Atheism the unscientific belief (part one, two, and three)

[Lucanus]

Oh jeez. Here we go again.

[Longhorn]

Oh jeez. Here we go again.

Do I feel......smoke?

[robvalue]

If you change the definition of consciousness to "a meaningless property that everything has" then we're sorted. Rocks have consciousness, and we can all agree.

Consciousness has to be one of the most fascinating and elusive concepts. So close to home, yet so far from understood. And so easy to talk shit about and create wild interpretations based on nothing.

[Esquilax]

Ok I don't even know where to begin on responding to this....dust has consciousness??  Redbeard, let's just leave him a cookie and walk away....

It is very funny but it is me that laugh. 
Atheism say that the consciousness is a product of the brain
but the brain is made of matter.
So according to the atheist logic matter can deliver consciousness.
The dust is matter and the brain is also matter.
Are you racist that believe that some matter can deliver consciousness while other matter can not?
It is just hilarious how you go around laughing at your own stupidity. 

Hey, yeah: just like how atheist believe that water is wet, and water is matter. Therefore, atheists must believe that all matter is wet, right?

You're a fucking moron, Rik.

[Kingpin]

If you change the definition of consciousness to "a meaningless property that everything has" then we're sorted. Rocks have consciousness, and we can all agree.

Consciousness has to be one of the most fascinating and elusive concepts. So close to home, yet so far from understood. And so easy to talk shit about and create wild interpretations based on nothing.

Very true Rob.  Ask someone to explain what consciousness IS.  We can explain its effects and perceptions, relation to brain, etc.  But what IS it?  Same with energy.  What is it?  Just because we don't know what it is doesn't means it's not real nor should we right off a person as an intellectual because they cannot explain it.  The simple answer, "We don't know".

[robvalue]

Indeed. I am more likely to write someone off who thinks they can explain them. "Don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer. I have my doubts about whether we will ever know.

We don't experience the world; we experience our brain's interpretation of the world. And we do so via an extremely bizarre process, which can only be described as an "emergent property" which somehow seems to create awareness.

[Arrogant Christian]

Honestly, I don't feel like going through 22 pages of this bs to see if someone posted about this before, so..... You do know that on Earth, the tendency is for things to split apart and dissipate right? There is this thing called entropy, and it says ordered states are less favorable than disordered states (ex. smaller bodies of water less favorable than big ones), rivers get larger because one river meets up with another river, not because they are inexorably drawn towards each other. Therefore, by your argument, the "soul" should dissipate and become nothing.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Which is why when the body dies, so does the consciousness.

They need each other when exist a parallelism among the two.
As soon as this parallelism is gone because the body-brain die then there is no more reason why the consciousness should go along the dead body-mind and die as well.
She is not that stupid to get stuck to a rotting body-mind.
The same thing will happen to you when your car will collapse.
Are you that stupid to collapse with your car?
You never thought about it IAT, did you? 

[Arrogant Christian]

They need each other when exist a parallelism among the two.
As soon as this parallelism is gone because the body-brain die then there is no more reason why the consciousness should go along the dead body-mind and die as well.
She is not that stupid to get stuck to a rotting body-mind.
The same thing will happen to you when your car will collapse.
Are you that stupid to collapse with your car?
You never thought about it IAT, did you? 

Okay

I was trying to oppose Rik. At first, I thought he was just a pantheist or whatever,but after seeing that and the few other comments I've read on this thread from Rik, I think I'm just gonna leave it alone..... Not a big fan of trying to convince crazy.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Having incomplete knowledge isn't the same as knowing nothing, though, and the gaps in knowledge certainly aren't license to draw crazy assumptions about what consciousness is or isn't.

Rik, the entire problem with your asinine argument (well, there are many problems with it, but let's focus) is that you're attempting to misplace the burden of proof.

You are claiming that a mysterious force called "dormant consciousness" lives inside every scrap of matter in the Universe, then when confronted with the fact that there is no evidence for that whatsoever, your only response is "But you can't prove that it doesn't exist, so I can continue to assert that it does. What do you think you know everything or something? Haha, you're stupid! Here's a picture of a donkey."

Science does not work that way. If you are claiming that something exists, the burden of proof is yours because it is impossible to "prove" that anything doesn't exist. It is possible, however, to prove that something does exist; it often takes only one tiny scrap of evidence to establish that something does indeed exist. This means the null hypothesis (nonexistence) is the default belief for anything that can't show evidence of itself.

Until you produce evidence of this "dormant consciousness" you speak of, you're only making yourself look like an idiot by calling people stupid and backward for not believing you.