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

[Little Rik]

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

Actually the problem is not with listening.
I do listen but i can't hear any one prove me wrong.
Where is the evidence that with the physical death everything is over?
And where is the evidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain?
Is not me that came up with these statements.
It is you guys that keep on saying and repeating at nauseum such a things
therefore it is you that got to come up with evidence.
I listen i listen but there is no evidence forthcoming so don't blame me for not listening.
But no worry mate.
Little bunny still wait for your evidence.
Even when i go to sleep little bunny is awake in case you guys finally decide
to come up with solid evidence regarding your statements. 

[Silver]

I do listen but i can't hear any one prove me wrong.

The problem is that you should be reading, not listening.

[Redbeard The Pink]

Double post, ignore this one

[Redbeard The Pink]

Actually the problem is not with listening.
I do listen but i can't hear any one prove me wrong.
Where is the evidence that with the physical death everything is over?
And where is the evidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain?

What you're asking for in the first case is evidence that something does not exist (the afterlife, in this instance). We have thoroughly explained why this is a fallacy. It is not up to us to come up with evidence that consciousness can't exist without a brain. It's up to YOU to show evidence that it CAN exist without a brain, and your only evidence has been NDEs (or as I like to call them, "death dreams"), which is an appallingly low level of evidence. Personal testimony is already considered one of the worst forms of evidence out there, and in this case we're talking about personal testimony from an unconscious, dying brain.

The second question is the exact same thing. You've tried to word it creatively, but you're basically saying "Prove to me that a consciousness without a brain does not exist." Again, that's not how that works. It's up to you to prove that such a thing DOES exist. Until you produce proof, nonexistence is the only sensible position of belief.

Simply put, we don't have to show evidence that a brainless consciousness does not exist. We can prove that brains generate consciousness, and we can find endless examples of brainless things that do not display any apparent consciousness; all you're doing is dancing around like a monkey singing "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Consciousness could still exist in a form we don't understand yet."

Absence of evidence might be evidence of absence, Rik, but a lack of evidence of absence isn't evidence of presence, either. You are making a positive claim. It is up to you to prove it. We are not making positive claims, so we don't need evidence. That might frustrate you if you had the capacity to understand it, but your ignorance is so blissful that it's painful for the rest of us to watch.

[Mudhammam]

I do listen but i can't hear any one prove me wrong.
Where is the evidence that with the physical death everything is over?
And where is the evidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain?
Is not me that came up with these statements.
It is you guys that keep on saying and repeating at nauseum such a things
therefore it is you that got to come up with evidence.
I listen i listen but there is no evidence forthcoming so don't blame me for not listening.
But no worry mate.
Little bunny still wait for your evidence.
Even when i go to sleep little bunny is awake in case you guys finally decide
to come up with solid evidence regarding your statements. 

Consciousness develops and degenerates with brain functionality, as experienced in the growth from infancy and childhood to adulthood and old age; it is affected by disease, chemical alteration induced by drugs, which, again, involve changes of physiology in the brain. Or, if you hit your head really hard, you can lose consciousness. Yet, if your brain is wholly destroyed, you believe it could continue? Not only is that completely inconsistent with the facts observed in those cases of relatively minor damage or change I suggested above, but, how could that even be possible? If it is not physical, how do material bodies affect its motion? What explanation, apart from its physicality, can account for its correlation to the structure of the brain and bodily functions such as heart rate, etc.?

Those amount to the probable inference that dissolution of the brain, like its formation, is the extremity of conscious experience... unless your willing to claim that you possessed consciousness prior to birth; if not, why would you continue to retain it after death? What's the difference?

[Little Rik]

the way you're racking up bad karma through lying, you'll be reborn as a diseased squirrel!

Well, well.
All of a sudden you believe in karma.
Unfortunately you are not aware how the karma works.
I would have thought that a yogini like you would know.
But no worry yog, Little Rik is here to help.
Suppose yogini wear high heels shoes in a shopping centre
full of people.
All of a sudden yogini loose concentration and fall down.
In the fall she land on a baby cot injuring the baby inside.
Will she rack any bad karma for causing these injuries?
Of course not.
She didn't do on purpose.
Now put it in a different way.
Suppose you are annoyed by a screaming baby.
When the mother look away you kick the baby cot in order to
sort of hush the baby.
In this case you will create bad karma.
Little Rik did not lied.
He just took these information from some sources from the net
therefore he thought that these information were reliable therefore
no bad intentions were involved and no karma apply.
If someone point to me that these information were not reliable anymore
then too bad.
What all this has to do with lying only Santa knows.

[Little Rik]

Actually the problem is not with listening.
I do listen but i can't hear any one prove me wrong.
Where is the evidence that with the physical death everything is over?
And where is the evidence that the consciousness is a product of the brain?

What you're asking for in the first case is evidence that something does not exist (the afterlife, in this instance). We have thoroughly explained why this is a fallacy. It is not up to us to come up with evidence that consciousness can't exist without a brain. It's up to YOU to show evidence that it CAN exist without a brain, and your only evidence has been NDEs (or as I like to call them, "death dreams"), which is an appallingly low level of evidence. Personal testimony is already considered one of the worst forms of evidence out there, and in this case we're talking about personal testimony from an unconscious, dying brain.

The second question is the exact same thing. You've tried to word it creatively, but you're basically saying "Prove to me that a consciousness without a brain does not exist." Again, that's not how that works. It's up to you to prove that such a thing DOES exist. Until you produce proof, nonexistence is the only sensible position of belief.

Simply put, we don't have to show evidence that a brainless consciousness does not exist. We can prove that brains generate consciousness, and we can find endless examples of brainless things that do not display any apparent consciousness; all you're doing is dancing around like a monkey singing "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Consciousness could still exist in a form we don't understand yet."

Absence of evidence might be evidence of absence, Rik, but a lack of evidence of absence isn't evidence of presence, either. You are making a positive claim. It is up to you to prove it. We are not making positive claims, so we don't need evidence. That might frustrate you if you had the capacity to understand it, but your ignorance is so blissful that it's painful for the rest of us to watch.

1) Sorry Pinky but is you guys that make the claim therefore it is you that got to come up with evidence.
By me saying that there is no evidence regarding YOUR claims i do not make any claim so don't try to twist the 
issue around.
2) When you say.........We can prove that brains generate consciousness..........you don't really prove any thing
at all.
Brain and consciousness are connected to each other so until this connection exist it is obvious that both are 
needed to make the mind function.
This doesn't mean that once they are disconnected the consciousness can not work anymore.
It is like the driver and the car.
To move the car both the driver and the car are needed.
This doesn't means that once the car rot away the driver also rot away. 

[Redbeard The Pink]

1) Sorry Pinky but is you guys that make the claim therefore it is you that got to come up with evidence.
By me saying that there is no evidence regarding YOUR claims i do not make any claim so don't try to twist the 
issue around.
2) When you say.........We can prove that brains generate consciousness..........you don't really prove any thing
at all.
Brain and consciousness are connected to each other so until this connection exist it is obvious that both are 
needed to make the mind function.
This doesn't mean that once they are disconnected the consciousness can not work anymore.
It is like the driver and the car.
To move the car both the driver and the car are needed.
This doesn't means that once the car rot away the driver also rot away. 

1) No, Rik. You do not get to dodge the burden of proof by simply stating that we're the ones making the claim. YOU are the one who came onto this board and called us unscientific for not believing that consciousness can exist outside of a brain. YOU are the one who says that brainless consciousness exists. YOU, therefore, are the one making a positive claim that needs to be proven. I'm waiting.

2) You isolated that statement from the context of the argument. The point was that while we can prove certain things about consciousness, it is always impossible to prove that something does not exist, hence the burden of proof being on the person who is making a positive claim for the existence of something (in this case, you).

Your bullshit about the car isn't even worth addressing. Analogies and belittling claims aren't evidence. Prove your claims or fuck off. You're the one who's unscientific.

[Little Rik]

Consciousness develops and degenerates with brain functionality, as experienced in the growth from infancy and childhood to adulthood and old age; it is affected by disease, chemical alteration induced by drugs, which, again, involve changes of physiology in the brain. Or, if you hit your head really hard, you can lose consciousness. Yet, if your brain is wholly destroyed, you believe it could continue? Not only is that completely inconsistent with the facts observed in those cases of relatively minor damage or change I suggested above, but, how could that even be possible? If it is not physical, how do material bodies affect its motion? What explanation, apart from its physicality, can account for its correlation to the structure of the brain and bodily functions such as heart rate, etc.? Those amount to the probable inference that dissolution of the brain, like its formation, is the extremity of conscious experience...

If you mistreat your body it is obvious that also your consciousness will be affected.
It is like if you mistreat your vehicle.
How can you proceed with a damage vehicle?
You can loose a lot of consciousness but you also can expand your consciousness
provided you treat your body-brain properly so your first point make sense.
What doesn't make sense is your guessing that if the brain die also the consciousness die.
There is anything thing that really die and disappear in this universe?
If you study physics you should know that nothing die or disappear so why the consciousness
should die and disappear?
By the way the consciousness is not made of matter like the brain so how can something
abstract can be killed?

unless your willing to claim that you possessed consciousness prior to birth; if not, why would you continue to retain it after death? What's the difference?

Mine is a believe not a claim.
My believe is that there is a very good reason why we can't remember our previous lives.
In this life we find difficult, annoying and frustration to think about our past mistakes and
bad thing that we have done.
At times we just think that would be better if we never done certain things but is too late.
The problem however is that we just can't get rid from our mind these things from the past.
It is a burden to us.
Now just imagine if on the top of our mistakes in this life we also have to deal with mistakes from previous lives and lives before that.
It would be an absolute hell that is why we are prevented from remember anything from previous lives.
Someone understand the problem therefore this entity prevent us from remembering.  

[Redbeard The Pink]

Consciousness develops and degenerates with brain functionality, as experienced in the growth from infancy and childhood to adulthood and old age; it is affected by disease, chemical alteration induced by drugs, which, again, involve changes of physiology in the brain. Or, if you hit your head really hard, you can lose consciousness. Yet, if your brain is wholly destroyed, you believe it could continue? Not only is that completely inconsistent with the facts observed in those cases of relatively minor damage or change I suggested above, but, how could that even be possible? If it is not physical, how do material bodies affect its motion? What explanation, apart from its physicality, can account for its correlation to the structure of the brain and bodily functions such as heart rate, etc.? Those amount to the probable inference that dissolution of the brain, like its formation, is the extremity of conscious experience...

If you mistreat your body it is obvious that also your consciousness will be affected.
It is like if you mistreat your vehicle.
How can you proceed with a damage vehicle?
You can loose a lot of consciousness but you also can expand your consciousness
provided you treat your body-brain properly so your first point make sense.
What doesn't make sense is your guessing that if the brain die also the consciousness die.
There is anything thing that really die and disappear in this universe?
If you study physics you should know that nothing die or disappear so why the consciousness
should die and disappear?
By the way the consciousness is not made of matter like the brain so how can something
abstract can be killed?

unless your willing to claim that you possessed consciousness prior to birth; if not, why would you continue to retain it after death? What's the difference?

Mine is a believe not a claim.
My believe is that there is a very good reason why we can't remember our previous lives.
In this life we find difficult, annoying and frustration to think about our past mistakes and
bad thing that we have done.
At times we just think that would be better if we never done certain things but is too late.
The problem however is that we just can't get rid from our mind these things from the past.
It is a burden to us.
Now just imagine if on the top of our mistakes in this life we also have to deal with mistakes from previous lives and lives before that.
It would be an absolute hell that is why we are prevented from remember anything from previous lives.
Someone understand the problem therefore this entity prevent us from remembering.  

Nice claims. Let's see some evidence.

Beliefs not claims, you say? A belief becomes a claim the moment you give it voice. You are making claims. Prove them.

You claim that the consciousness does not die when the brain does. That is a positive claim. Prove it.

You claim that reincarnation exists and is a thing that happens. That is a positive claim. Prove it.

You claim there is an entity with the power to wipe our memories between lives. That is a positive claim. Prove it.

Until you have proof, you're just making fun of others for not believing that dragons splooged on your homework.


Nice misappropriation of the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy, by the way. You learn that from Deepak Chopra? Consciousness is the result of matter and energy, but it is not itself matter or energy. Consciousness is a process of the brain, and when the brain stops producing it, it stops happening. The matter and energy in the brain are still there, but they're no longer being used to generate consciousness. Nothing disappears, nothing is lost, and yet the process stops.