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

[drfuzzy]

Here you go, you disingenuous twit:
Dogma: A principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

That is not a bad explanation but why should it be laid down by an authority only?
Anybody can create dogmas but something is missing anyway.
What is missing is that this so called truth come without evidence therefore can not be the truth UNTIL
evidence is shown that is why the atheists statements that are not followed by solid evidence can not be considered the truth and a statement without evidence land in the corral of dogmas.
There is no other place to be.  

What?  
What does that gobbledygook of an attempt at a sentence say?

I THINK he might be trying the old "I can't prove my assertions, but YOU can't prove consciousness exists without a body either, so na-na-na-na-na poopy head".

That's exactly IT, though.  We need scientific proof to consider a claim.  You don't need proof.  We are at an impasse until proof is given.   Until you have measurable proof, we cannot accept your assertions of non-corporeal intelligence.