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

[Tonus]

The thing is that a tutor get paid while i am here doing all this for free.

There's a reason for that.

[Little Rik]

Actually, I was trying to get you to realize the important step missing from your "scientific method". But it seems it's not going to happen.

I'll fill you in: getting others to reproduce your method and test your results.

Actually Rob if we are talking about whether there is evidence that certain cells produce a certain behaviour that question has already been experimented in the last million or years since humanity existed.
I would have thought that it would be clear to you that is why i didn't see the need to explain you anything about it.
If this is not scientifically proven what on earth is? 

[robvalue]

I wasn't talking about cells. I was talking about the scientific method.

I couldn't get you to acknowledge that last step.

[Little Rik]

I wasn't talking about cells. I was talking about the scientific method.

I couldn't get you to acknowledge that last step.

You don't need to go at the uni to be a scientist.
A farmer knows that by planting the seeds certain days of the month or the year
the crop will be big while planting other times will be small.
A bricklayer knows that by putting the bricks in a certain way the building will be solid.
Every trade and every one who want to be succesful in certain activity know the best way
to do things.
Anyone can be a scientist.
It is all about trying until you succeed.

[Chas]

In nature the small merge into the big.
A drop of water will sooner or later merge into the creek.
The creek will merge into the river and the river will merge into the big ocean.
A cell is composed of matter and consciousness.

There is no evidence of any consciousness in a single cell.

This consciousness can be tiny as much as you want but nevertheless there is a minute tiny amount of consciousness.

There is no evidence of any consciousness in a single cell.

When we eat we absorb these cells.
The physical side of these cells build our body but what happen to the consciousness side of the cells?

There is no evidence of any consciousness in a single cell.

Will it die or will enter or better say merge into our bigger consciousness?

There is no evidence of any consciousness in a single cell.

According an Atheist point of view when the body die also the consciousness die so there is nothing left there other than
the physical side that build up our body.
Does this belief make any sense?

Yes, and it is supported by the evidence.

If it does make sense than why carnivorous people are more aggressive while vegetarians are more relaxed?

It seems that what we eat determine the way we act and think and therefore make sense to say that the consciousness of the
cells in the food that we are eating merge into our consciousness.

There is no evidence of any consciousness in a single cell.

If we follow this line of thinking then we also have to consider what happen when our body die.
Will our consciousness die when our body die or will carry on and merge into what our feelings wish to take us?

Since consciousness appears to be brain-based, when the brain ceases to function so does consciousness.

Why would our consciousness die when as we can see in nature nothing die?

Everything dies.

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

[Fidel_Castronaut]

I wasn't talking about cells. I was talking about the scientific method.

I couldn't get you to acknowledge that last step.

You don't need to go at the uni to be a scientist.
A farmer knows that by planting the seeds certain days of the month or the year
the crop will be big while planting other times will be small.
A bricklayer knows that by putting the bricks in a certain way the building will be solid.
Every trade and every one who want to be succesful in certain activity know the best way
to do things.
Anyone can be a scientist.
It is all about trying until you succeed.

Yeah but some people actually want to know what they're talking about Rik, so they go to school and learn about things. Instead of, you know, making it up as they go along and labeling it 'science', like you.

[JesusHChrist]

I wasn't talking about cells. I was talking about the scientific method.

I couldn't get you to acknowledge that last step.

You don't need to go at the uni to be a scientist.
A farmer knows that by planting the seeds certain days of the month or the year
the crop will be big while planting other times will be small.
A bricklayer knows that by putting the bricks in a certain way the building will be solid.
Every trade and every one who want to be succesful in certain activity know the best way
to do things.
Anyone can be a scientist.
It is all about trying until you succeed.

Yes, anyone could figure out Maxwell's field equations by "trying". 

Good luck with that.

[Thumpalumpacus]

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.

[robvalue]

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.

[MTL]

Perhaps instead of saying a single cell has both "matter" and "consciousness",
it could be said that a cell has "living matter" and "energy".

As opposed to a rock, which is "matter".....but not "living matter";

or a bolt of lightning....which certainly has "energy" but no "matter", in its own, permanent right.

Not all energy is alive, but all living things have some amount of energy.

Not all matter is alive, but all living things have matter.