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

[MJ the Skeptical]

1. "In nature the small merge into the big." and "A drop of water will sooner or later merge into the creek." and "The creek will merge into the river and the river will merge into the big ocean."

No to all 3 of these unscientific claims. Ironically, you're scientifically inept in your first sentence, bravo.

2. "A cell is composed of matter and consciousness."

Cells are not conscious nor do they have consciousness, gonna have to ask you for a citation for that testable scientific claim you just made.

3. This consciousness can be tiny as much as you want but nevertheless there is a minute tiny amount of consciousness."

No there isn't even a drop of consciousness in a cell, billions of neuron cells make up consciousness. You fail.

4. "When we eat we absorb these cells, The physical side of these cells build our body but what happen to the consciousness side of the cells?"

The physical side of the cell? as opposed to what? the spiritual side of a cell? or whatever new age woo you believe in...

5. "Will it die or will enter or better say merge into our bigger consciousness?"

Of course that cell dies, but yes, it does become part of that larger thing that ate it, whether it's small like a cell or large like us. What do you think happens to your food? the cells just think to themselves, gee I can't wait to get out of this guy's ass and into a stinky ass sewer and sewage treatment plant.

6. "According an Atheist point of view when the body die also the consciousness die so there is nothing left there other than the physical side that build up our body. Does this belief make any sense?"

There is no one atheist point of view, you get more wrong by the sentence, it's amazing. There are atheists who believe in afterlife stories, there are atheists who don't adhere to proper scientific standards, there are bat-shit crazy atheists who believe all sorts of things. Maybe you should qualify your statement with most atheists or the majority, or some other quantifiable term than a blanket statement of all atheists. And yes, it does make sense that the meat suit you're wearing will rot away and die, and nothing will happen to you as there is no empirical evidence of a spirit or soul.

7. "If it does make sense than why carnivorous people are more aggressive while vegetarians are more relaxed?"

Physiologically we are Omnivores, nobody is strictly a carnivore or they would die of malnutrition. Plus, you made yet another unfounded statement, this time about people who eat meat. Is what you're saying true? maybe, but bring some citations if you ever reply to this.

8. "It seems that what we eat determine the way we act and think and therefore make sense to say that the consciousness of the cells in the food that we are eating merge into our consciousness."

It seems that way? Either it is, or it isn't true. I'd love to see your evidence on this, I generally am curious.

9. "If we follow this line of thinking then we also have to consider what happen when our body die."

We already know what happens, you rot away, and there's no magically soul that comes flying out, they've done plenty of tests on dead bodies. And no, cells are not conscious, that's just new age spin trying to mix religion with science saying, oh cells are conscious, therefore when you die the cells are the ones that bring you to an afterlife, is that where you're going with this weird premise you have?

10. "Will our consciousness die when our body die or will carry on and merge into what our feelings wish to take us?"

Your consciousness is your Brain. Your brain is the thing that makes consciousness, so yes, when your brain does, so do you.

11. "Why would our consciousness die when as we can see in nature nothing die?"

Did your dumbass just say nothing dies? Or that we can't see things die in nature if our consciousness dies? Did I just reply to a troll comment?

12. "The small always merge into the big so to me it is totally UNSCIENTIFIC to say that with the physical death everything die"

Almost everything you've said is easily falsifiable, unscientific and hogwash, including this regurgitated line you started off with. Enjoy the pwnage, friend.

Well, well, so you reckon it is unscientific to say that a body can not possibly live without consciousness?
Even a tiny cell is a body so it obvious that she must have some degree of consciousness.
You talk and talk but you can not demonstrate that something alive like a cell can carry on without consciousness.
Sorry son. Tut Tut
You still live in the mental caves of the prehistory. Indubitably
You think you are smart but the evidence point somewhere else. Smile

A. "Well, well, so you reckon it is unscientific to say that a body can not possibly live without consciousness?"

There is such a thing, it's called a vegetative state. But that wasn't your argument, your unscientific claim was that cells are conscious.

B. "Even a tiny cell is a body so it obvious that she must have some degree of consciousness."

The cell is not defined as a body at all, and no scientist would identify cells as having consciousness, let alone sentience.

C. "You talk and talk but you can not demonstrate that something alive like a cell can carry on without consciousness."

I gave you pointed criticisms, line by line, and you give me this dodging bullshit? Your ADD must be worse than mine.

D. "Sorry son."

Ugh.. idiot. I'm face-palming this very second.

E. "You still live in the mental caves of the prehistory."

Nah, I'll leave that kind of thinking for the religious.

F. "You think you are smart but the evidence point somewhere else.  "

Fucking wow, I asked you for the evidence, produce it or admit you're a pseudo-scientific cultist.