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

[Angrboda]

Now you're just lying.  (emphasis mine)

But let us talk about the mantra.
It is true what i did post in the past (as you post it again) but what this has to do with my saying that Hindu mantra is useless?
Hindus use an old mantra and like all old thing is not helpful these days.
Sarkar on the other hand give us an individual mantra in tune with today universal vibrations.
And the evidence that is the right mantra is that is working.
If the Hindu mantra would work these people would not be following dreadful dogmas like those who i just show you in the previous post.  

That you use different ones doesn't change the fact that Sarkar borrowed the idea of a mantra.
His whole practice is one part new bullshit and one part old dogmas.

You don't see it because one of the dogmas is that you don't follow dogmas. It's a lie.

[robvalue]

Rule one of dogma club is you do not talk about dogma club.

[RobbyPants]

Has already been established that there is No evidence that God does not exist so everything is possible.

So, you're saying not believing in leprechauns is unscientific?

I mean, yes, I can't prove that leprechauns don't exist, so it'd be intellectually dishonest of me to say that I know they don't exist, but that doesn't appear to be what you're getting at. You seem to be both linking a disbelief in God to being "unscientific" as well as literally saying "everything is possible". Were you really trying to make the point that maybe there are multiple gods or unicorns? Because those are both subsets of "everything".

[Redbeard The Pink]

Oh, my God, that is a big big deal Pinky but i suppose that if you take these small things so seriously then your life must be a real misery. 
Get over Pinky, life is not that bad.  


Garbage.
You never did contradict me.
All you came up with was the opinion of someone who doesn't believe in these things.
I could find as many opposite opinions that agree with me.
Physical science is in no way able to understand how the consciousness works for the simple fact that consciousness is not something physical.
Even a demented small boy would understand what you can or can not do with something that your physical senses can not grasp.  



For God sake stop fantasizing and start getting some useful information from researchers.
Not all these researchers agree but at least you can make a better judgement than coming down with
the usual crap.


http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-09/ne...out-plants

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/1...gent-plant

Aaand this is your brain on woo, ladies and gentlemen.


Humans have had out-of-body and near-death experiences while hooked up to brain-monitoring machines during various studies and experiments, and the result is always the same: brain activity continues to register on some level throughout the experience. There is no evidence that the brain stops working during said phenomenon, thus there is no reason to assume that this brain activity is not somehow responsible for whatever an individual experiences during those moments, and there is certainly no reason to assume that the person's visions and experiences aren't directly connected to what their brain is doing. Simply put: there is no evidence to support the assertion that consciousness can happen independent of brain activity. NDEs are not an example because they do not happen independent of brain activity.


That is essentially the same thing I told you before. My assertion has nothing to do with anyone's "opinion." It's the scientific consensus as supported by evidence and research.


Now, as for your links, those are rather interesting. The articles themselves stress that the plants do not develop neurons or neural networks, let alone brains, and there is some debate amongst them as to whether words like "intelligence" or "consciousness" are even the right ones to use. In fact, part of the problem (mentioned in the first article) is that those words are so vague and difficult to define in the first place. Still, it seems to me that the reactions witnessed with plants are completely automatic evolved responses to things like light, gravity, heat, etc. While those things are things that often can be sensed by conscious beings, they're also environmental phenomenon with the ability to materially affect things that don't necessarily have senses. It's entirely possible that plants have evolved responses to environmental conditions without the need for senses to absorb and process information to manage those responses.


Besides, even if we grant that plants are vaguely conscious by some definition of the word (which I'm not necessarily doing), this still doesn't do much for your assertion about rocks having consciousness, nor does it support your assertion that consciousness can exist outside the presence of some form of living matter (even if that living matter is not necessarily a brain), let alone in the material void of an afterlife.


Again, I'm feeling the need to point out that virtually the only "evidence" you repeatedly offer is the assertion that it's impossible to prove that an afterlife, God, immaterial consciousness, etc. does not exist. We have laboriously explained to you why this is a logical non-assertion, and why the burden of proof is on you to show evidence of your claims that these things exist, and mostly all we get is this:

                  

[Angrboda]

I directly contradicted you (with evidence) about near death experiences and how they are basically dreams that happen completely inside the brain (like all dreams). Your response was essentially "Nuh-uh it's majik floting conshusness   " with nothing to support such an assertion. Regardless of whether you see it, you were substantially contradicted on virtually every point you've tried to make so far.

Garbage.
You never did contradict me.
All you came up with was the opinion of someone who doesn't believe in these things.
I could find as many opposite opinions that agree with me.

What does it mean to contradict someone?  Isn't that exactly it?  (I can't believe this has to be asked.)

Why don't you give an example of what contradicting you would be?

[Edwardo Piet]

"Give me an example of me contradicting you".

"But you told me not to."

[Homeless Nutter]

[Edwardo Piet]

Fucking perfect video! I love that video so much.

[Homeless Nutter]

I think it's quite obvious that someone here took a few too many "being hit on the head" lessons...

[Edwardo Piet]

Sorry