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

[Lucanus]

You don't have to go very far to find out why the energy and consciousness always go hand in hand
like the two pages of the same sheet.
Your body could not function without a mind and the other way around as far as a parallelism exist.

But again, since in our experience we've never seen minds separate from bodies, could you please prove that the mind is a separate entity from the body? What happens to it when it separates from the body? How can you prove that what you say is true?

Bodies are made of energy.
If you could use the energy within a rock you probably could fuel a rocket that take you up in the moon and back.

Bodies (and I mean, living organisms, not rocks) are specific arrangements of matter and energy that are perpetually in flux; they have adapted to respond in the fastest and most efficient ways possible by billions of years of natural selection. The energy within a rock is that of the chemical bonds that compose its crystalline structure. And even then, it would be pretty hard to "use" that energy as a fuel    
Oh, also its potential energy if you put it on a very steep slope, and kinetic energy if you let it roll down that slope; the kinetic energy dissipates with production of sound, heat and the movement of other stuff (dust, air, other rocks) that is hit by our rolling rock.

Atheism is lacking in wisdom.
It rely on physical science and not even that most of the time.
It doesn't know where the consciousness start from.

Atheism is a lack of belief in God(s). Again, you are mistaking it for philosophical naturalism. Many atheists are philosophical naturalists; many others are not. Please use the proper words for stuff. It gets annoying.

"It rely on physical science and not even that most of the time": what the heck? "not even that most of the time"? are you serious?

From what we can reliably know and deduce at this time, we have good reasons to think that consciousness is the product of the activities of the brain. The brain itself is a centre of integration of external and internal stimuli (coming in the form of signals from neurons all over the body) and it's capable of elaborating responses to them in a very short time. Since there is nothing to prove that consciousness is separate from the brain and seeing what the brain is capable of doing on its own (a whole bunch of homeostatic functions that respond to external and internal stimuli), it's pretty reasonable to assume that the brain is responsible of our consciousness. And before you say "you atheists have NO evidence" look up a fucking physiology book. Jeez. I'm studying this shit right now. I'd even lend you my book, it's pretty clear and in a language you can understand.

Humans got consciousness, animals too and here is where it stop.
Atheism can not see that also plants and matter got consciousness.

Humans and most animals in general have nervous systems that allow them to integrate external and internal stimuli and respond to them in an appropriate way. Plants respond to stimuli too, but before saying anything about them, way more research is needed.

Think about it, though. Being "conscious" generally means "being aware of your surroundings". The problem is, we only know awareness from a human perspective, which is a very privileged point of view, as our higher brain functions are particularly developed (and if our brain wasn't linked to our cognitive abilities then you should give another plausible explanation for the size of our brain). As part of our way of seeing things, we generally assume "purpose" as the reasons we do things. What about other living beings though? What about organisms whose brains are much less developed, like all other animals, or organisms that don't have a brain at all, like plants and fungi? What about unicellular organisms? 
What we can see, especially at the cellular level, is physical responses to physical stimuli. No "spiritual consciousness" involved. A cell's awareness of its own surroundings completely depends on its capability of detecting the environment itself, and the cell does so simply by physical means, without any apparent abstract intention or purpose.

One action potential runs through the axon of a neuron and arrives to the presynaptic terminal. This potential makes calcium channels open, calcium comes into the terminal and out the neurotransmitter goes, lighting action potentials in many other neurons. If these mechanisms are altered, our consciousness is altered too - this strongly implies that our consciousness is deeply linked to these processes. So deeply linked to them, in fact, that it's plausible that our consciousness is the result of them.

Physical science can not see any sign of life in rocks so it doesn't recognize consciousness in it.

It's not just "physical science", it's common sense. If you couldn't see any sign of a 500€ note in my pocket, even after turning it inside out, wouldn't you say that I don't have a 500€ note? If I went ahead and claimed that the one in my pocket is a "non-physical 500€", wouldn't it sound a bit like bullshit to you? Would you accept a "non-physical 500€" as payment for anything?

Isn't that obvious that the physical can only deal with physical?
Can your mind be explained by your physical senses like sight, smell, touch and so on?
Naturally not that is why abstract things can not be recognized by physical science.

You are greatly underestimating what our nervous system can do, bud. Seriously, open a physiology book. People have studied this stuff and yes, it is possible. The nervous system is not limited to the special senses; it is a center of integration of functions, and it's really, really complicated.

Abstract ideas are abs-tracted (that means, extracted) from our experience of reality. Would you be able to think about colours if you had no eyes to experience them in the first place? Would you be able to tell what numbers are without experiencing the multiplicity of things, without any sense to tell you even what "things" are in the first place?

We know that the mind exist so why not the consciousness?
But if you think that abstract things like the consciousness do not exist then you can always try
to get rid of your one.
Do you really think you can?  

I'm not saying that the mind or the consciousness (which to me are pretty much synonyms) don't exist. I'm saying that they can be explained in concrete terms by studying the reality we can experience, without deceiving ourselves with unverifiable and unreliable spiritual bullshit.