Theism vs. Atheism

Religion and God are not inextricably linked. Buddhism is a non-theist religion, and I have several friends who, like myself, are non-denominational theists. The idea of God did not have a singular source; it arose in almost every human culture since the Stone Age. It is ludicrous to suggest that, while thousands of people came upon the same concept independently of one another, that I could not. One does not have to be interested in creating a religion to ponder the unknowns of the universe. "Either there is a God, and he revealed himself to us via religion, or there is no God and religion is a bunch of hogwash. But how can religion be a bunch of hogwash, yet there actually is a God?" I am utterly perplexed by this passage. I never said religions were incorrect in being theist; their scripture is simply loaded with additional "advice" that has nothing to do with God. The founders of religions, who spent a great deal of time philosophizing about the nature of life and the universe, are poorly represented by modern religious institutions. The Bible has gone through hundreds of iterations since the spoken word of Jesus was written down. I don't think Jesus is hogwash, I just think the modern institutions are. Great, so you have not decided to present any evidence. The scientific method is not applicable to the topic of God; it is applicable to matters that can be subject to scientific experiment only. Many respected scientists are theists and they would tell you the same. And is atheism really "a critical analysis of the world in which we live based upon skeptically verifying claims." All you seem to be doing here is saying "i see no evidence" and then misconstruing any evidence as no evidence. The theism that I'm advocating has absolutely nothing to do with the "fairy tales" you mention. My argument does suggest that your machines have consciousness, albeit a form alien to you or I. Consciousness is a property which defies scientific explanation. It is not biology or physically necessary, and yet it exists. You did not answer when I asked you for your justification for believing the people around you are conscious. I'm sure that you believe that, but there's no way you can actually prove it. I'm conscious, you're conscious, humanity is conscious. Nothing special about human biology suggests that we would become the sole owners of this strange and epiphenomal property. I find it far more likely that this property permeates the universe. If matter has not always been conscious, when and how did consciousness arise? If you can't answer that, then you're arguing that humans and animals have somehow received a unique gift, which is precisely the view espoused by most major religions. How can you not be a believer in science? Unlike the ancients, modern scientists have demonstrated statistically significant results and those results have been incredibly apparent in your everyday life. Do you think an iPhone could be made without incredibly precise scientific understanding? Astrophysics and quantum physics remain the only areas in which scientists may be seriously wrong. "In a sense science is a religion, some if it's basic axioms cannot be tested." Oh my, "some basic axioms" you say? I have actually provided one axiom, that consciousness is a property pervasive of our universe rather than exclusive human beings. My theism relies then, on at least one less axiom that science. Anyway, you haven't actually addressed any of my argument other than to accuse me of speculating. And I repeat: If matter has not always been conscious, when and how did consciousness arise?