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

[Little Rik]

Why all the creation wish to go up and not down?  
For up i mean towards more consciousness.

It's not. Our physical universe is rushing towards entropy and heat death. Long before that happens, expansion will mean that large bodies of matter are so far apart as to be undetectable. Your lack of knowledge appauls me.

Guessing, guessing and more guessing.
Energy never die.
You can't get rid of it.
There will be changes of course but not death.
Be positive Ben.
The consciousness come also from the same source as energy.
The future is bright but can also be hell if you keep your negative attitude.  

[Redbeard The Pink]

Ok, now you're literally just gibbering out word salad. Again.


There's no evidence that the Universe is a creation at all. It might not have a creator. Evidence seems to indicate that we certainly don't need one to explain how the Universe got here.
There's no evidence that the Universe is moving toward a more "conscious" state. Living organisms sometimes evolve better brains with higher consciousness as they adapt to conditions around them, but there's no evidence that anything else is "going up," as you describe. The Universe isn't moving toward consciousness, it's moving toward equilibrium. You know what equilibrium is, right?
Oh, who am I kidding? Of course you don't.

Holy, holy, holy Santa.  
Why you are so mean to me beanie by asking me such a hard question?  
Now i am in real trouble?
Who will helping me?  
I always thought that equilibrium means balance and for balance i intend a stage in which the positive and negative are in perfect equilibrium but no your deep philosophical question must intend something much more deep that that.  
But just in case that LR is correct that means that your logic get flushed down the toilet because anyone looking for more consciousness are not happy with a situation of equilibrium.  
They want progress not equilibrium which is a stage of no progress no regress.  
So no beanie once again you are left down in the gutter which is worse than equilibrium.  

You're so god-damn dumb, Rik. How do you even remember to breathe? Seriously. Do they give you some kind of breathing machine to make sure you don't forget?


That definition of equilibrium, like your neural pathways, is vastly oversimplified. When I talk about Universal equilibrium, I'm referring to a balance of ALL natural energy (temperature, charge, gravity, inertia, etc.). I'm not making reference to a balance between your imaginary friends, Yin and Yang.

[Ben Davis]

Guessing, guessing and more guessing.

Nope. According to the current evidence, it's the best prediction for the future of the universe.

Energy never die.
You can't get rid of it.

So you don't know what entropy means. #unsurprised

There will be changes of course but not death.
Be positive Ben.
The consciousness come also from the same source as energy.

No.... consciousness is an emergent property of brains (or equivalent systems - just to make sure we cover off plants).

The future is bright but can also be hell if you keep your negative attitude.  

Realism =/= negativity.

[Little Rik]

Guessing, guessing and more guessing.

Nope. According to the current evidence, it's the best prediction for the future of the universe.

Energy never die.
You can't get rid of it.

So you don't know what entropy means. #unsurprised

There will be changes of course but not death.
Be positive Ben.
The consciousness come also from the same source as energy.

No.... consciousness is an emergent property of brains (or equivalent systems - just to make sure we cover off plants).

The future is bright but can also be hell if you keep your negative attitude.  

Realism =/= negativity.

Here we go again with the same unproven so called evidence that the....... consciousness is an emergent property of brains.........
Get real Ben.
Until the day that your so called evidence can be proved it is all a guessing so please stop pretending that is evidence.
What about all the rest with entropy and a possible end of the universe?
Guessing, guessing and more guessing.
Scientists come up with guessing all the time but these guessing that too often are taken as golden truth by gullible idiots are time after time cast in the rubbish bin of history to be replaced by more guessing.
There is no end in sight and the very reason is because physical science can not in any way understand how the whole system works.
These scientists just can't get in their mind that consciousness is at the top and matter at the bottom so the cycle go from top to bottom (creation) to then retrace the way up (evolution) in order to complete the cycle.  

[Little Rik]

Holy, holy, holy Santa.  
Why you are so mean to me beanie by asking me such a hard question?  
Now i am in real trouble?
Who will helping me?  
I always thought that equilibrium means balance and for balance i intend a stage in which the positive and negative are in perfect equilibrium but no your deep philosophical question must intend something much more deep that that.  
But just in case that LR is correct that means that your logic get flushed down the toilet because anyone looking for more consciousness are not happy with a situation of equilibrium.  
They want progress not equilibrium which is a stage of no progress no regress.  
So no beanie once again you are left down in the gutter which is worse than equilibrium.  

You're so god-damn dumb, Rik. How do you even remember to breathe? Seriously. Do they give you some kind of breathing machine to make sure you don't forget?


That definition of equilibrium, like your neural pathways, is vastly oversimplified. When I talk about Universal equilibrium, I'm referring to a balance of ALL natural energy (temperature, charge, gravity, inertia, etc.). I'm not making reference to a balance between your imaginary friends, Yin and Yang.

Your previous post started with........There's no evidence that the Universe is a creation at all..........but wait a minute beanie.
In this universe there are things or elements as you mention (temperature, charge, gravity, inertia..) that
are not driven by a consciousness like in humans and then you got plants and animals that got a little bit of consciousness so everything in this universe follow different ways.
Animals are driven by instinct while elements in this universe such as space, air, light-energy, water and matter follow a different system.
Now when you say that .....There's no evidence that the Universe is a creation at all......
you also can not explain why a continuous transformation of elements lead to more consciousness.
When the consciousness get bigger like in humans the equilibrium that is part and parcel of lower type of consciousness and the five fundamental element that compose the universe doesn't apply anymore.
Humans want progress not equilibrium.
Let the equilibrium be part and parcel of the physical universe and progress part and parcel of intelligent humans.  

[SofaKingHigh]

You've done plenty of your own study here I take it, care to share?

That is funny Sofa.
Atheists here think that this study is valid because it is done by experts.
Actually i do not say that these experts are a bunch of idiots.
Not at all Sofa.
In fact they must be expert in their field of activities.
The only problem as i already pointed out to you is that they try to enter a field that
is different from their field and therefore require new study which they so far haven't undertaken.
Not only that.
There is a lot more.
Even if you undertake that study that would allow you to understand how that system works is not
certain that you will get any positive result.
Somebody once said......IF YOU WISH GOD TO GIVE YOU SOMETHING TWO "PEOPLE" MUST AGREE....YOU AND GOD.
Considering that that experiment was all about finding out about something not related to what we human think is normal then we are entering God realm if of course we may think God exist.
My understanding is that this experiment if allow to succeed it would go against the principle of learning by  
our own effort defeating in this way the purpose of creation.
No wonder it didn't succeed.  

"The only problem as i already pointed out to you is that they try to enter a field that

is different from their field and therefore require new study which they so far haven't undertaken."

Absolute rubbish, the study into NDE's was run by Dr Sam Parnia....guess what his job is little Prik?  He is the director of resuscitation research at the State University of New York.  I'd say that would make a study into NDE's EXACTLY his field. 

Just another point, before the experiment, he believed a load of mumb-jumbo bullshit that you do about an afterlife too....he found no evidence, none.  Not one tiny shred of evidence.

Sounds to me like little Prik is talking bullshit again.

[SofaKingHigh]

You're so god-damn dumb, Rik. How do you even remember to breathe? Seriously. Do they give you some kind of breathing machine to make sure you don't forget?


That definition of equilibrium, like your neural pathways, is vastly oversimplified. When I talk about Universal equilibrium, I'm referring to a balance of ALL natural energy (temperature, charge, gravity, inertia, etc.). I'm not making reference to a balance between your imaginary friends, Yin and Yang.

Your previous post started with........There's no evidence that the Universe is a creation at all..........but wait a minute beanie.
In this universe there are things or elements as you mention (temperature, charge, gravity, inertia..) that
are not driven by a consciousness like in humans and then you got plants and animals that got a little bit of consciousness so everything in this universe follow different ways.
Animals are driven by instinct while elements in this universe such as space, air, light-energy, water and matter follow a different system.
Now when you say that .....There's no evidence that the Universe is a creation at all......
you also can not explain why a continuous transformation of elements lead to more consciousness.
When the consciousness get bigger like in humans the equilibrium that is part and parcel of lower type of consciousness and the five fundamental element that compose the universe doesn't apply anymore.
Humans want progress not equilibrium.
Let the equilibrium be part and parcel of the physical universe and progress part and parcel of intelligent humans.  

Absolute word scrabble that means nothing, absolutely nothing.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Your previous post started with........There's no evidence that the Universe is a creation at all..........but wait a minute beanie.
In this universe there are things or elements as you mention (temperature, charge, gravity, inertia..) that
are not driven by a consciousness like in humans and then you got plants and animals that got a little bit of consciousness so everything in this universe follow different ways.
Animals are driven by instinct while elements in this universe such as space, air, light-energy, water and matter follow a different system.
Now when you say that .....There's no evidence that the Universe is a creation at all......
you also can not explain why a continuous transformation of elements lead to more consciousness.
When the consciousness get bigger like in humans the equilibrium that is part and parcel of lower type of consciousness and the five fundamental element that compose the universe doesn't apply anymore.
Humans want progress not equilibrium.
Let the equilibrium be part and parcel of the physical universe and progress part and parcel of intelligent humans.  

Absolute word scrabble that means nothing, absolutely nothing.

Sooo...I would have responded myself, but this is pretty much all I would have said 


You literally just Chopra'd your way into a nonsense-salad, Rik. Again.


I think your real problem is that you've spent so much time abusing language that your brain doesn't understand basic concepts any more.

[Ben Davis]

Here we go again with the same unproven so called evidence that the....... consciousness is an emergent property of brains.........
Get real Ben.
Until the day that your so called evidence can be proved it is all a guessing so please stop pretending that is evidence.
What about all the rest with entropy and a possible end of the universe?
Guessing, guessing and more guessing.

What you keep calling 'guesses' are demonstrable, fact-based conclusions resulting from detailed, scientific examination of evidence. Since you won't take my word for it, here's evidence of consciousness resulting from neurology and the way the universe is likely to end (as you can see there are competing theories but the smart money's on 'flatness').

Scientists come up with guessing all the time but these guessing that too often are taken as golden truth by gullible idiots are time after time cast in the rubbish bin of history to be replaced by more guessing.

Wrong. They're demonstrable. They have to be or else they wouldn't be science.

There is no end in sight and the very reason is because physical science can not in any way understand how the whole system works.

It's the only process we've created which has even a ghost of a chance at achieving that. Why? Because it can demonstrate reliable results.

These scientists just can't get in their mind that consciousness is at the top and matter at the bottom so the cycle go from top to bottom (creation) to then retrace the way up (evolution) in order to complete the cycle.  

That's because there's no reliable evidence to support such a claim. None. You have nothing.

[JBrentonK]

Little Rik:

They are not going to understand you, they are admittedly blinded by their atheism, they will not argue for the existence of God at all. They will simply continue to repeate the same moronic stuff, over and over again, and never come to an actual "fact of the matter" as you have apparently done numberous times above. Every time you come upon a proof of your theory, they will say, "that is nonsense!" and then quietly shutup. Like redbeard thepink and sofa king have done above. Honestly, you can NOT blame them because that's all they do. They will even admit it. And that really shines upon their stupidity. But not even that matters to them rik, as you have demonestrated, perhaps you can get to them if you just keep up the good work. I really don't know how well your doing in this thread, but I would assume you are doing WONDERFULLY, because it's 133 pages long. It will be pretty hard though, even as smart as you seem to be. At least you are showing them how to debate. God is actually self evident. And you are proving this in a most elaborate manner.... Congradulations.