discoveries made over the last hundred years, of tens of thousands of clay tablets excavated in ancient mesopotamia (Iraq) dating back to 6,000 years ago.


Can't say I'm familiar with Alan's work, but it sounds to me very unlikely.

These clay tablets contain a wealth of information from the earliest civilisations, all of which believed in a bewildering variety of different gods. As a result of linguistic studies, it is now widely recognised that the original source of these ancient tablets (which I will call texts ) were the Sumerian accounts, dating from the beginning of that civilisation in approximately 3800 BC. The existence of that civilisation, the existence of thousands of clay tablets and their translation is not in dispute. Thanks to these archaeological and linguistic studies." - Alan F. Alford

interesting, got a link?

Self-consciousness is communal consciousness; it is dependent on the fact of otherness. Mechanism does not and cannot account for this sense of otherness. “The observer cannot be the thing observed; evaluation demands some degree of transcendence of [or separation from] the thing which is evaluated.”

Very good, now take that statement above and apply it to god! How can an entity manifest it self consciously out of nothing, and deem itself a god of some sort, if the only consciousness in existence is it of in it self? ;)

If consciousness were unapart from matter, it would be a mechanism; it would be unable to entertain concepts of truth, goodness and beauty—none of which are inherent in either physics or chemistry.

Right you are, apply that analogy to god as well!

Believing that the problem of consciousness is, or can be, resolved through science is not evidence-based thinking. Consciousness is not now, nor is it ever likely to ever be, explained in terms of matter.

I never considered consciousness a problem! However explaining it, is simple process of critical investigation of the evolution of mind. Consciousness as we know it today is very different from primitive consciousness of ancient humans, complex societies arose, making our consciousness expand to what it is today, in order to survive amongst other societies and trade goods or what not. Basically you need a bit more education and critical thinking about the process of mental evolution! This is a good book I picked once on the subject, it's theoretical of course, but since you are inquiring if consciousness could ever be explained, before claiming that it will never possibly be explained you should understand and familiarize your self with what we do already know, or theorize:
http://www.julianjaynes.org/bicameralmind.php

This will (I hope) thoroughly dismantle the traditionalized and dogmatized religions that I adamantly oppose notwithstanding my theistic point of view.

Stick around here long enough and you'd be an atheist all over again. At least this time with a bit more critical thinking! :p

Not a chance, Godles. Ever hear of the Integrated Theory of Intelligence? You can get the e-book free online. Uh...don't bother if science isn't your bag.

No matter how many people believe a foolish idea, it is still a foolish idea. One does not find truth by counting votes.

To BicPen: I certainly hope so. Religion and science are inseparable. Check out http://www.supraconsciousnessnetwork.org/

Religion and science are inseparable.

lmao Stop doing that, my sides are splitting.

ima, “To believe without questioning or to dismiss without investigating is to comport oneself unscientifically.” (Margaret Mead) The predominance of matter over consciousness in a theory that is increasingly being called into question. What you call "science" is, like one person posted, "like an old chair in a new room." Here's a news flash for you: the 19th century is in the past.

Ad hominem attacks can never do more than manifest one's own ignorance.

Ad hominem attacks can never do more than manifest one's own ignorance.And yet you add "if science isn't your bag" at the end of one of your own comments above. Surely this is an ad hominem remark with all the plausible deniability one could ask for, but present nonetheless.

*************
Christianity is dying worldwide, so the numbers, they will be a'changin.


Why is it that you continue to espouse rational discussion and fact and then continue to state somerthing which is totally false.

Christianity is not dying. This of course is not actually logically exactly the same as how many people claim to practice it (although I presume from your reference to 'numbers', you believe it is). However that said, it is not even reducing numerically in terms of adherents.

The actual facts are that christian belief is reducing in North America (note not the world). After years of decline, the numbers have steadied in western Europe but in eastern Europe, in South America, in Africa and in Asia (especially China and India) the numbers are increasing dramatically. So you are right the numbers will be changing but not in the direction you suggest!

I have stated this previously and quoted the numbers and links so shall not do so again but anyone who wishes can check what I am saying very easily.

What is more most of the new believers have come from a non christian background and are therefore those who have now personally chosen the religion, often counter culturally to the society in which they live. They have not simply been born into it.

You can intepret this however you wish and consider it an outbreak of mass delusion or whatever, if you so wish (freedom of thought) but you cannot continue to pretend to debate the subject rationally by starting with a factually incorrect statement. There is no freedom of 'variation of fact'!

Since as above, these people are making a personal choice, do you have any rational explanation? You seem to espouse the view that they are all in some way less rational and less informed than you and fellow atheists but what actual evidence (not prejudice) do you have for such a proposition?

Regards,



Gordon.

I don't know what data you have, and I'd be interested in seeing it if you'd care to link to the post where it resides, but the following contradicts what you're saying:

The Barna Group has found that adult evangelicals in 1994 was 7%. In 2004, that number was still 7%. The US population grew but the number of evangelicals did not. They also found that the Protestant population with drop below 50% of the national population if the trend toward a decline in Christianity continues.

An ARIS (2001) study determined that the number of Christians in the US declined from 85% 1990 to 77% in 2001.

Of course, if we look at data from church sources, the numbers are higher. Such data is skewed because of a host of factors, and doesn't do a good job controlling for cross-memberships, people who attend church for social reasons rather than religious, etc.

I've another emprical source somewhere that shows a marked and obvious decline in Christian numbers as well as other religions, but I'll have to look for it.

references:

ARIS (2001). "American Religious Identification Survey," The Graduate Center of the City University of New York. Found online at: www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_studies/aris.pdf

Barna Group (2005) Annual Barna Group Survey Describes Changes in America’s Religious Beliefs and Practices. Found online at: http://www.barna.org

To BicPen: I certainly hope so. Religion and science are inseparable. Check out http://www.supraconsciousnessnetwork.org/
The way it comes across it seems like youre confusing religion with variations on the first cause which is philosophy/metaphysics. That link from what ive read of it has nothing to do with religion whatsoever.
I think youre using that link to back up religious doctorine which is kind of missing the point, you dont have to be religious to believe in god, or even consider that such a thing might exist.

One word is always right, two words are rarely wrong, and it keeps going.

I see a lot of people here who believes in Yahweh and they think they have him all figured out. And I see a lot of atheists here who dismiss him.
we dismiss HIM just like you dismiss all those other gods ;)
www.godchecker.com

According to statistics Christianity comes in with 2.1 participants, and Atheist with 1.1
So I have a question for the atheists: In the time we live in, if you only look at the biggest religious group, how can the number of the irrational believers be double the number rational thinkers? Surely there must be a reason for those numbers. would you suggest that 2.1 billion people blew exactly the same fuse to believe in the same god or how did that rumor start?
they were brainwashed from the very young age,plain and simple.young mind is very impresionable.
and church leaders are EXPERTS on brainwashing.
anyways I dont think Xianity is the majority,Budhism has more followers.

now if the whole world believed in ONE god only...

Like where does the bible fit in? Who wrote it and why?
ancient Jews wrote the first Old testament is my understanding,
I call it BUYBULL though,'cause its full of fictious garbage

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

People lie, Numbers are numbers! People can misinterpret numbers.

helio...it is better to have a religion without a church than it is to have a church without a religion. My interest in a science-compatible God is not at all inconsistent with being "religious." It's like I said previously but in different words: To isolate a part of life and it religion and isolate another and call it science is to dostort both science and religion and disintegrate life. The fact that most people are conditioned by society to do just that is undoubtedly the source of a lot of the divisiions in society.

Institutional religion and doctrinized beliefs in some ways deserves disrespect, but not religion per se. People secure three satisfactions from religious experience that cannot be a obtained from a relying on philosophy or science alone:
Intellectually, they are at home in the cosmos because they acquire the satisfaction of having reference to origin and destiny.

Philosophically, they enjoy the corroboration of ideals of moral values rather than having to settle for the rationalization of personal or societal likes and dislikes.

Spiritually, (motivationally) they thrive in the experience of companionship with the Divine (no matter how it is conceived).

Funny, ain't it? Religionists are "brainwashed" and secularists aren't. Jeez.

ancient Jews wrote the first Old testament is my understanding, I call it BUYBULL though,'cause its full of fictious garbage

www.skepticsannotatedbible.com

*************
M*W: Let me throw this in for what it's worth. I believe it wasn't the Jews (Hebrews) who wrote the OT at all. Moses has long been credited with writing at least the first five books (Torah), but that's since been found to be improbable.

Seeing as how the stories in the Torah were taken from much earlier Babylonian and Egyptian works, it makes sense to me that it was the Egyptians (albeit the "Abiru") who may have copied the stories from earlier works such as from the Code of Hammurabi, etc. I doubt that the ancient Jews (Hebrews) could read or write, but I could be wrong about this. The influence over the early OT has strong Egyptian influence.

Institutional religion and doctrinized beliefs in some ways deserves disrespect, but not religion per se.

Oh! so you say! name one religion that is not "institutinalized"?

helio...it is better to have a religion without a church than it is to have a church without a religion. My interest in a science-compatible God is not at all inconsistent with being "religious."

I agree there doesnt have to be an inconsistency, although my original point was that i felt you were offering up metaphysics as the meeting of religion and science, which isnt really what metaphysics is trying to do atall.


Intellectually, they are at home in the cosmos because they acquire the satisfaction of having reference to origin and destiny.
Yes there is clearly a great deal of comfort offered in religion, i wouldnt agrue with that. The problem with this aspect of religion however is that comfort offen becomes a substitute for truth itself.
Id also argue that science tells us x1,000,000 more than religion does about our origins, and can actually provide data to support to support its claims.
Im not saying science can tell us everything abour our experiences as humans but it can tell us a hell of alot more about where we came from.
Destiny, is another issue - thats predeterminism and parellel universe territory, very subjective/debatable stuff! :p

Philosophically, they enjoy the corroboration of ideals of moral values rather than having to settle for the rationalization of personal or societal likes and dislikes.
Religion isnt really opperating much differently here, the value systems offered up in the bible are the societal 'likes and dislikes' of their day.
Historically God or any other diety's moral beliefs are simply a reflection of the virtues and en vouge customs of the era.
If a modern God immerged in our time it would be very probable that hed embrace vegetarianism, environmentalism, and equal rights - essentially all our modern value systems which the Gods of the past were unaware of.
In this instance God is simply the mouthpiece of emerging social and moral trends.


Spiritually, (motivationally) they thrive in the experience of companionship with the Divine (no matter how it is conceived).[/INDENT]
No offense but you make God sound like a faithful dog. :p

Integrated Theory of Intelligence is nonsense. It is a variant on panpsycism (I forget the name) or some such theory which claims that everything (including inanimate objects) has consciousnous.

I do not know why people have to come up with theories allowing them to divorce mind and consciousness from the physical brain. I gtuess they want to believe in OBE and similar concepts.

It makes for a very interesting read there o Dino, not that I would contest to it's legitimacy but I know quite allot about human consciousness. So when I see something knew on the subject of consciousness I tend to get into it very critically.

I can tell you this: if an intelligent life form exists out in the universe, their consciousness will be exactly like ours, more advanced civilizations may exist in the universe, but consciousness that is self aware, that can reason, introspect, communicate amongst themselves as we, their consciousness will inevitably be like our own.

The word you were referring to is panpsychism: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/

Integrated Theory of Intelligence is nonsense. It is a variant on panpsycism (I forget the name) or some such theory which claims that everything (including inanimate objects) has consciousnous.

I do not know why people have to come up with theories allowing them to divorce mind and consciousness from the physical brain. I gtuess they want to believe in OBE and similar concepts.
Theres actually no real empirical evidence to suggest that basic matter is non-sentient, we just assume it isnt/cant be. Its a completely untested/unverfied belief.
we need to be aware and very careful about seperating what we know and what we assume we know.
Personally i think the future of quantum theory/metaphysics will lie in understanding that everything simply transfers/exchanges information - i have a feeling thats essentially all consciousness is.
Even a particle can interface with incredibly abstract information and react accordingly (see quantum earser experiment).

Godless: Thanks for giving me the correct term: Panpsychism. Like you, I am interested in consciousness, which is how I found panpsychism and due to this thread: The Integrated Theory of Intelligence.

They seem very similar to me. Do they seem related to you? You do not seem to believe in either.

After reading enough to understand the concepts, both seem to be nonsense, lacking any reason to spend time contemplating them beyond a casual reading of a descriptive article. I have enough trouble dealing with some of the concepts of modern physics (especially Quantum Theory) which have supporting evidence and are extremely useful fields of knowledge.

HelioCentric: Lack of evidence against does not support a belief in some concept. I know of no evidence against the existence and powers of Pixie Dust, but decided to ignore it when I discovered that it was not some hallucinogenic substance or a possible seasoning for my food. .

Anybody: Is discussion of consciousness pertinent to this thread?

The only evidence I have for consciousness is purely subjective. My mind tells me I have it. I know of no evidence that anyone or anything else has consciousness. It does not seem reasonable to believe that I am the only person in the world with consciousness, so I believe that other people have it. When I query another or discuss this subject with other people, I discover that others believe they have consciousness.

I never have discussions on the subject with rocks, trees, squirrels, dogs, quantum particles. Obviously I cannot expect an answer if I ask a rock or a squirrel. Hence I am skeptical of their having consciousness, although I tend to think that dogs and squirrels have it.

If there are intelligent people elsewhere in the universe (no evidence for this), I expect them to have consciousness.

If consciousness can be quantified (I think it can be), then I would guess that dogs & squirrels have it to a lessor degree than you & I.

It is interesting to consider the implications of Deep Blue beating Gary Kasparov. When I play chess, there is a part of my mind thinking thoughts like.I am playing chess.
I intend to beat this guy or this game looks hopeless.
Maybe I can get a date with . . . this weekend.
He just deviated from the standard opening. I wonder if he knows something special or just made a mistake. Deep Blue had no such extraneous thoughts, which I consider to be related to my having consciousness.

While I do not consider Deep Blue to be intelligent or even a primitive AI device, from a behavioral point of view it seems intelligent. Hence neither intelligent behavior nor complexity seem to be necessary prerequisites for consciousness.

Godless: Thanks for giving me the correct term:
HelioCentric: Lack of evidence against does not support a belief in some concept. I know of no evidence against the existence and powers of Pixie Dust, but decided to ignore it when I discovered that it was not some hallucinogenic substance or a possible seasoning for my food. .
I never based my opinion soley on lack of evidence if you read back what i wrote.



The only evidence I have for consciousness is purely subjective. My mind tells me I have it. I know of no evidence that anyone or anything else has consciousness. It does not seem reasonable to believe that I am the only person in the world with consciousness, so I believe that other people have it. When I query another or discuss this subject with other people, I discover that others believe they have consciousness.
Thats one way of looking at it for sure, although that process will only lead towards spotting the human type consciousness.
I believe there is a generalised criteria (which varies depending on who you listen to) in philosophy and the sciences.
I think you can follow these sets of criterias (or even modify them to create your own) to help you spot other forms of consciousness.


I never have discussions on the subject with rocks, trees, squirrels, dogs, quantum particles. Obviously I cannot expect an answer if I ask a rock or a squirrel. Hence I am skeptical of their having consciousness, although I tend to think that dogs and squirrels have it.
I think thats enitrely natural. dogs and squirrels are both mammals so youre obviously more likely to recognise aspects of their awarness that you see in yourself. On the quantum level you definitely have to approach things alittle differently.



While I do not consider Deep Blue to be intelligent or even a primitive AI device, from a behavioral point of view it seems intelligent. Hence neither intelligent behavior nor complexity seem to be necessary prerequisites for consciousness.
I agree, AI will either lead us to having to come to terms with consciousness being an entirely mechanised process. Or we will reach prehaps a critical mass where AI cannot proceed any further and in doing so will find the 'hidden' aspect of consciousness.
I personally think the first is more likely - that we are simply organic information exhanging machines, i dont think this *has* to be a depressing or scary prospect though and i certainly dont think it would take away from the richeness of our experiences.

I see a lot of people here who believes in Yahweh and they think they have him all figured out. And I see a lot of atheists here who dismiss him.

According to statistics Christianity comes in with 2.1 participants, and Atheist with 1.1
So I have a question for the atheists: In the time we live in, if you only look at the biggest religious group, how can the number of the irrational believers be double the number rational thinkers? Surely there must be a reason for those numbers. would you suggest that 2.1 billion people blew exactly the same fuse to believe in the same god or how did that rumor start?

www.nobeliefs.com/fallacies.htm

Sometimes if I chose something I look for numbers and go combinations with the #'s 1,2,4,7,8,0 and stick away from the #,s 1,3,5,6,9,0, for some reason it usually works out best, and I find if any of the four centre numbers are three in a row it's a definite yes or no, I don't do it much just for certain things. Well like if I have to chose between a couple of things or more that I can only guess what would be best, I will not do something that I can tell is wrong because of the numbers.