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

[Redbeard The Pink]

Still not using the correct definition of atheism.

This is a bold level of dishonesty. You're on an atheist forum, you think we're not going to notice?

People with solid arguments don't need to misrepresent their opponent's position to make their case.

People who have solid arguments can usually read and write pretty well, too...

[Ben Davis]

I made it to page 19 before my brain gave up. I was trying to read but my brain had been rejecting so much of what Rik wrote that it simply started rejecting every word in his posts. The level of ignorance and arrogance is astounding.

[Lucanus]

Still not using the correct definition of atheism.

This is a bold level of dishonesty. You're on an atheist forum, you think we're not going to notice?

People with solid arguments don't need to misrepresent their opponent's position to make their case.

People who have solid arguments can usually read and write pretty well, too...

In Rik's defense, though, English is not his first language (he's Italian from what I gathered)... So before giving any judgements of any kind I'd like to see how he writes in Italian.

But my expectations are not the highest, and I really hope he surprises me.

[robvalue]

It really is a shame, because we have a wealth of educated and intelligent people here, covering many fields, from which someone could learn an awful lot. But someone who has made up their mind about everything can learn nothing.

Cue tu-quoque strawman...

[Cyberman]

I know I'm going to regret this but I can't let it go without comment:

Energy and consciousness always go hand in hand like the pages in sheet of paper.
Rocks got energy within so there got to be consciousness in it.

You like to talk cars, so let's go with that. Internal combustion engines work by energy exchange, from chemical to mechanical via heat, with sound and light (within the piston chamber) and excess heat produced as waste. Your equation that energy always equals consciousness must mean that car engines are alive, in the sentient sense. Or take the braking system: mechanical energy applies frictional energy to the discs, generating heat and, in many cases, sound. Are brakes aware? Maybe that's why brakes squeal, because every time you touch that pedal it hurts them.

Or maybe we can drop the childish game of "consciousness is energy, therefore energy is consciousness, therefore everything containing energy must be conscious."

[LostLocke]

Or maybe we can drop the childish game of "consciousness is energy, therefore energy is consciousness, therefore everything containing energy must be conscious."

No no no. Let's not drop that. I want to see how far he's willing to take that idea.

[Ravenshire]

You can't even keep straight who you're talking to. I never made any of those statements you simpleton. But, when you made the claim that water always joins up to make larger bodies, I pointed out evaporation. You promptly ignored this. When you asked for an instance of rivers not joining oceans, I gave you the Colorado River, dry wash for much of it's last 50 miles or so of riverbed. This too was promptly ignored. You claim we present no evidence when it's you dismissing it out of hand, without consideration. That makes you liar every time you claim "" because you're not.

You are very funny Snake.
Evaporation is a temporary brake for the water to end up in the ocean.
Sooner or later the clouds will piss down again and guess what?
That water that evaporate and form the clouds will at the end end up in the ocean anyway.
The same thing will happen for your river.
In part the water evaporate, in part may well sink down under the ground and end up in the ocean
anyway so where is your evidence that not all the time water end up in the ocean?
By the way you well may keep that liar for yourself.
Have a good day Snake. 

And now you:

Your dishonesty is showing again.

I've noticed that, like water off a ducks back, knowledge simply rolls off you.

[Ravenshire]

My believes are based on results.

Your "believes" are based on woo and wishful thinking.

[Ravenshire]

People with solid arguments don't need to misrepresent their opponent's position to make their case.

Which explains perfectly why Rikki needs to misrepresent their opponent's position.

[robvalue]

Indeed.

You can't "defeat" a weak atheist in any shape or form, because they make no positive claims.

That makes it very hard for people (the people that bother to understand the above point anyway) because they want atheism to be making claims, so they can thwart those claims and make themselves feel better. So they tell atheists what kind of atheists they are (strong atheists as a minimum) and then add on what they believe are the logical consequences of the belief. They then merrily back away at this effigy, and after "defeating" it, they think they've somehow proven atheism wrong. All they've done is made a mess in their bedroom.

Strong atheism is very easy to defend anyway, but the point is that people like Rik require everyone to be strong atheists so they can attack "atheism". They also require them to be philosophical naturalists, which is actually quite rare in my experience. I'll let Rik explain what that means.