Should atheism be considered a movement?

[Skeptic Ginger]

Claus, I have one comment then I'll get to the rest later.

Good grief! I tell you you misunderstand. I try to explain intent in a different way to make it more clear. And in your mind, you understood and I'm changing what I said??????????????

Get a grip, dude. That is absurd on the face of it.

 

[Dancing David]

Not at all. I have shown you the evidence. You are not convinced. So, go ask her yourself.

It's a simple question. See what she answers.

So in others words the evidence at hand is not sufficient to sway me, mainly because it isn't there. Sorry that is a "No but I will whine to get you to do my work for me".

Sorry CFL, you are abusing the english language, of course no worser than the average american

You don't get the notion of exclusive and inclusive , but feel free to create imaginary meaning for english words, everybody does.

Answer my argument directly, you are saying that SG is exclusive in her use of language, I say that she is not. the evidence is there, why not tell me why your are not interpreting material that is not there. Evasion noted, you can't counter the argument so you move the goal posts. I would have expected better from such a seasoned warrior.

I state that the language that SG uses does not exclude theists from being critical thinkers. Counter the argument.

 

[Dancing David]

Not at all. I have shown you the evidence. You are not convinced. So, go ask her yourself.

It's a simple question. See what she answers.

Not at all. I have shown you the plate of spaghetti. You are not convinced, you say it is a bowl of soup. I shall avoid the issue and ask you to, go ask her yourself.

It's a simple question. See what she answers. It is simple counter my argument, the goal posts stay where they are.

It is a simple premise CFL, I say that SG did not exclude theists from critical thinking. Show me where she did.

I await something better than evasion from you, I am not Tai Chi, i am in full possesion of my faculties. I am a junior crusty old coot, so lets see that vaunted critical thinking.

Here let me diagram it so it is harder for you to iugnore.

SG stated that a person who is a theist is contadictory if the say they are a critical thinker. That is what oxymoron means in common US english. To say that military intelligence is an oxymoron, is not the same as saying that there is no one who is intelligent in the military. So if SG states that a critical thinker who is a theist is an oxymoron, what is she stating? Is she stating that they can not be a critical thinker? No.

1.The set of people who have contradictory beliefs is a set which includes critical thinkers, theists and those who overlap, as well as the set of people who are neither of the three categories.
2.The set in that case is, those who hold contradictory beliefs and those who do not hold contradictory beliefs. The set of those who hold contadictory beliefs may include thesists, critical thinkers and those who are both.
3.Now the not-contradictory set may contain the same as well, although they may not agree in defintion with SG as to what a theist is.
4.But if the defintion of a theist allow a person to be in either set depending upon the definition of a thesist (contradictory vs. not-contradictory), that in no way can be used to determine the sets of critical thinker vs. not-critical thinker.

So demonstrate to me where SG said that the set of people who hold contradictory beliefs are precluded from being in the set of critical thinkers.

Is that plain enough for you? Four statements, counter away.

Time to choose!

 

[Meadmaker]

Sure, I can suggest a game theory model where social responsibility creates an enviroment in social interactions where following the rules (if they are not absurd) will provide for greater safety and hope of aid in times of need. There are pay offs for behavior others than genetics.

Those things are the basis for good and evil? Can you prove that?

Now there is one that does not have an answer at this time.

Scientifically, it never will. If you could explain why the Big Bang happened, in terms of laws of physics, you would then have to explain why there are laws of physics. If you could manage that, you would have to explain that explanation. I'm afraid it's elephants all the way down.

i believe so, but it is very likely to be an illusion. As a person living with OCD I know that there are degrees of freedom in my actions. I like Zoloft.

Science has demonstrated that we aren't nearly as free as once believed, but is there any freedom left? It can't answer that question.

Could be, no evidence I have seen yet leads me to believe so.

A really fancy stone.


Perhaps stars are sentient. I don't know how to test it, so speculative. A great idea for sure.

I've seen no evidence of consciousness in anything except a vertebrate, but when it comes to proof, I can't prove it for anything except me. Other human beings sure act like they are conscious, but I can never know. All I can actually observe is their behavior. I think, therefore I am. Furthermore, what I think makes me behave. Then, I observe that other things behave the same way, and I suspect it is because they think, just like I do. However, I can never measure that. Yes, I can verify that others have brain activity, just like me, but are they aware? I don't know, and cannot know.

 

[articulett]

Ugh... the brouhaha from people confusing opinions with facts. Good and Evil are defined by men. They don't agree with each other... but most think things that cause happiness, laughter, joy and learning of sentient beings are good... and suffering is bad. And why isn't SG allowed to have an opinion about other people the way Claus seems to bellow his bizarre opinions about others at every opportunity... insisting that they believe, said, and do things that they never said believe or do.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It is a simple premise CFL, I say that SG did not exclude theists from critical thinking. ....

That would be correct, David.

I have said repeatedly, a skeptic or critical thinker who was also a theist had a blind spot and did not apply their critical thinking to their god beliefs, but that did not mean they were not a skeptic or critical thinker in every other respect. It is the belief in gods that is not skeptical, but a skeptic with a belief in gods has chosen to make an exception for that one thing. It doesn't change the rest of the person.

I have stated unequivocally what my position is on this matter including in post after post in the, "Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?" thread. And my position in that thread, which Claus participated in BTW, was ignored by more than one person who chose to re-word it to fit their own view. I should also say that other people echoed my view and their positions were viewed with equal distortions. Though most people distorting these views were jumping to conclusions about what was said and, understood when what had actually been said was clarified.

Many people twist the words around of the people they disagree with. Concocting straw men is not typically a conscious act.

The key issue is distinguishing between the person (their overall skepticism or level of critical thinking) and their skepticism or critical thinking regarding a specific subject. It seemed that every time one or more of us made that distinction, one or more others failed to notice we had made a distinction and accused us of just what Claus continues to do here, claim we had claimed the person wasn't a skeptic.

I believe the problem in perception here for those who couldn't see we were making a distinction, results when one is a theist, or holds whatever view it is Claus seems to hold about theism being a rational conclusion that one can come to using critical thought. Instead of recognizing theism is an exception to critical thought and it is excluded from critical analysis by skeptics who are also theists, the interpretation of what is being said focuses on the statement theist beliefs are irrational.

The objection is to the claim one cannot come to a conclusion god beliefs are valid using rational critical thinking processes. That prevents recognition that those of us with my perspective are saying the theist can be a skeptic and a critical thinker but theism cannot be a skeptical conclusion. The perceived interpretation is that we are saying the person is not a skeptic or critical thinker. But we are saying the skeptic is drawing an unskeptical conclusion.

Many theists recognize the matter and refer to their theist beliefs as being specifically excluded from their scientific view of everything else. They divide beliefs into evidence based beliefs and faith based beliefs. I don't accept that faith based beliefs are any different from non-evidence based beliefs.

Claus claims not to be a theist and I take his word for it. But for whatever reason, he defends theist beliefs as being either rational or at least not outside of rational thought, (I can't quite figure his position out except that he defends theist conclusions). I do believe that is why he doesn't seem to recognize the idea one can be a skeptic and still not be a skeptic about everything. I think Claus is objecting to the exclusion of god beliefs from being a rational conclusion. But rather than defending that indefensible position, Claus instead is attacking the straw man that I and others are stating theists are not critical thinkers and/or skeptics.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Now I am really confused. I think the two of you are agreed.

I am not sure in this case what Claus' objections are. I can only speak for myself when the discussion gets to this point.

"X can't be proven wrong" is a description of the state of our knowledge. In the absence of a contrary instance we cannot completely prove that X is wrong and there are many things where we have not found a contrary instance but we have lots of confirming instances. They CANNOT be conclusive- thus the importance of falsifiablitiy.

"until new evidence comes along" acknowledges that. A black swan might appear at any moment, but so far it hasn't. If it does then X=all swans are white has been proven wrong, and to that extent CFLarsen is right. But a new idea which explains more facts might come along at any moment too. It might displace X but it does not prove it wrong.

Beyond a certain point we treat some of those ideas which are, so far, unfalsified as facts. That is the rational thing to do and we call it a "working hypothesis" or some such term. We act as if gravity were true and evolution were true, and we make progress by behaving in this way. But always with the unspoken understanding that this is only valid until "new evidence comes along".

The point about this is that we do not usually make that unspoken premise explicit. We only do that for things which are really uncertain: that is things, unlike gravity or evolution, where the evidence we have is much less strong. For truly robust ideas like gravity and evolution we do not say it, because there comes a point when ideas are so well supported that it is irrational not to reach a conclusion (albeit it is still not a final conclusion in terms of epistemology: because pretty much nothing is final in that sense).

I think the problem which is being addressed is that some believe that the "absence of God idea" is an idea supported as strongly the "presence of gravity idea". And so they object to having to make the statement that it not finally proved in one case and not the other. To include the "agnostic caveat" each time is to suggest that the idea is much weaker than they believe it to be.

Now it is possible to say that the "presence" of a thing is inherently different from the "absence" of a thing, and therefore to say that they need not (perhaps cannot) be subject to the same kind of rules. For myself I cannot see any reason why that should be true, but I am open to persuasion.

There is a difference between proving the presence and proving the absence of things. But this argument goes a tad beyond that. I cannot prove there is no extraterrestrial life in the Universe. But most people in this case would not consider absence of evidence of ETs as evidence of absence.

The problem with agnosticism is more complicated. For one, the absence of evidence not being evidence of absence has been traditionally used and allows the skeptic and theist skeptic an out in having to confront theist skeptics or their own cognitive dissonance respectively. The same can be said for describing faith based beliefs as somehow more acceptable than non-evidence based beliefs when in reality there is no way to distinguish between the two.

But take the case of ETs, there is evidence of life in the Universe. We are it. So it is not a case of complete absence of evidence. It is a case of absence of specific kind of evidence, that is life in the Universe that is not on Earth. We also speculate on a number of other things with even less evidence, that something existed before the Big Bang or that there could be more than one Universe. And even some things are imagined and not ruled out because there is no evidence of those things like speculating what kind of things some intelligent ET might have invented that we have not or a means of traveling in hyperspace or time travel. But once again, there is still some thread, some basis one can connect the imagination to.

Yet not too many skeptics would apply the same speculation to say, Harry Potter fantasies. Could there be a magical world beyond platform 9 and 10 at whatever train station that is in the book? Could there be a Diagonally through the bricks of some dead end street? And that is where the invisible pink unicorns in backyards, dragons in garages, and flying spaghetti monsters come in. Are we to say we cannot prove these things do not exist therefore it is acceptable for people to believe they do? Is there evidence there are no ghosts? Is there evidence there is not life after death? Can we prove there are no psychics just because we haven't come across one yet?

Why is it acceptable for a skeptic to draw conclusions about ghosts, life after death, psychics and whatnot, yet unacceptable to draw similar conclusions about the existence of gods? Articulett continually reminds skeptic theists they have drawn conclusions about demons. I couldn't get a single skeptic theist to provide a reasonable rationale why their god beliefs were different from the myriad of god beliefs they dismissed such as belief in Pele or Zeus.

So I do not object to the scientific principle one cannot prove the negative. I object to the scientific principle one cannot prove the negative being applied to specific theist beliefs in an unequal way than it is applied to belief in invisible pink unicorns in my backyard. And I do challenge the conventional wisdom that such a thing as faith based beliefs differ from non-evidence based beliefs. Because that is unconventional, it draws the ire of some who have used those rationales in defense of theist beliefs. Change is difficult. Challenging established wisdom typically meets resistance.

 

[articulett]

Yes, "god" (however nebulously defined) is the one thing lots of people seem to imagine existing... even though all gods are indistinguishable from delusions of gods, mythical characters, imaginary friends, subjective interpretation of "signs". All gods seem to entail a conscious entity of some sort without a material body or brain. We have no evidence that such a thing even can exist... and if we posit that such a thing can exist... we have no way to distinguish it from demons and delusions and misperceptions of such things.

Demons is another invisible entity that is nebulously defined. Most skeptics don't "believe in" them... nor are they "on the fence" about demons. And no one can present a decent argument for being more convinced of a god or gods... since they are cut from the same human archetype... symbolism...

I think that it's unskeptical to believe that consciousness of any sort can exist without a brain when we have no evidence what so ever that it can... despite eons of belief... and we have lots of evidence as to how the brain misperceives in certain ways and is programmed by it's culture-- how people make ups this stuff all the time when they don't understand something or want to control others.

I think the most logical position is disbelief... just as one disbelieves in demons and thetans and alien visitors probing people.

We know aliens of some sort might exist... because we understand how life evolves... but we have no reason to presume they'd be anything like us or that any of them are visiting people and then erasing memories. The same goes for gods. And yet, people rush to defend god beliefs and demonize those who cannot find any logical reason for believing in such "entities".

Faith is the opposite of critical thinking. Most people who identify with skepticism are atheists or becoming atheists it seems... because they can't help but extrapolate that conclusion unless they hide something from themselves. And they usually do so, by making bad guys out of those who criticize faith as a means of knowledge. Like Claus, they hear things that aren't there to avoid asking themselves if the faith they hold to be an asset-- is really a sign of self delusion. They would rather demonize others then to admit that even they can be fooled--skeptic though they are.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Concocting straw men is not typically a conscious act.

Its seems a sort of defensive mechanism. I wonder if there are any non surgical ways of removing the SMG*

(*Straw Man Generator).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Its seems a sort of defensive mechanism. I wonder if there are any non surgical ways of removing the SMG*

(*Straw Man Generator).

I recommend simply re-reading what people have posted a day or so after you have reacted to it. I am amazed at how different posts are when I re-read them.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

I participate in a personal atheist movement once or twice a day... depending on what I've had to eat.

 

[CFLarsen]

That would be correct, David.

I have said repeatedly, a skeptic or critical thinker who was also a theist had a blind spot and did not apply their critical thinking to their god beliefs, but that did not mean they were not a skeptic or critical thinker in every other respect. It is the belief in gods that is not skeptical, but a skeptic with a belief in gods has chosen to make an exception for that one thing. It doesn't change the rest of the person.

That is a complete turn-around from what you said earlier:

A critical thinking theist is an oxymoron.

If you use critical thinking skills you will conclude all god beliefs are equally mythical.

I have stated unequivocally what my position is on this matter including in post after post in the, "Should Skeptics, by definition, be Atheists?" thread.

That, clearly, is a bald-faced lie.

And my position in that thread, which Claus participated in BTW, was ignored by more than one person who chose to re-word it to fit their own view.

Yes, it is always the others who misunderstand you. It simply cannot be you who are less than clear.

Many people twist the words around of the people they disagree with.

Indeed. Here are some examples of yours:

While I do wonder what it is that makes Claus defend god beliefs

You never showed any posts of mine that led you to believe that I defend god beliefs. Please do so.

You do, however, challenge the conviction I and others here have that the principle in science of not being able to prove the negative is not all that relevant to god beliefs.

You never showed any posts of mine that led you to believe that I challenge that conviction. Please do so.

Could you address why one must always discuss god myths with the caveat, "but you can't prove gods don't exist"?

You never showed any posts of mine that led you to believe that I say that one must always discuss god myths with the caveat, "but you can't prove gods don't exist". Please do so.

The key issue is distinguishing between the person (their overall skepticism or level of critical thinking) and their skepticism or critical thinking regarding a specific subject. It seemed that every time one or more of us made that distinction, one or more others failed to notice we had made a distinction and accused us of just what Claus continues to do here, claim we had claimed the person wasn't a skeptic.

I believe the problem in perception here for those who couldn't see we were making a distinction, results when one is a theist, or holds whatever view it is Claus seems to hold about theism being a rational conclusion that one can come to using critical thought.

You clearly were not making that distinction here:

A critical thinking theist is an oxymoron.

Instead of recognizing theism is an exception to critical thought and it is excluded from critical analysis by skeptics who are also theists, the interpretation of what is being said focuses on the statement theist beliefs are irrational.

The objection is to the claim one cannot come to a conclusion god beliefs are valid using rational critical thinking processes. That prevents recognition that those of us with my perspective are saying the theist can be a skeptic and a critical thinker but theism cannot be a skeptical conclusion. The perceived interpretation is that we are saying the person is not a skeptic or critical thinker. But we are saying the skeptic is drawing an unskeptical conclusion.

Then, how can anyone not be called a skeptic? Nobody believes everything there is to believe.

Many theists recognize the matter and refer to their theist beliefs as being specifically excluded from their scientific view of everything else. They divide beliefs into evidence based beliefs and faith based beliefs. I don't accept that faith based beliefs are any different from non-evidence based beliefs.

Can you name one person who is a skeptic, but refer to his/her theist beliefs as being specifically excluded from his/her scientific view of everything else?

You must know the names of at least some.

Claus claims not to be a theist and I take his word for it.

I'm not a theist. You don't have to take my word for it. Nothing I have said could possibly lead you to believe that I am a theist.

If you can point to one post of mine that led you to believe that I am a theist, please provide it.

But for whatever reason, he defends theist beliefs as being either rational

No, I don't. What gave you that idea? Show the posts that led you to think that.

or at least not outside of rational thought, (I can't quite figure his position out except that he defends theist conclusions).

No, I don't. Show the posts that led you to think that.

I do believe that is why he doesn't seem to recognize the idea one can be a skeptic and still not be a skeptic about everything.

That is precisely what I do recognize.

Again, I must insist that you provide the examples of my posts that made you think otherwise.

I think Claus is objecting to the exclusion of god beliefs from being a rational conclusion.

I'm not. Again, provide examples of my posts that made you think otherwise.

But rather than defending that indefensible position, Claus instead is attacking the straw man that I and others are stating theists are not critical thinkers and/or skeptics.

Your words, once more:

A critical thinking theist is an oxymoron.

If you use critical thinking skills you will conclude all god beliefs are equally mythical.

You got some post digging to do. Please provide the posts that led you to misunderstand me so profoundly. I have done this, when you claimed I misunderstood you. Let's see if you can do the same.

 

[HghrSymmetry]

I recommend simply re-reading what people have posted a day or so after you have reacted to it. I am amazed at how different posts are when I re-read them.

Thank you.

 

[Dancing David]

Sorry about my dancing with the tar baby yesterday. I will refrain for today.

No more Scooby snacks for the trill.

 

[Dancing David]

Those things are the basis for good and evil? Can you prove that?

Excuse me? What?

I said talk about things from the perspective of a scientific analysis.

Short version. There is reality, regardless of ontology. There are human thoughts and perceptions. Humans construct models that predict the behavior of reality. Science is a method for determining which models have predictive value.

Science does not prove anything, it shows that a model is accurate or not.

So try asking again. Please?

Good and evil are human concepts defined in an idiomatic fashion.

Scientifically, it never will. If you could explain why the Big Bang happened, in terms of laws of physics, you would then have to explain why there are laws of physics. If you could manage that, you would have to explain that explanation. I'm afraid it's elephants all the way down.

I am not concerned about first causes, I am thrilled there is stuff we can not know at this time.

Science has demonstrated that we aren't nearly as free as once believed, but is there any freedom left? It can't answer that question.

As the ad said

"Why ask why?”, if I stop and contemplate the effect on my life, it may be an interesting hobby, but it does not impact my life. Unless I stop taking my medication, then I loose many degrees of freedom.

It doesn't matter if freewill is an illusion or exists, except as a hobby.

I've seen no evidence of consciousness in anything except a vertebrate, but when it comes to proof, I can't prove it for anything except me.

If you really take that thought one step further, you might be surprised what you find. You might come to a point where you think "Maybe I just assume that I am conscious.". Maybe I am a set of processes and that word is just a rug with a lump under it.

Other human beings sure act like they are conscious, but I can never know.

All you can know is how things appear to behave, you can't actually know the thing itself. You might just be assuming that the word consciousness has a functional definition.

All I can actually observe is their behavior. I think, therefore I am.

I am pink therefore I'm spam?

I think therefore I think. There are a lot more processes going on than just thought.

Furthermore, what I think makes me behave.

Try to prove that. Thoughts can be demonstrated to modify behavior, but if it was as easy as thinking to behave then, well there would be no drug addicts for one. A thought is one of a set of behaviors.

Then, I observe that other things behave the same way, and I suspect it is because they think, just like I do. However, I can never measure that.

Nor perhaps can you really prove it about yourself, do you really act on every thought? Which is bigger the set of thoughts about behavior, the behavior not involving thoughts or the behaviors effected by thoughts?

Yes, I can verify that others have brain activity, just like me, but are they aware? I don't know, and cannot know.

Here is the terrible question. How do you know you are aware?

I am not being flippant, it is a great question.

 

[Meadmaker]

Excuse me? What?

I said talk about things from the perspective of a scientific analysis.

From the perspective of scientific analysis, the terms good and evil are useless.

I can look at Ted Bundy and, from a scientific perspective, I can say that his behavior is not conducive to a stable society and so a meme has developed that attempts to remove that sort of behavior from our society by removing the host.

Or I can say that he was evil.

The two don't mean the same thing. If I say that he was evil, I am saying that there is something inherently wrong with serial rape and murder, quite apart from any deterimental effect they have on survival of a given set of genes, or the happiness that is experienced by the carriers of those genes.

I am not concerned about first causes, I am thrilled there is stuff we can not know at this time.

As the ad said

"Why ask why?”, if I stop and contemplate the effect on my life, it may be an interesting hobby, but it does not impact my life.

Then don't bother. But some people think it's important. I don't have a problem with that.

Here is the terrible question. How do you know you are aware?

I am not being flippant, it is a great question.

It's a definition thing. I sense my existence. I am aware that I exist. My body might be an illusion. My memories might have been created yesterday. However, if it is an illusion, there is something that is experiencing that illusion. I exist.

You? I can't be sure, although I will continue to act as if you do exist outside of my mind, because that seems fairly likely.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Claus, you are still arguing a point I already said all I am going to say on. Sorry. There is nothing to argue. You have some bizarre notion your interpretation of something I posted is correct no matter how many times I explain to you that you did not interpret it correctly. Since I am the authority on what my thoughts are, you have no case.

As far as what posts of yours led me to particular conclusions about your intended meaning, I'll see if I have time, but no promises. It would only be so you could clarify what led to some misunderstanding of your intended meaning and I'm not sure I care to take the time. You don't seem too interested in a reciprocal effort.

 

[Meadmaker]

And I do challenge the conventional wisdom that such a thing as faith based beliefs differ from non-evidence based beliefs.

That's the conventional wisdom? I wouldn't have thought it. I think the two are pretty much the same.


There is one place where you might be talking past each other with Claus, because I think you are talking past me a bit there as well. There certainly are people who are skeptical about everything except their god-beliefs. They turn off skepticism when they enter the church, and they believe that God sent 1/3 of himself to walk across the pond and rise from the dead, never questioning if maybe there might be another explanation.

However, there is another class of skeptical agnostic/atheist. There are people who have examined the evidence, and concluded that on certain topics there can be no evidence. It isn't just that there is no evidence for the invisible pink unicorn, it is that there is no way that there could ever possibly be evidence for an invisible pink unicorn.

As it turns out, no one actually believes in IPUs or FSMs. Why not? They believe other things that are no less far fetched. There are a couple of answers. One is that no trusted authority told them of such things. Another, however, is much more subtle, and is related to what I have been discussing. They find that acceptance of some sort of faith based belief helps them in some way. They believe in something that cannot be proven. The specific forms, cultural traditions, ceremonies, and beliefs that accompany any specific tradition, usually the one shared by their ancestors, is just a way of giving form to something that otherwise cannot be described.

 

[Dancing David]

From the perspective of scientific analysis, the terms good and evil are useless.

I can look at Ted Bundy and, from a scientific perspective, I can say that his behavior is not conducive to a stable society and so a meme has developed that attempts to remove that sort of behavior from our society by removing the host.

Or I can say that he was evil.

The two don't mean the same thing. If I say that he was evil, I am saying that there is something inherently wrong with serial rape and murder, quite apart from any deterimental effect they have on survival of a given set of genes, or the happiness that is experienced by the carriers of those genes.



Then don't bother. But some people think it's important. I don't have a problem with that.

Sure, i prefer star gazing and gardening.

It's a definition thing. I sense my existence. I am aware that I exist. My body might be an illusion. My memories might have been created yesterday. However, if it is an illusion, there is something that is experiencing that illusion. I exist.

You? I can't be sure, although I will continue to act as if you do exist outside of my mind, because that seems fairly likely.

Well, but here is where the question gets interesting, what is that awareness, is it really something sepearete from the processes. You have not said it is, but many people act as though it is.

I state as a point to consider that you may have vision but not be 'aware', you might have 'verbal cognition' or 'emotional response' but is there really an awareness. is there really an *I* behind it all, or just the facade of the process. Just something to consider, can you really assign an imporatnce to your experience that is not the same as you judging the behavior in others?

I am not saying that we do not exhibit the behaviors that we label consciousness, awareness or mind. Just that they may be a ghost in the machine.

 

[ParanoidAndroid]

If atheism is a movement, count me out...next stop: groupthink followed by some form of mob mentality.

I think atheism should be considered The Great Awakening. I hate to go all pop-culture amidst all this furrowed brow stuff, but:

Morpheus: "You take the blue pill and the story ends. You wake in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe...You take the red pill and you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes...Remember -- all I am offering is the truth, nothing more."

...Red pill, table for one.