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

[Redbeard The Pink]

I was on my way to bed but as i saw your disgusting post i hang on for few more minutes.

1) The outer mind can not have knowledge of bad things from your previous life but your superconscious mind
can that is why people born with a good or bad attitude to life.
Nothing happen by good or bad luck.
You carry with you your karma whether you are aware or not.
The evidence that there is karma is that after you pay for your debts you feel so much better within.

2) You got no evidence of whatsoever that the Universe IS blind luck, operating within a system that is governed by consistent physical laws.
None of whatsoever. 

1) "Blah blah blah unsupported assertions blah blah more unsupported assertions blah blah blah..."

Evidence or get the fuck out.

2) At the risk of sounding like a design apologist, Rik, EVERYTHING is evidence that the Universe is a system operated by blind luck within consistent laws. Everything we can find indicates that the Universe is kept moving by some combination of gravity, electromagnetism, the strong atomic force, the weak atomic force, and inertia. Aside from that, it's just a matter of what which things are close enough together to interact. No conscious, deliberate action is required on the part of anyone. For all intents and purposes, the Universe seems to be grinding on with no supervision or guidance whatsoever. There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence to support this assertion, as just about everything in science is supporting me on this one. Nobody makes the Universe happen. It is just happening.

[Kingpin]

I was on my way to bed but as i saw your disgusting post i hang on for few more minutes.

1) The outer mind can not have knowledge of bad things from your previous life but your superconscious mind
can that is why people born with a good or bad attitude to life.
Nothing happen by good or bad luck.
You carry with you your karma whether you are aware or not.
The evidence that there is karma is that after you pay for your debts you feel so much better within.

2) You got no evidence of whatsoever that the Universe IS blind luck, operating within a system that is governed by consistent physical laws.
None of whatsoever. 

1) "Blah blah blah unsupported assertions blah blah more unsupported assertions blah blah blah..."

Evidence or get the fuck out.

2) At the risk of sounding like a design apologist, Rik, EVERYTHING is evidence that the Universe is a system operated by blind luck within consistent laws. Everything we can find indicates that the Universe is kept moving by some combination of gravity, electromagnetism, the strong atomic force, the weak atomic force, and inertia. Aside from that, it's just a matter of what which things are close enough together to interact. No conscious, deliberate action is required on the part of anyone. For all intents and purposes, the Universe seems to be grinding on with no supervision or guidance whatsoever. There is a MOUNTAIN of evidence to support this assertion, as just about everything in science is supporting me on this one. Nobody makes the Universe happen. It is just happening.

Do Newton's laws of motion make a billiard ball move or do they simply describe how it moves and what happens to it after it is struck?  Laws do not create anything.

[robvalue]

Indeed.

You can't "defeat" a weak atheist in any shape or form, because they make no positive claims.

That makes it very hard for people (the people that bother to understand the above point anyway) because they want atheism to be making claims, so they can thwart those claims and make themselves feel better. So they tell atheists what kind of atheists they are (strong atheists as a minimum) and then add on what they believe are the logical consequences of the belief. They then merrily back away at this effigy, and after "defeating" it, they think they've somehow proven atheism wrong. All they've done is made a mess in their bedroom.

Strong atheism is very easy to defend anyway, but the point is that people like Rik require everyone to be strong atheists so they can attack "atheism". They also require them to be philosophical naturalists, which is actually quite rare in my experience. I'll let Rik explain what that means.

Holy, holy Rob.
You are in a total mental mess. 
There is no such a thing as a philosophical naturalist.
Philosophy is all about wisdom and wisdom can not come from a limited arena as the universe
in which the positive and negative always balance each other.
On the contrary the definition given for the word philosophical naturalist mean someone who believe that the natural world is all there is.
How the hell can someone who believe that the natural world is all there is and at the same time talk about philosophy which goes outside the physical world.
Total madness Rob. 

Yes, a philosophical naturalist is someone who believes the natural world is all there is. You continually misrepresent atheists as such, now you're saying such people don't exist?

That is the agreed definition, and it's what I'm talking about. If you want to use your own definitions, that's fine, but you don't get to tell me what I mean when I use words. If you do, I can make more Yoga memes.

No, philosophy is not concerned only with the supernatural, that's again your own made up definition. Philosophy generally deals with abstract ideas.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Do Newton's laws of motion make a billiard ball move or do they simply describe how it moves and what happens to it after it is struck?  Laws do not create anything.

When I say "keeps the Universe moving," I mean it as a figure of speech. The laws of the Universe describe how and why the Universe moves, but they are not the source of the energies that power universal processes. Science is still working on that one.

What I'm saying is that all the evidence science can muster points to the Universe being a thing that "just is." It does not require a creator or any sort of maintenance to work. It is essentially self-explanatory. The more we study it, the more apparent it becomes that there is nobody conscious supervising or influencing it on the cosmic level. The idea of a Universal consciousness that's somehow aware of/controlling everything that's happening explains nothing and raises a shit-ton of questions on its own. It's nothing but a fat, evil "God of the Gaps" argument with a whole bunch of "Burden of Proof" and "Ad Hominem" goons bouncing at the door.

---

Rik, a person's "attitude" isn't a sign of memories of a past life. It's more likely signs of memories from this life. The simple truth is that you think it's justified for people to be punished for crimes that they themselves did not commit because of some karmic ancestor they had who did some bad shit in a "past life." It's every bit as offensive and unsupported as the concept of Original Sin. Do you also support the caste system in India? After all, karma is the entire reasoning behind that, and those lower castes really should take what's coming to them if they want to end up better off in the next life.

Is yoga the reason you're flexible enough to get your head that far up your ass?

[surreptitious57]

The laws of physics are descriptions of observable phenomena and their relationship with other phenomena
However they have no bearing on them themselves. Gravity for example existed before Newton discovered
the formula for it just as general relativity existed before Einstein discovered the formula for that. Currently
there is no theory of quantum gravity but that does not mean that the phenomena itself is non existent. So
while laws describe physical processes they are not part of them as such. For the Universe was functioning
perfectly well for over thirteen billion years before human beings evolved. So would have carried on just as
well had we not. The laws of physics are there for our benefit not the Universes. It has zero need for them

A MIND IS LIKE A PARACHUTE : IT DOES NOT WORK UNLESS IT IS OPEN

[Anomalocaris]

In nature the small merge into the big.
A drop of water will sooner or later merge into the creek.
The creek will merge into the river and the river will merge into the big ocean.
A cell is composed of matter and consciousness.
This consciousness can be tiny as much as you want but nevertheless there is a minute tiny amount of consciousness.
When we eat we absorb these cells.
The physical side of these cells build our body but what happen to the consciousness side of the cells?
Will it die or will enter or better say merge into our bigger consciousness?
According an Atheist point of view when the body die also the consciousness die so there is nothing left there other than
the physical side that build up our body.
Does this belief make any sense?
If it does make sense than why carnivorous people are more aggressive while vegetarians are more relaxed?
It seems that what we eat determine the way we act and think and therefore make sense to say that the consciousness of the
cells in the food that we are eating merge into our consciousness.
If we follow this line of thinking then we also have to consider what happen when our body die.
Will our consciousness die when our body die or will carry on and merge into what our feelings wish to take us?
Why would our consciousness die when as we can see in nature nothing die?
The small always merge into the big so to me it is totally UNSCIENTIFIC to say that with the physical death everything die. 

rik, refrain from trying to use the word "science" in any form.    As events prove, even your omnipotent God himself can't overcome your caliber of ignorance and idiocy to make you begin to grasp any of the meanings of that word.

[Ravenshire]

And now you:

Your dishonesty is showing again.

I've noticed that, like water off a ducks back, knowledge simply rolls off you.

Yeah.      

Well, at least you spared us all your lame denial of having moved the goalposts. Thanks for that.

[Ravenshire]

Would you quit it! You're making it hard for me to build a reputation as a theist hater with your kudos worthy replies!

[Kingpin]

Would you quit it! You're making it hard for me to build a reputation as a theist hater with your kudos worthy replies!

You're a closet theist lover. Cmon admit it. We aren't all westboro loonies.

[robvalue]

I've heard that all atheists are going to be retested in 2016. It's best to start your revision early, so let's get back to basics.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DS1icEssOUM