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

[Lucanus]

Not at all Luc.
The laws of physics are related to the physical aspect which is energy.
Consciousness is not something physical and yet according to yoga goes hand in hand with energy so the physical laws lack half of the whole.

"According to yoga". Seriously? What is the epistemic validity of yoga? Why should we take it seriously as a description of reality? Science works. Does yoga? How so?

Energy without consciousness would and could not follow a direction so it would generate total chaos.
A mind is always required to make sure that chaos is not created.

Nope. The universe acts in a particular way because there are parameters and physical laws that are valid inside of it. Again, if this consciousness was absolutely necessary to make the universe work, it would be really easy to demonstrate its existence.

In nature lower form of lives up to animals are driven by instinct so also in this case there is a force that make sure that chaos is not created.

If you knew anything about biology, you'd realize that there is a big difference between life forms and non-living objects - namely, the fact that organisms have evolved over the course of ~3.7 billion years to respond to external stimuli in order to perpetuate their genetic material.

Energy also follow directions.

Umm what do you mean?

According to the laws of physics energy....... is a property of objects which can be transferred to other objects or converted into different forms, but .......in yoga however first of all everything has energy not just objects but most of all energy is the cosmic consciousness (God) thought waves which created the universe so even the space, air, light, water beside the matter are compose of energy.
In this way the energy that create the space create the air and so on until the matter is created.
So where there is energy there is also consciousness.
One can not be separate from the other.
They all sprung out from God mind at the same time.   

Any evidence for all these ridiculous woo? If there were "thought waves" creating life, the universe and everything, again, it would be pretty easy to point at their interactions with matter and prove their existence.

First of all let me say that atheists pop up all the time saying that consciousness can not exist outside the brain.
Have they got any solid evidence to state so?
NO.
By not having any evidence at all they break their own rule that say that statements should always have evidence or else are sort of rubbish.

Oh. My. Fucking. God. The evidence for consciousness being a product of brain activity is right under your nose. If the brain (especially the neocortex, which is especially developed in humans, who - guess what - are the animals with the best cognitive and metacognitive abilities) is active, then a subject is conscious. If the brain is not active (e.g. brain dead subjects) the subject is not. If parts of the brain are removed or damaged or if the brain chemistry is changed (e.g. by drugs) consciousness is altered. And there are tons and tons of studies which confirm these facts.

This is simply what we get from the observation of reality:
There is a brain ==> there is a consciousness
There is no brain ==> there is no consciousness

So, since there is no evidence proving the existence of a consciousness outside of a brain, YOU are to bring the evidence. Burden of proof mate, I explained it to you two posts ago. Remember those 500€?

By me saying that consciousness can live outside the brain once the brain is dead i at least have thousand
of NDEs evidences.
Not only that but it make sense that when the vehicle rot away you are not bound to rot away as well.

NDEs are at the very least really unreliable as evidence, because they are not unequivocally happening outside of a brain. The fact itself that the people who experience NDEs come back to their senses means that their brain was not damaged irreversibly - that is, not dead at all! It's "*near* death experiences", not " dead people coming back to life". There is no evidence for people ever coming back to life.

Your thought is very weak Luc.
Life is very short.
You are stuck inside a body.
In the same way your journey in a vehicle from point A to point B is also short.
You can get out from your vehicle during your journey so you can say that you are not stuck to your vehicle and therefore you are separate but by terminate your journey from point A to point B you defeat the purpose of going from point A to point B.
You can also put an end to your life by committing suicide and in this way you will defeat the purpose of advancing toward the goal of life so in this way you can say that you are a separate entity from your body or vehicle but it wouldn't make any sense after all.
The reality is that we are fully connected until death brake the parallelism between body-brain and consciousness.

Again with this analogy?
Listen up, I am a *separate* entity from my car. This fact can be easily demonstrated.

As I explained to you before, there is a HUGE correlation between brain activity and the expression of consciousness. This correlation is so deep (open a book of neurophysiology if you're interested) that it makes a lot of sense that consciousness is a product of brain activity. Now, if you think that it is a separate entity, please show to us how it is possible and how it works without a brain.

What is the realm of spirituality? How do you prove its existence? And why shouldn't physical evidence count when "energy", which affects all of the "physical realm" is supposedly "spiritual" in nature? If the spiritual interacts with the physical, shouldn't we be able to tell? If so, why? And if not, why bother with postulating something that can't be experienced at all (and whose  existence therefore doesn't mean anything)?

Can you please answer these questions? Because this is not an answer to any of these:

You presume that energy and consciousness can not go hand in hand but the evidence is quite clear.
You eat meat and you feel aggressive while if you eat vegetarian food you don't feel aggressive.
What this means other than indicate that the energy goes hand in hand with consciousness which in these two cases give different results.  

BULLSHIT. First off, could you please substantiate your claim that eating meat makes you more aggressive? That is an easily verifiable claim, so, if you didn't pull it out of your ass, show me a peer-reviewed observational study that confirms it.

Even if your claim were true, in what way would it prove your point? If anything, it would just prove (as if it was needed) that the chemistry of the nervous system alterates, influences and ultimately controls consciousness, because food is nothing but chemical substances necessary for an organism's survival.

If food has other "spiritual properties" that cannot be explained by chemistry, then PROVE IT.