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

[Little Rik]

I destroyed the dogma that man is omnivore.

You borrowed an argument from analogy from someone who is simply wrong.
https://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

I don't have to borrow any thing really.
The conclusions are so evident that even a demented idiot would understand.
1) Human can not run after a prey like carnivorous or omnivors can.
2) Human do not have claws to knock down the pray.
3) Humans do not have canine big enough to get at the victim throat and made the kill.
4) Humans do not salivate at the sight of blood and raw meat.
5) Humans do not have a digestive system able to break down the raw meat and find difficult to break down even cooked meat.
6) Humans body find very difficult to deal with saturated fat, bad cholesterol and toxins which are in the meat.
7) But most important is the fact that today humans are less and less able to deal with an omnivore diet.
This point need an explanation however.
In the past humans could in part deal with an omnivore diet.
There is evidence that man here and there was eating meat so apologists think that if yesterday man was eating some meat he must be an omnivore by nature.
How wrong are these people.
Things change.
Today we got highways.
Just imagine if a cart pulled by horses or oxes would get in the fast highway and proceed among fast cars.
How stupid would be.
Omnivores of the past with the consciousness of today are the same laughing stock.
When the consciousness get more and more expanded the need to change diet goes hand in hand.
Don't forget also that our ancestors used to do very hard physical work which help to get rid of most
crap like saturated fat, cholesterol and toxins while today people sit most of the time on their arse
preventing the expulsion of all this crap.

This is pure and simple science yogini so don't accuse me of going against it.
So, wrong again yogini.  

I show that nobody here knows the meaning of philosophy.

You repeatedly challenged others to define philosophy in what was obviously a loaded question leading to your usual bollocks about spirituality.  When nobody fell for your childish ploy, you declared yourself the victor. Congratulations.  You're king of the playground.

Not at all yog.
Philosophy is a Greek word meaning LOVE FOR WISDOM or search for wisdom.
All i do is to follow that principle and challenge anyone to show the opposite.
Nobody can so far so i have to conclude that no one have any idea what philosophy is all about.
Wrong again yog.  

I show that there is no evidence that when the body die also the consciousness die.

You poo-pooed what evidence there is and again declared yourself the winner.
Congratulations.  You are master of declaring things!

Actually it wasn't me that started the argument.
It was that group of atheists that kept on saying that as soon as the body die everything is over
including the consciousness so it is up to them to prove that this is the case.
As soon i realized that no one was prepared to come up with evidence that this is the case i
said that there is no evidence to confirm that life is over when the body die.
Not only that but i challenged even the idea that the consciousness is a product of the brain.
To me this is a dogma (something not based on solid evidence).
As usual nobody came up with solid evidence that what they say is correct.
So wrong again yog.    

I show that there can not be any real progress in the material-physical universe.

Again you downplayed the evidence of real progress in the last few centuries and again declared yourself correct. I'm sensing a theme here.

I challenged anyone to show that the good doesn't go hand in hand with the bad and guess what?
Once again nobody could prove me wrong.
Positive and negative (yin and yang) ALWAYS go hand in hand.
So wrong again yog.  

I show that with the limited human consciousness it is not possible to understand
what there may be outside so all option are possible.

I must have missed this.  No worries.  We have you to declare yourself correct again!

Have a good day yog.
As far as the mistakes lead to a change for the better everything is fine.      

[Lucanus]

Ma porcoddio capisci quello che la gente ti scrive??

[Fuck's sake do you even understand what people write to you?]

[Little Rik]

Ma porcoddio capisci quello che la gente ti scrive??

[Fuck's sake do you even understand what people write to you?]

When you will start writing any thing that make any sense i will reply to you. 

[Kingpin]

Ma porcoddio capisci quello che la gente ti scrive??

[Fuck's sake do you even understand what people write to you?]

When you will start writing any thing that make any sense i will reply to you. 

Likewise.

[Lucanus]

Ma porcoddio capisci quello che la gente ti scrive??

[Fuck's sake do you even understand what people write to you?]

When you will start writing any thing that make any sense i will reply to you. 

Yeah that emoticon pretty much sums up your attitude towards anyone who does not agree with you. Cover your ears, la la la, everyone else is wrong, you're the only one who's right. Don't you think that maybe, MAYBE, we might have a point worth considering?

What's the point in coming to a discussion forum if all you do is make entire threads from baseless assertions and then you refuse to hear any sort of criticism? Your posts are shallow and show that you don't have any actual knowledge of science. People have spent their entire lives working and studying nature and the world; then you come over and shit on their work like it's nobody's business.

How about you stop being a prick and actually listen to criticism? You may delight in thinking yourself a child at heart - but this kind of attitude is simply childish. In the arrogant, cock-sure prick kind of way.

If you truly wish to learn, then LISTEN to other people.

Jeez.

[LostLocke]

This is pure and simple science yogini so don't accuse me of going against it.

One would think it was 'simple science', but apparently for you it is not.
I think you you don't understand the difference in the concepts of "carnivore" and "predator". You seem to assume that all carnivores are predators. FYI, they are NOT.

[IATIA]

Example: A buzzard eats meat yet does not kill.

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]
If you truly wish to learn, then LISTEN to other people.

Jeez.

He's not here to learn. He's here to masturbate. He doesn't need any external input for that.

[Angrboda]

You borrowed an argument from analogy from someone who is simply wrong.
https://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm

I don't have to borrow any thing really.
The conclusions are so evident that even a demented idiot would understand.

If you didn't borrow it from someone else, then you should be able to spot the mistake I made in the following post without trying.  If you can't tell me the error that I made in that post, then we'll know that you're lying and just parroting someone else's argument.  So, Rik, what's the answer?  What error did I make?

http://atheistforums.org/thread-24304-po...#pid639279

Below is the table you linked to with the ratios computed for a minimum average height of 1.6 meters.  Only the bizarre passage from an 1889 text agrees with you.  Your own experts disagree with you 4 to 1.  That means "opinion after opinion" does NOT say it is ten times the length!  Your own words admitted as much when you agreed with jg2014 before, and your own sources show you to be lying in claiming "opinion after opinion" agrees with you.  At this rate, the way you're racking up bad karma through lying, you'll be reborn as a diseased squirrel!

[Ravenshire]

Liar. You post this smiley over and over, but you never listen to anyone.