Can't we all just agree to let Rikky have the last word, pat him on the head, give him his bottle and then hope he settles for his nap? The only difference between this thread and pissing into the wind is that here we get sprayed with his piss instead of our own.

(July 24, 2015 at 12:23 pm)MTL Wrote: Perhaps instead of saying a single cell has both "matter" and "consciousness",
it could be said that a cell has "living matter" and "energy".

As opposed to a rock, which is "matter".....but not "living matter";

or a bolt of lightning....which certainly has "energy" but no "matter", in its own, permanent right.

Not all energy is alive, but all living things have some amount of energy.

Not all matter is alive, but all living things have matter.

Have you got any evidence to suggest that matter (take a rock) was always matter?
Science tell us that before it solidify into matter it was something else and before that something else was something else and that something else was something else.
Where does that lead us?
Guess what MTL.
To know where the matter come from is much easier than you ever thought.
Just follow your spinal cord and see the glands in it that control everything in us.
At the very bottom there is matter, above the liquid factor above the heat factor above the air factor above the
space factor above there is the mind factor and above all of them the consciousness factor so by understanding this simple thing you may deduce that the very beginning is pure consciousness.
Not only that MTL.
The old saying goes...........WHAT GOES DOWN HAS GOT TO COME BACK UP.
No wonder than that certain types of matter that have been constrain for so long like uranium want to go back where they really belong and become pure consciousness as they were originally by following the evolutionary cycle
(matter, vegetable life, animal life, human life, pure consciousness).
Does all sound like bullshit?
Of course it does but didn't sound like bullshit to the masses when someone told them that the planet earth
was not flat and was not the center of the universe? 

Is little rik a random word generator that we've let get away with it?

Uranium has intent. Good to know, Rik.

(July 25, 2015 at 7:44 am)Crossless1 Wrote: Uranium has intent.  Good to know, Rik.

A climber has intentS.
Why the climber would move and move in search of better conditions?
And if the climber has got intentions why then everybody and everything else wouldn't have?
A rock sooner or later will turn into soil or energy.
The soil give way to vegetable life to animal life to human life and so on.
Why then put a limit to expansion?
Can you stop the river from emptying in the ocean?
That's the problem with atheism.
Atheism put limits where limits do not exist in nature that is why atheism is unscientific. 

(July 25, 2015 at 8:30 am)Little Rik Wrote:

(July 25, 2015 at 7:44 am)Crossless1 Wrote: Uranium has intent.  Good to know, Rik.

A climber has intentS.
Why the climber would move and move in search of better conditions?
And if the climber has got intentions why then everybody and everything else wouldn't have?
A rock sooner or later will turn into soil or energy.
The soil give way to vegetable life to animal life to human life and so on.
Why then put a limit to expansion?
Can you stop the river from emptying in the ocean?
That's the problem with atheism.
Atheism put limits where limits do not exist in nature that is why atheism is unscientific. 

Do you know what science is? as far as I can tell, you don't.

He probably thinks Toy Story is a fucking documentary...

(July 25, 2015 at 8:32 am)downbeatplumb Wrote:

(July 25, 2015 at 8:30 am)Little Rik Wrote: A climber has intentS.
Why the climber would move and move in search of better conditions?
And if the climber has got intentions why then everybody and everything else wouldn't have?
A rock sooner or later will turn into soil or energy.
The soil give way to vegetable life to animal life to human life and so on.
Why then put a limit to expansion?
Can you stop the river from emptying in the ocean?
That's the problem with atheism.
Atheism put limits where limits do not exist in nature that is why atheism is unscientific. 

Do you know what science is? as far as I can tell, you don't.

I can ask you the same question plumb and i am quite sure you wouldn't have a clue.
In fact i think that a farmer with a primary school degree has got more knowledge than you.
He knows that by planting in certain days of the month he would get a good crop.
On the other hand if you  with your uni degree would try to be a farmer you would starve very soon.  

What you think atheism is puts limits on what you think science is.

You don't understand either.

(July 24, 2015 at 12:49 pm)Aristocatt Wrote: A few issues with this account.

Fallacy of Composition.
The example of water need not always apply.  Take for example the constant expansion of the universe, or radioactive decay.

Implicitly you assume Dualism, a philosophical hypothesis must be true.
This is currently a pretty big philosophical debate and has nothing to do with science.  Suffice it to say science has yet to confirm Dualism, but the very claim of dualism makes it a bad hypothesis since it is close to untestable.  So in this part you make a philosophical assertion to make a point about the "anti-scientific" nature of atheism.

Consciousness existing in every cell is a ridiculous assertion.
Consciousness as far as we know from the materialist perspective requires many specific cells organizing in a specific way to provide a certain perspective of our perceptions that allows us to disassociate our actions and body from those of other objects and actions.  This is the theory you assumed away in part 2.
From the Dualist perspective, consciousness is not typically asserted as an essential quality of life.



Based on your assertions, if we assume them to be undeniably true and scientific(they aren't), we would actually have to call the vast majority of theists anti-science as well.

Please, let me keep away from other theists.
Not all Theists are the same.
My theism is based on yoga philosophy while many religious theisms are based on dogmas.
But let us talk about dualism.
Take a car and a driver.
They both need each other to travel.
Also the brain and the consciousness need each other.
There are two factor.
In a way they are stuck together so although they are two the two become one.
When you travel in your car it seems that the difference between you and the car is gone.
The same thing happen with you that decide to start the action of thinking or doing something.
You don't really feel any difference between you and your brain but as soon as your vehicle die
there is a separation.
Would you die when your vehicle die?
Atheism think so that is why atheism is unscientific.