When Czarcasm uses the term "religious’ (and I have faith he’ll correct me if I mischaracterize anything), he means it to refer to belief, not practice. For him, there is a distinction between “religion” and “organized religion,” i.e. between faith in the supernatural and the structures that are built around that faith. To him, your belief in God makes you religious, not any adherence to a specific dogma or claimed affiliation.
If I’m understanding you correctly, you do not make the same distinction; for you “religion” and “organized religion” are the same, and that “religion” is in and of itself a human construct. You consider faith in the supernatural and belief in Godhead to be intrinsically separate from religion. You can be faithful without being religious, and vice versa.
If I have all that correctly, then it’s a matter of semantics. As long as you and he (or you and any of your interlocutors) understand one another’s terminologies, you can communicate.
Mind you, it makes things wildly easier if you agree on shared definitions. It’s hard to communicate without a shared language.
Then any concept of ‘God’ works, yes? Or do you mean ‘God’ as defined by Jewish/Christian/Islamic religious thought? That’s what the Abrahamic religions are, btw, since you seem a bit confused by that term.
So, assuming you mean religion as in any concept of the supernatural, then exactly how do you know that Homo Habilis wasn’t conscious (this is leaving aside your arbitrary and slightly ridiculous assertion that the two are coupled of course)? We don’t know really WHAT H.H. thought or didn’t think wrt religion…it’s pure speculation, and for all we know they worshiped the sun, moon, stars, trees, lighting, thunder or a fallen shoe or gourde, and fought vicious religious wars over who was right or wrong.
I am indeed referring to religion demonstrated by a belief in the Bible, and the concepts of both “Adam” and “spirit”, both found in the Bible. This isn’t the first time I have come across people that have been upset at being called “religious”. Usually what I hear is “I don’t have religion. I have a personal relationship with God!”, or some variation thereof, to distinguish themselves from the common religionists out there.
I have broken this paragraph out into separate claims to point out that each and every one of them is completely without support. There is no evidence for any of them. They are just simply YOUR assertions, and as such, carry exactly as much weight as if I were to say that the entire universe was sneezed yesterday out of the nose of a giant invisible goat.
THIS is why you are not discussing science in any way, shape, or form. THIS is why you are just witnessing. I will put this is big, simple letters for you:
See you have fallen for the deception in history, that claims the bible is a Christian or Jewish bible, as if they own it or have legal rights to it; that book was written by humanity for humanity, no individual group or race has any rights to it.
But see if you choose to look at it that way, then you can’t rail and gripe against it because the teeth you use to bite it would be taken away. You NEED it to be a book of groups or religion, then it fuels your rage against it.
Not to say I’m agreeing with the op at all, but I think you misunderstand what “consciousness” means. In psychology/philosophy of mind, consciousness usually refers to what you would call self consciousness; in other words, a sense of self, that you exist as a distinct being. The claim isn’t that nonconscious beings are unaware of the physical world.