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

[Angrboda]

The more I read about Bruce Lipton, the more obvious it becomes that he is nothing but a new age fraud.  You couldn't have picked a more untrustworthy source for your information.  He has a self-published book, The Biology of Belief: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter, & Miracles which apparently is little more than a marketing tool for an unproven therapy, PSYCH-K.

It's clear that you chose this source because it echoed what you wanted to hear, rather than because it is a reliable source.  That's typical of your 'citations' -- you don't care whether it's likely to be true, only that it aligns with what you believe.  This makes your 'researches' worthless as they are nothing but an exercise in confirmation bias.
You are an idiot, and your sources suck.  And to think that you used to criticize me for using Wikipedia articles; what a hypocrite you are.

Imbecile.  
Lipton has studied all his life on the subject.
He got several degree so he is an expert in his field.
It is natural that there is always someone who criticize someone else.

So what's your point here? That we shouldn't pay attention to criticism? That all sources are equally credible? They aren't. Is it that we should ignore criticism when a person is roundly condemned by everyone in the field? That's awfully convenient for you. ("Lipton remains on the sidelines of conventional discussions of epigenetics. Mainstream science has basically ignored him." -- Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment) The truth is that criticisms matter and some criticisms are more meaningful than others. And the criticism that Bruce Lipton has accumulated by being a charlatan and a quack are quite relevant and meaningful.

Here's what Wikipedia says about the applied kinesiology which Lipton is pushing with his book:

Nearly all AK tests are subjective, relying solely on practitioner assessment of muscle response. Specifically, some studies have shown test-retest reliability, inter-tester reliability, and accuracy to have no better than chance correlations. Some skeptics have argued that there is no scientific understanding of the proposed underlying theory of a viscerosomatic relationship, and the efficacy of the modality is unestablished in some cases and doubtful in others. Skeptics have also dismissed AK as "quackery," "magical thinking," and a misinterpretation of the ideomotor effect. It has also been criticized on theoretical and empirical grounds, and characterized as pseudoscience. With only anecdotal accounts claiming to provide positive evidence for the efficacy of the practice, a review of peer-reviewed studies concluded that the "evidence to date does not support the use of [AK] for the diagnosis of organic disease or pre/subclinical conditions."

In 2014, a randomized, double-blind trial was conducted to evaluate applied kinesiology results. The output of that study equated successful identification of a material via applied kinesiology techniques as statistically no better than chance. The summation of the work concluded that "The research published by the Applied Kinesiology field itself is not to be relied upon, and in the experimental studies that do meet accepted standards of science, Applied Kinesiology has not demonstrated that it is a useful or reliable diagnostic tool upon which health decisions can be based."
[emphasis mine]

That's scientific studies showing that Lipton's chosen therapy to push works no better than chance.

That's a meaningful criticism.