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

[ignoramus]

Rik, seriously!
Are you doing this to constantly convince yourself?
Atheism is not a belief and therefore does not require constant drumming of scripture into our skulls for it to stick.

You're not to get an atheist come here after a 5 year break and say: sorry guys, I was negligent and God found his way into my heart!
Your beliefs ARE the product of indoctrination (whether you believe it or not) and the strengths of your beliefs are only as good as your last fallacy!
So keep up the good work and you'll go to heaven like a good boy...

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Now it's most atheists, not all atheists. Well that's some progress.

Why don't you say naturalists, because that is what you mean. You get annoyed being lumped in with "all theists" yet you strawman atheists constantly.

I'm not talking about rivers.

There is no moving forward with Ric, rob. His mind is addled to the point where all he can write is jibberish ad nauseum, as revealed by the multitude of threads where nothing is discussed except his own bizarre delusions. He lives in a fantasy world devoid of any understanding of reality, and is why people shouldn't respond to him. It just gives him the impression his delusional fantasies have some validity.

[Little Rik]

Rick wouldn't recognize science if he tripped on it.  "Atheism the unscientific believe."  So much fail in this title, including:

Slow down with your enthusiasm Whatever.
Most atheists rely on physical science to back up their BELIEVE that this science is the only way to truth
that is way i open this thread.
If most atheists wouldn't give so much importance to physical science i wouldn't have had any reason to open this thread.

1 - Atheism is not a tenet of science.

If it is not than why most atheists always feel supported by what science say?

2 - Science is not required to be an atheist.

Can you please translate this sentence.
I thought i understand English but here it sound like Arab.

3 - Science does not support the existence of gods.

First of all whatever i think it is important to clarify what science are you talking about.
My guess is that you are talking about the usual physical science.
(did my guess won the price?)  
Well well whatever you keep on arguing from the sewer up as usual.
Isn't that obvious that physical science is not able to understand what is not physical?  

4 - Neither does science lead to the conclusion that gods do not exist.

Physical science whatever.
Please don't keep on forgetting that you are talking about PHYSICAL science.
The problem with you whatever is that you are stuck with physical science preventing in this way that
other types of science may be able to understand whether God exist or not.

5 - Science does cast doubt on the alleged empirical claims known as miracles.

Again.
Isn't that obvious that physical can only understand what is physical?

6 - Science doesn't specifically rule out the supernatural, it merely pursues natural explanation as far as that can go.

Isn't that obvious whatever.
By the way whatever don't forget that what you mention as natural is only natural according the type of
science in question.
The border between reality and illusion can be trespass and what seem reality may turn into illusion.  

[robvalue]

Now it's most atheists, not all atheists. Well that's some progress.

Why don't you say naturalists, because that is what you mean. You get annoyed being lumped in with "all theists" yet you strawman atheists constantly.

I'm not talking about rivers.

There is no moving forward with Ric, rob. His mind is addled to the point where all he can write is jibberish ad nauseum, as revealed by the multitude of threads where nothing is discussed except his own bizarre delusions. He lives in a fantasy world devoid of any understanding of reality, and is why people shouldn't respond to him. It just gives him the impression his delusional fantasies have some validity.

So it would seem I really thought I was getting somewhere, we went all the way down the path to the lab together, but that final part about peer review just couldn't be squeezed out. Peer review must be some sort of evil force in special sciences.

I would love to see some videos of his findings though. Surely that's not too much to ask, given his long scientific career? Videos showing the findings that is, not just talking about them.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

In the past he's claimed to have healing hands and be a nurse or something, and he used them to cure someone or something when 'science' failed (Rik correct me if you want, whatever).

Literally no point in talking to him. I stopped about a year ago.

[Aristocatt]

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.



Please, let me keep away from other theists.
Not all Theists are the same.
My theism is based on yoga philosophy while many religious theisms are based on dogmas.
But let us talk about dualism.
Take a car and a driver.
They both need each other to travel.
Also the brain and the consciousness need each other.
There are two factor.
In a way they are stuck together so although they are two the two become one.
When you travel in your car it seems that the difference between you and the car is gone.
The same thing happen with you that decide to start the action of thinking or doing something.
You don't really feel any difference between you and your brain but as soon as your vehicle die
there is a separation.
Would you die when your vehicle die?
Atheism think so that is why atheism is unscientific. 

Again this is poor logic, and also has nothing to do with science.
Your examples are in and of themselves logical fallacies, but I am happy to play this game.

For example, we now have self driving cars.  When the car is destroyed, so is the operator.
You also have yet to amend your proposition that the small coalesce into the large with the knowledge of the universal expansion, and with regards to radioactive decay.  One being a metaphorical splintering of matter, the other a literally splintering of matter.

[IATIA]

Also the brain and the consciousness need each other.

Which is why when the body dies, so does the consciousness.

[Little Rik]

Also the brain and the consciousness need each other.

Which is why when the body dies, so does the consciousness.

They need each other when exist a parallelism among the two.
As soon as this parallelism is gone because the body-brain die then there is no more reason why the consciousness should go along the dead body-mind and die as well.
She is not that stupid to get stuck to a rotting body-mind.
The same thing will happen to you when your car will collapse.
Are you that stupid to collapse with your car?
You never thought about it IAT, did you? 

[Aoi Magi]

Umm why can't our brain be like my battery operated automatic car? Why does it need a driver? and what proof is their of that driver?


And if I were to assume the brain has a "driver", Does a bacteria and fungus have the same driver as well?

[Little Rik]

Again this is poor logic, and also has nothing to do with science.
Your examples are in and of themselves logical fallacies, but I am happy to play this game.
For example, we now have self driving cars.  When the car is destroyed, so is the operator.

Ari, you are running too much with your fantasy.
Who told you that the operator will die when the car is destroyed?  

You also have yet to amend your proposition that the small coalesce into the large with the knowledge of the universal expansion, and with regards to radioactive decay.  One being a metaphorical splintering of matter, the other a literally splintering of matter.

Once again Ari you are running too much with your fantasy.
First of all you should try to understand why there is a radioactive decay.
By the way the word decay really mean the opposite of what really happen in this case.
Decay means going bad or similar meaning while in this case we have not something going bad
but an awakening of the consciousness within the atom.
You can call it a release of energy or whatever you like nevertheless is an awakening that lead to expansion.
Here below in technical terms it say......... Radioactive decay is the spontaneous breakdown of an atomic nucleus resulting in the release of energy and matter from the nucleus........so it all about expansion which back up my believe that the small consciousness expand and by being released from the bondage of matter is able to merge into something bigger.