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

[Little Rik]

Wrong, wrong, wrong.
I can have an absence of belief because i do not know and i can not believe because i came across the issue and i do not believe in that.  

You're conflating the reasons for having disbelief with the act of disbelieving thus misleading yourself into thinking that there's a semantic difference when there is none. 'Having disbelief' and 'having an absence of belief' are the same thing and the reasons why you might reach that position are irrelevant to that definition.

Wrong, wrong, wrong Ben.
A lot of people are adamant that they know what philosophy is all about but they clearly don't.
People confuse wisdom with being smart, intelligent, creative or other form of physical attributes but wisdom is very much different.
Wisdom is all about knowing how to proceed toward the goal of life.
Nothing more nothing less.
This is the original Greek meaning of philosophy.
Considering that in this physical universe there can not be real progress as the positive and negative always go hand in hand is therefore obvious that wisdom relate to spirituality and from here we can understand that atheism and wisdom are at the two extreme so it is impossible to disbelieve by relying
on wisdom.

What's that got to do with what I wrote? You claimed, and I quote, "You just can not disbelieve on philosophical ground". It's a fact that people do. You are wrong. Are you going to admit it or not?

Wrong again Ben.
As explained above a lot of people confuse the word wisdom with other attributes.
It doesn't really matter whether you call yourself a philosopher or not.
I can call myself with any attribute i like to be called, that doesn't mean that i really am what i like to call myself.

The people to whom I refer are not 'calling themselves' philosophers, rather they have earned the title through academic excellence and demonstrated practice. Once again, you are wrong. Are you going to admit it ir not?

Yes i do Ben.
What about you?  

The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

Yes, I do...

To do what?
If you mean how to get more wisdom then i do know.
What about you Ben?  

You don't know how to practice philosophy, academically. If you did, you would not be making the errors you do.

Wrong again Ben.
You may be fed up or sickened by hearing something stupid just when you are enjoying or just after you enjoy your meal but is up to you to think the opposite.

You've misunderstood what I wrote. Please read again. But since this is a derail, I'm not going to waste more time on it.

Yes i do Ben.
As i previously said you don't have to look further than your body-mind to know how all the system works and That guy just did the opposite.
He look outside rather than inside.
Matter, water, light-energy, air, space, mind are all within us so by looking outside and not inside Hawking got all wrong.

Actually you do. You have to. If you want to understand the nature of existence, you have to examine all of existence. What you seem to have done is read some things you liked the sound of, thought about it to yourself for a while, tested none of it and assumed yourself correct because you agree with what you think you like. That's the worst kind of delusional methodology: self-referencialism is no path to wisdom at all.

Wrong again Ben.
To know what is good or bad for us you have to listen deep within.
But how can you listen deep within and knowing what is good or bad when you have NOT trained the art to go deep within?

A little bit of 'what does you bad' can do you good. Didn't you know that?

When i was in Fiji i was prepared to learn from a simple farmer with little intellectual knowledge.
He could climb a toll coconut tree to get fresh drinking water and grow food next to the rain forest.
I had and still have extreme respect for that guy but why should i have respect for intellectuals that still masturbate their brains in the futile search for the real solution to human emancipation?

You discount intellect because a man once climbed a tree?!? Jesus wept, you're an idiot.

Your set of processes relate to the nervous system which has nothing to do with inner and outer mind.
So wrong once again Ben.

No, your definitions of 'inner and outer mind' are undemonstrable nonsense, designed to support an irrational worldview and dualistic, supernatural belief. My definitions of 'autonomic and voluntary systems' are demonstrably factual, neurological definitions of our mental processes; supportive of no particular worldview or belief system as they are simply the facts of how our brains work.

Smart answer Ben.
Unfortunately it doesn't relate to me.  

And this is why we can't have nice things...

The problem Ben is that i never find any atheists that do not rely on science.  

Then you're either not looking very hard or you're not listening when people tell you so.

An old friend of mine (we grew up together) was very interested in reading Kant and other philosophers since the young age.
He later became a university professor in philosophy (Bologna university).
Occasionally we exchange a conversation via internet.
He knows so many things about  AS YOU SAY how to practice philosophy, academically but one thing that he doesn't know is how to raise his consciousness level.
Theory and practice are two different things.
You can know so many things but these things are not able to raise your consciousness level a bit.
I on the other hand know little about the way philosophy is taught academically speaking but i do practice
a science that is able to raise my consciousness level so at the end i get somewhere while people who are only engaged in theory get nowhere.
This is the real philosophy, all the rest is just like a soap bubble that will burst leaving the dreamer with nothing.