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

[Esquilax]

Indeed. He won't acknowledge the need for others to verify your results. Apparently you just do it on your own and claim victory. I guess I'm just a dumb atheist who dogmatically insists on repeatability.

I'd be interested to hear of one single scientific theory that was not peer reviewed. Theory. Not hypothesis.

Rik thinks there's something called "intuitional science," which he repeatedly insisted is a real thing in the last debacle of a thread he was in, and basically it's just making things up, feeling that they are true... and you're done. Science has happened.

He's desperate to grab up all the credibility he can for his ravings, unwilling to concede that there's more work that needs to be done before you could call that respectable, and arrogantly unable to even consider that he might not be right on every point. He has not a shred of an idea of what science is, and will not accept correction.

You'd be better off talking to a brick wall; the wall won't think it has the right to insult your intelligence for not following his "I thought of this, therefore science" crap.

[robvalue]

Indeed. I'm surprised he can't see the problem with that method. Imagine thousands of intuitional scientists all working alone, all declaring their own wildly different results to be the truth. What then?

An all-in wrestling match is what.

[JesusHChrist]

Imagine thousands of intuitional scientists all working alone, all declaring their own wildly different results to be the truth. What then?

Sounds like religious belief.

[Aristocatt]

A few issues with this account.

Fallacy of Composition.
The example of water need not always apply. Take for example the constant expansion of the universe, or radioactive decay.

Implicitly you assume Dualism, a philosophical hypothesis must be true.
This is currently a pretty big philosophical debate and has nothing to do with science. Suffice it to say science has yet to confirm Dualism, but the very claim of dualism makes it a bad hypothesis since it is close to untestable. So in this part you make a philosophical assertion to make a point about the "anti-scientific" nature of atheism.

Consciousness existing in every cell is a ridiculous assertion.
Consciousness as far as we know from the materialist perspective requires many specific cells organizing in a specific way to provide a certain perspective of our perceptions that allows us to disassociate our actions and body from those of other objects and actions. This is the theory you assumed away in part 2.
From the Dualist perspective, consciousness is not typically asserted as an essential quality of life.



Based on your assertions, if we assume them to be undeniably true and scientific(they aren't), we would actually have to call the vast majority of theists anti-science as well.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

To all the new people (welcome, btw ), a quick check of Rik's posting history will tell you he has a level 10 immunity to facts and scientific discourse and has maxed out his pseudo-science woo stats, even gaining the 'Deepak Chopra ultra' perk, a perk not even attained by wizard of woo himself.

[KevinM1]

To all the new people (welcome, btw ), a quick check of Rik's posting history will tell you he has a level 10 immunity to facts and scientific discourse and has maxed out his pseudo-science woo stats, even gaining the 'Deepak Chopra ultra' perk, a perk not even attained by wizard of woo himself.

In short:

[Chas]

A few issues with this account.

Fallacy of Composition.
The example of water need not always apply.  Take for example the constant expansion of the universe, or radioactive decay.

Implicitly you assume Dualism, a philosophical hypothesis must be true.
This is currently a pretty big philosophical debate and has nothing to do with science.  Suffice it to say science has yet to confirm Dualism, but the very claim of dualism makes it a bad hypothesis since it is close to untestable.  So in this part you make a philosophical assertion to make a point about the "anti-scientific" nature of atheism.

Consciousness existing in every cell is a ridiculous assertion.
Consciousness as far as we know from the materialist perspective requires many specific cells organizing in a specific way to provide a certain perspective of our perceptions that allows us to disassociate our actions and body from those of other objects and actions.  This is the theory you assumed away in part 2.
From the Dualist perspective, consciousness is not typically asserted as an essential quality of life.



Based on your assertions, if we assume them to be undeniably true and scientific(they aren't), we would actually have to call the vast majority of theists anti-science as well.

Dualism is incoherent.  There is no mechanism.

All of the evidence from neuroscience supports the mind being entirely brain-based.  Further investigation will strengthen that.

So, in that sense, the absence of dualism is testable and being tested already in labs around the world.

[Longhorn]

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

You clearly have a flawed understanding of science everything.

I fixed it ._.

[Aristocatt]

A few issues with this account.

Fallacy of Composition.
The example of water need not always apply.  Take for example the constant expansion of the universe, or radioactive decay.

Implicitly you assume Dualism, a philosophical hypothesis must be true.
This is currently a pretty big philosophical debate and has nothing to do with science.  Suffice it to say science has yet to confirm Dualism, but the very claim of dualism makes it a bad hypothesis since it is close to untestable.  So in this part you make a philosophical assertion to make a point about the "anti-scientific" nature of atheism.

Consciousness existing in every cell is a ridiculous assertion.
Consciousness as far as we know from the materialist perspective requires many specific cells organizing in a specific way to provide a certain perspective of our perceptions that allows us to disassociate our actions and body from those of other objects and actions.  This is the theory you assumed away in part 2.
From the Dualist perspective, consciousness is not typically asserted as an essential quality of life.



Based on your assertions, if we assume them to be undeniably true and scientific(they aren't), we would actually have to call the vast majority of theists anti-science as well.

Dualism is incoherent.  There is no mechanism.

All of the evidence from neuroscience supports the mind being entirely brain-based.  Further investigation will strengthen that.

So, in that sense, the absence of dualism is testable and being tested already in labs around the world.

I disagree with the idea that dualism is incoherent. You are right though, in another sense. I may gave provided to positive an account of dualism as a hypothesis. It is one which has no evidence, and relies on the ignorance of man a much as god does.

Sorry about that, I was too focused on rejecting the line of reasoning as having nothing to do with science, and not focused enough on providing an accurate account of the concept of materialism vs dualism.

[Ravenshire]

Does this belief make any sense?

No.

But, in your defense, I've never read anything written by you that did.