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

[Homeless Nutter]

You fail once again Nutter.
[...]

You mean - you have no answer and no proof? Only personal attacks and childish tantrums, as usual? Yeah - exactly what I expected from someone, who worships an unclean fakir and a criminal, like Sarkar.

Do you sometimes wonder why everyone laughs at you? Does that make you feel good? Do you sometimes wish you'd paid attention in school, instead of wanking your little brain away and selling your a** to a cult for some magic beans?

Tell me, Rikki - I wanna learn what it's like to be a simple life-form...

[Angrboda]

How do you know?  Have you looked? What's your evidence?  You've just repeated your prior assertion without adding anything to it.

I certainly have the evidence yog.  
I never been able to touch, see or smell the mind or the consciousness but i am able to use my senses to
perceive the matter, water, light, air and space.  

First off, it's locked inside heads.  So there's a mundane reason for that which doesn't have anything to do with consciousness not being physical.

Second, this is an argument from ignorance and so your conclusion doesn't follow.  You can't conclude things based on what you don't know or haven't seen.

So in two tries you've failed to produce good evidence for your contention.  Care to try again?

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. ... In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

Wikipedia | Argument from ignorance

[ComradeMeow]

Where is Eugenics when we need it, goddamn it annoys me that people lack the intelligence to realize how bad their arguments are. When you make failed arguments on forums you should realize you don't have to post until you realize your argument makes sound sense. This is not a debate in person where you can't wait a day before posting to get your facts straight, geesh!

[Edwardo Piet]

Eugenics is a tad far.

[Red_Wind]

Has already been established that there is No evidence that with the physical death everything is over. (Correct)
Has already been established that there is NO evidence that we got the consciousness that we got thanks to previous generation. (Debatable)
Has already been established that there is No evidence that God does not exist so everything is possible. (Correct)
In the physical arena the small is attracted to the big so is quite possible that our small consciousness is attracted by a bigger and infinite consciousness.
All it is possible. (Absence of evidence)
The problem however is how to find out where is the truth and how the system works. (Correct)
Science is all about finding out the truth. (Correct, in some cases)
Nobody invent anything.(Incorrect)
People only discover something.(Incorrect)
What we discover today is most probably already been discovered in far away more evolved planets in far away solar systems and what we will discover tomorrow is something likely already been discovered in other places so the knowledge is everywhere and the best way to discover more knowledge is to keep our awareness open to all possibilities. (Absence of evidence)
Few atheists are open to possibilities while most of them are not. (Incorrect, most Atheists are very open minded)
Physically speaking our body works very well if our arteries are not clogged up with impurities so the blood flow freely. (Correct...)
Mentally speaking is the same. (Correct...)
Dogmas or false truth prevent the free flow of what is true. (Correct...)
Our awareness must be open to all possibilities. (Correct...)
This is the only way to reach the truth but considering that atheism in general is build on dogmas like
believing that with the physical death is all over and other believes based on no evidence than is clear that the flow of truth will never reach their inner self.
As the heart bring life to all the body also the cosmic awareness bring the truth to the inner self. (Incorrect)
There is no need to try to invent anything. (Incorrect)
All is already there. (Debatable)
All is needed is to allow the flow to run freely that is why a belief like atheism that prevent this flow of truth is unscientific.  :(Incorrect)

My Opinions.

Your thread seems to be more of a personal attack on Atheism, you seem to be ignorant on what Atheism is.

[Crossless2.0]

Your thread seems to be more of a personal attack on Atheism, you seem to be ignorant on what Atheism is.

We could fill another twenty pages of this pointless train wreck of a thread just listing the things, in addition to atheism, of which Rik is ignorant. And like most imbeciles, he is supremely confident that (1) he understands all of it and (2) everyone else is an imbecile.

[Cyberman]

As Plautus said in his Epidicus, "Malleum sapientiorem vidi excusso manubrio!"

---

"I've seen hammers with the handles off cleverer than he is!"

---

[Cyberman]

I insult in Latin now.

[paulpablo]

Everything you write is a pile of shit made up of broken English which is barely readable. I was repeating back to you the definition of atheism you gave me and showing you how it contradicts what you're saying. If you think your definition of atheism is garbage then don't use it.

An atheist could believe aliens will give us life after death, an atheist could believe in spirits, an atheist could believe our brains are collected after death by the cats of mordor.

Most atheists simply reject all ideas of god that they have been exposed too anything else is incidental.

Basically you come up with a claim that can't be proven or disproven by science and then say it's unscientific to not believe in it because it can't be disproven.
Little Rik  do you believe that the spirit of the Chinese dancing unicorn with hooves of wallnuts lives within pluto?  If not then that is very unscientific of you because it hasn't been disproven.

If not then that's very unscientific of you because scientists haven't disproven it.

Pablo.  
You are making a hell of a confusion.  
While most atheists state that what i exposed as dogmas are true despite the fact that science has never come up with solid evidence i on the other hand do not state that God is real.
I do believe that is real because the more i expand my consciousness the more i understand that at the end of the road there is something infinite and great that i called God.
I do not state that, i believe.
The difference is huge Pablo.
It is impossible for you or anyone else that expect the bread to fall from the sky or that God manifest in your inner self to believe and i can not possibly come up with solid evidence that God exist as evidence can only be individual according to one effort and understanding of how the system works.
You guys on the other hand STATE something with no evidence to back these statements up.  

You're on repeat like a broken record.

Most atheists on here STATE things I don't think is accurate or correct.

A lot of atheists on here STATE political opinions I disagree with.

Atheism has FUCK ALL to do with these statements.  Nothing.

Due to that plainly obvious fact I've never felt the need to start a thread on this forum with a title "ATHEISM IS POLITCALLY WRONG AND LOGICALLY INCORRECT"

Everytime you're about to post a new post in this thread, go back and read the definition of atheism which you yourself used, and think carefully about it.
A rejection of belief in the existence of deities

Now if an atheist on this forum was to say "I know god doesn't exist, not just the myths around god, but any possibility of god."  I would be inclined to say that's an illogical statement to make.

That doesn't make me NOT an atheist, I still reject beliefs in god, but I can't say that I find it logical for someone else to state that they know God does not exist.  I'd view it with as much scepticism as I'd view a statement from someone who says they know god DOES exist.

[Little Rik]

Pablo.  
You are making a hell of a confusion.  
While most atheists state that what i exposed as dogmas are true despite the fact that science has never come up with solid evidence i on the other hand do not state that God is real.
I do believe that is real because the more i expand my consciousness the more i understand that at the end of the road there is something infinite and great that i called God.
I do not state that, i believe.
The difference is huge Pablo.
It is impossible for you or anyone else that expect the bread to fall from the sky or that God manifest in your inner self to believe and i can not possibly come up with solid evidence that God exist as evidence can only be individual according to one effort and understanding of how the system works.
You guys on the other hand STATE something with no evidence to back these statements up.  

You're on repeat like a broken record.
Most atheists on here STATE things I don't think is accurate or correct.
A lot of atheists on here STATE political opinions I disagree with.
Atheism has FUCK ALL to do with these statements.  Nothing.
Due to that plainly obvious fact I've never felt the need to start a thread on this forum with a title "ATHEISM IS POLITCALLY WRONG AND LOGICALLY INCORRECT"
Everytime you're about to post a new post in this thread, go back and read the definition of atheism which you yourself used, and think carefully about it.
A rejection of belief in the existence of deities
Now if an atheist on this forum was to say "I know god doesn't exist, not just the myths around god, but any possibility of god."  I would be inclined to say that's an illogical statement to make.
That doesn't make me NOT an atheist, I still reject beliefs in god, but I can't say that I find it logical for someone else to state that they know God does not exist.  I'd view it with as much scepticism as I'd view a statement from someone who says they know god DOES exist.

What i find very funny Pablo is the fact that i never seen an atheist in this forum that criticize an other atheist for stating something that is not back up by solid evidence that is why i think that your analysis is worthless.
If you really mean what you say i would have seen your criticism when someone state something without evidence but not, i never seen that.
Now you are talking about SCEPTICISM.
What a load of bull.
Skepticism is like a fart.
If you really think that something doesn't make sense you face head on the issue by criticize him-her.
I noticed that when a theist state something that is not back up by evidence the atheists are always ready to jump on the theist neck but when an atheist do the same it never happen.
In English language this way of doing is better known as DISHONESTY.