"Mark K. Bilbo" <alt-atheism@org.webmaster> wrote:

HypnoSteve pirouetted gracefully and with great fanfare proclaimed:

If someone subscribes to materialistic atheism then they are, by proxy,
subscribing to materialism and, by extension, believing that the
universe and consciousness are goverened by objective and materialistic
rules and laws.

Boy, I'm sure glad you showed up to tell me what I think. Why, I was so
helpless before you arrived.

It's easy enough to sort out, Mark. Just tell me if you're a
materialistic atheist or not. Do you deny any and all belief, faith,
conviction or claim to knowledge that consciousness is caused by (and not
just correlated with) neural activity?

If you do deny all of this, then do share with me where you think it comes
from if not the natural or (proposed) supernatural realm.

If you don't deny that you believe consciousness is caused by neural
activity then what's wrong with having the materialistic brand of atheism
defined as a 'faith based' philosophy (in terms of the origin of
consciousness) since it's certainly not 'evidence based?

Would you deny that atheism is 99.9% correlated with the "when you're
dead, you're dead" view and thus is inherently connected to issues of
consciousness?

Now, those things materialists believe might become 'evidence based'
at some point in the future (though I very much doubt it) but it's not
happend yet.

And yet theories are based on evidence. Weird huh?

Not weird, just wrong to ever propose as fact that which is not proven.
There is tons of evidence to demonstrate that consciousness is
correlated with nerual activity, but not the slightest shred of evidence
to suggest causation.

No matter how much material I recorded of the TV
onto video tape would any of it ever prove that the TV caused the
programs that were played? Some people think consciousness is
electromagnetic in origin even detectable up to 1cm beyond the skull.
But that's just like me saying that since I can measure static
electricity up to 1cm beyond my TV screen that must be what's causing
the pictures on the screen. Electromagnetism could be the cause of
consciousness - it might very well even be conscousness (and, my, what
implications that has) - but so far all we have is correlation not
causation.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. We might not be able to
detect any soul inhabiting a body or any signal of some kind directed to
a body but that doesn't mean we can cut corners with the scientific
method where consciousness is concerned. Correlation is not causation.

Why yes! We barged into your regular newsgroup and began telling you
that you don't *really think what you think you think, you think what
we think you think!

Mark... Mark.. Mark... The debate between atheists and theists was going
on in usenet long before I arrived on the scene. But note, I'm not
pressing theisim on anyone. Nor am I actually as argumentative as it
might appear. I'm simply an ordinary guy with an absence of faith in the
notion that his own consciousness spontaneously emerged (or continuously
emerges) from innert matter seeking to see if or if not any of you can
accept that materialistic atheism is 'faith based'.

"Les Hellawell" <myshredder@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:

"HypnoSteve" <x@x.com> wrote:

Atheists do not generally believe anything when there is no
evidence for it

Well, you can't quite say you have a lack of evidence for
consciousness.

I know I am conscious (just) but how I am conscious I don't have a
clue.

Okey. Now consider how difficult it is to explain how it comes from
matter/energy.

There is no such
thing as supernatural. A thing or process either exists 'in nature'
or does not exist. If indeed there is a 'soul' or esp then it is
natural, a part of nature.

Many physicists claim that matter (particles) and spacetime are caused
by the vibrations of superstrings, which by definition exist outside
of spacetime. That's not exactly 'natural'. I'd say consciousness
has an origin outside of spacetime as well, but that's just my
opinion.

We know nothing about conscience therefore atheism is faith based?

Okay, atheism that confesses no beliefs (asserts no positive claims)
as to the nature/origin of consciousness and no beliefs as to the
nature/origin of the universe is not 'faith based'. But such
individuals shouldn't assert any negative claims such as "There is no
God" or "When you're dead you're dead" either.

Quoting the above exactly:
..."nothing to explain the cause of consciousness itself,
what's wrong with just accepting that materialistic atheism is
a'faith based' philosophy"

Why? Based on what faith?

If an individual atheist is a materialistic atheist (or naturalistic
atheist) then by definition they are asserting that the universe and
consciousness can be explained in materialistic (natural science)
ways. If they don't do this then they're just an "Atheist". Since an
atheist of the materialistic/naturalistic breed can't provide evidence
as to the nature/origin of consciousness or the universe then their
particular breed of atheism is 'faith based'.

(I accept you're might not be.)

I am sorry no offence intended but this just appears as nonesense.
You are arguing that ignorance of something means god exists.

No, I'm not arguing that ignorace of the nature/origin of
consciousness and the universe means that God exists. I am instead
arguing that materialistic/naturalist atheists are just as much a
'faith based' creed as theists because they believe they know things
about the nature/origin of consciousness and the universe that they
can't provide evidence for.

None of this implies that anyone should start beliving in "God".

So you're agnostic (only word I can think of) about 'consciousness'.
Fair enough. But would you say you are a materialist or
empiricalist?

I will think about it (when I have the time)

Okay.

I have no beliefs regarding consciousness all I can tell you is that
I am conscious of self. I do not know how that happens neither does
anybody else and it seems silly to me to jump to a conclusion 'god
did it'.

From my perspective that depends upon how you define God. I accept
the evidence for mind over matter and believe that consciousness (or,
more accurately, something more fundamental than consciousness) is
everywhere. God "did it" because Being is constantly forming from out
of Non-being (or something like that - I get a bit lost in
metaphysical terminology myself).

Thus far no evidence has been produced that it is anything but
a mechanical process.

Thus far no evidence has been produced that it is in any way a
mechanical process.

My brain is a part of me and I know from
observation that activity takes place within it.

I know from observation that activity takes place in my television
set.

If we do indeed have
a consciousness detatched (or supernatural as you put it) what is
the purpose of those parts of the brain are not related to purely
know mechanical functions? We know emotions and memories can
be triggered by electrical stimulation.

The brain processes information from the senses and from memory.
Maybe the Soul is just hitching a ride gathering experience? Who
knows?

You are determined that I have faith in something arn't you?

I have determined that certain atheists have faith in something and
that faith is faith whatever its focus. You might not be an atheist
of that category.

Quite frankly this idea of a seperate
detached souls that can fly away when we die seem a bit far fetched
to me.

Okay, but I consider it normal. :-)

If any atheist in this group will genuinely deny that they have
any faith or belief (or claims to knowledge) that consciousness
itself is somehow produced by neural activity then I'll accept that
their philosophy is not faith based. (But I'll be quite curious to
know what they think consciousness is if they lack beliefs about it
being produced by neural activity.)

Since we don't know I can only guess and one persons guess is a
good (or a worthless) as the next mans.

Excellent. Now consider the implications of that. Take the teaching
of evolution in schools for example. I strongly believe in evolution
and don't believe in creationism or intelligent design. But I don't
believe it's all chance either. I believe, from observation, that
conscious choice has a role in mate selection and thus in what genes
get passed on and that conscious choice cannot be explained in solely
biological terms since it doesn't always involve selecting the
environmenally, socially and anatomically 'fittest' member of the
group. I also believe that all conscious beings have a will to
self-actualisation and that this cannot be explained solely in
biological terms since it can involve bad reproductive choices. (Why
hasn't the genotype/phenotype for monasticism been bred out of
Catholics yet?).

"Random chance Evolution" is just one example where a 'faith based'
view is being force fed on peoples kids - and I say that as a very
firm believer in evolution. As you say yourself, one man's guess is
as good (or as worthless) as the next man's. Creationism and
Intelligent design are an awful alternative to evolution in schools
even if taugh alongside it. But if naturalistic atheists don't find a
way to move a small amount on this issue (among many others) they may
find themselves being forced to move a lot.
_
Stephen