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

[LostLocke]

Little Rik show you that he was correct when he was saying that the small always merge in the big.

Which is why our solar system doesn't have asteroids or planets or moons.... oh wait, it does.
But that's OK because eventually all these planets and asteroids will 'merge' into our sun..... oh wait, they won't. If anything they'll spiral out of the solar system when the sun goes dwarf and loses some of its gravity.
But that's OK too, because all the galaxies will 'merge' when they fall into each other.... oh wait, they won't. Space is stretching faster than many can run into each other, pulling them farther and farther apart.

I lost track, what was your point again?

[Little Rik]

Little Rik is still here to show that atheism is 100% unscientific. 

:fanfare:

For those who thought it would never happen, RIK'S JUST SAID SOMETHING THAT'S TRUE!!

You're right, Rik. Atheism IS unscientific because all it is is a word to describe an absence of belief in god/s. It has absolutely nothing to say about the reasons why one may not believe, only that one doesn't.

It doesn't seems that you pay much attention to what atheists post in these forums.
They keep on claiming that the universe does not need to be run by God or any form of consciousness.
It can run by itself they say.
Isn't this to say that there is no God?
If these people would say instead.......WE THINK THAT THE UNIVERSE CAN RUN BY ITSELF.....then it
would indicate that there is an absence of a belief in God but as far as they claim that there is no God
with the backing of their own science than they automatically make a claim and therefore
your claim that atheism is an absence in the believe in God is faulty.  

[downbeatplumb]

:fanfare:

For those who thought it would never happen, RIK'S JUST SAID SOMETHING THAT'S TRUE!!

You're right, Rik. Atheism IS unscientific because all it is is a word to describe an absence of belief in god/s. It has absolutely nothing to say about the reasons why one may not believe, only that one doesn't.

It doesn't seems that you pay much attention to what atheists post in these forums.
They keep on claiming that the universe does not need to be run by God or any form of consciousness.
It can run by itself they say.
Isn't this to say that there is no God?
If these people would say instead.......WE THINK THAT THE UNIVERSE CAN RUN BY ITSELF.....then it
would indicate that there is an absence of a belief in God but as far as they claim that there is no God
with the backing of their own science than they automatically make a claim and therefore
your claim that atheism is an absence in the believe in God is faulty.  

Science limits itself to evidentially supported facts. God is neither.

Napoleon asked the astronomer Laplace why his model of the solar system made no mention of god. Laplace answered that he "had no need of that hypothesis". So far no scientific discovery has required the insertion of supernatural entities to support them.

[Little Rik]

Little Rik show you that he was correct when he was saying that the small always merge in the big.

Which is why our solar system doesn't have asteroids or planets or moons.... oh wait, it does.
But that's OK because eventually all these planets and asteroids will 'merge' into our sun..... oh wait, they won't. If anything they'll spiral out of the solar system when the sun goes dwarf and loses some of its gravity.
But that's OK too, because all the galaxies will 'merge' when they fall into each other.... oh wait, they won't. Space is stretching faster than many can run into each other, pulling them farther and farther apart.
I lost track, what was your point again?

You try to have a go on me but you fail as failed those who said that not all the rivers end up in the ocean.
As some of the water in the river evaporate to form clouds that eventually will piss down again in the rivers or in the ocean or end up under the ground to form underground river that eventually will end up in the ocean at the same time you try to tell that the small do not end up in the big.
Eventually they will because sooner or later these planets or asteroids will be sucked up by black holes
and new stars will be created.
But this is only the material part of the equation.
The consciousness within these planets or asteroids will also merge into something bigger.
Just look at the uranium which energy-consciousness within try to escape the constriction which kept her in chains for so long.
All the matter will eventually be turned into energy-consciousness.
There is no way back.  

[Little Rik]

It doesn't seems that you pay much attention to what atheists post in these forums.
They keep on claiming that the universe does not need to be run by God or any form of consciousness.
It can run by itself they say.
Isn't this to say that there is no God?
If these people would say instead.......WE THINK THAT THE UNIVERSE CAN RUN BY ITSELF.....then it
would indicate that there is an absence of a belief in God but as far as they claim that there is no God
with the backing of their own science than they automatically make a claim and therefore
your claim that atheism is an absence in the believe in God is faulty.  

Science limits itself to evidentially supported facts. God is neither.

Napoleon asked the astronomer Laplace why his model of the solar system made no mention of god. Laplace answered that he "had no need of that hypothesis". So far no scientific discovery has required the insertion of supernatural entities to support them.

Your guessing is very silly.
Suppose you are in love with someone.
I pop up and i say to you.........FROM WHAT I CAN SEE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE IN LOVE.
This is how science works.
Science only look at the material-physical aspect of the equation not at the consciousness one
therefore it miss the whole.
Physical science is doing his job but we can not say that the job is completed.
Part of the equation is missing and guess what?
You need a different type of science to completed the job to come up with 100% solution.
And this other science is not physical obviously.  

[Lucanus]

Which is why our solar system doesn't have asteroids or planets or moons.... oh wait, it does.
But that's OK because eventually all these planets and asteroids will 'merge' into our sun..... oh wait, they won't. If anything they'll spiral out of the solar system when the sun goes dwarf and loses some of its gravity.
But that's OK too, because all the galaxies will 'merge' when they fall into each other.... oh wait, they won't. Space is stretching faster than many can run into each other, pulling them farther and farther apart.
I lost track, what was your point again?

You try to have a go on me but you fail as failed those who said that not all the rivers end up in the ocean.
As some of the water in the river evaporate to form clouds that eventually will piss down again in the rivers or in the ocean or end up under the ground to form underground river that eventually will end up in the ocean at the same time you try to tell that the small do not end up in the big.
Eventually they will because sooner or later these planets or asteroids will be sucked up by black holes
and new stars will be created.
But this is only the material part of the equation.
The consciousness within these planets or asteroids will also merge into something bigger.
Just look at the uranium which energy-consciousness within try to escape the constriction which kept her in chains for so long.
All the matter will eventually be turned into energy-consciousness.
There is no way back.  

Why is energy consciousness? Seriously dude, you have to give words one definition and use that! You say that energy is consciousness but you still haven't proven that. What even is your definition of consciousness?

You're making a fucking mess, don't be surprised if everybody says you're nuts.

[ignoramus]

I think most of us are past "nuts"
He's more our comedy relief. Everybody wins.

[Little Rik]

You try to have a go on me but you fail as failed those who said that not all the rivers end up in the ocean.
As some of the water in the river evaporate to form clouds that eventually will piss down again in the rivers or in the ocean or end up under the ground to form underground river that eventually will end up in the ocean at the same time you try to tell that the small do not end up in the big.
Eventually they will because sooner or later these planets or asteroids will be sucked up by black holes
and new stars will be created.
But this is only the material part of the equation.
The consciousness within these planets or asteroids will also merge into something bigger.
Just look at the uranium which energy-consciousness within try to escape the constriction which kept her in chains for so long.
All the matter will eventually be turned into energy-consciousness.
There is no way back.  

Why is energy consciousness? Seriously dude, you have to give words one definition and use that! You say that energy is consciousness but you still haven't proven that. What even is your definition of consciousness? You're making a fucking mess, don't be surprised if everybody says you're nuts.

You don't have to go very far to find out why the energy and consciousness always go hand in hand
like the two pages of the same sheet.
Your body could not function without a mind and the other way around as far as a parallelism exist.
Bodies are made of energy.
If you could use the energy within a rock you probably could fuel a rocket that take you up in the moon and back.
Atheism is lacking in wisdom.
It rely on physical science and not even that most of the time.
It doesn't know where the consciousness start from.
Humans got consciousness, animals too and here is where it stop.
Atheism can not see that also plants and matter got consciousness.
Physical science can not see any sign of life in rocks so it doesn't recognize consciousness in it.
Isn't that obvious that the physical can only deal with physical?
Can your mind be explained by your physical senses like sight, smell, touch and so on?
Naturally not that is why abstract things can not be recognized by physical science.
We know that the mind exist so why not the consciousness?
But if you think that abstract things like the consciousness do not exist then you can always try
to get rid of your one.
Do you really think you can?  

[Lucanus]

Why is energy consciousness? Seriously dude, you have to give words one definition and use that! You say that energy is consciousness but you still haven't proven that. What even is your definition of consciousness? You're making a fucking mess, don't be surprised if everybody says you're nuts.

You don't have to go very far to find out why the energy and consciousness always go hand in hand
like the two pages of the same sheet.
Your body could not function without a mind and the other way around as far as a parallelism exist.
Bodies are made of energy.
If you could use the energy within a rock you probably could fuel a rocket that take you up in the moon and back.
Atheism is lacking in wisdom.
It rely on physical science and not even that most of the time.
It doesn't know where the consciousness start from.
Humans got consciousness, animals too and here is where it stop.
Atheism can not see that also plants and matter got consciousness.
Physical science can not see any sign of life in rocks so it doesn't recognize consciousness in it.
Isn't that obvious that the physical can only deal with physical?
Can your mind be explained by your physical senses like sight, smell, touch and so on?
Naturally not that is why abstract things can not be recognized by physical science.
We know that the mind exist so why not the consciousness?
But if you think that abstract things like the consciousness do not exist then you can always try
to get rid of your one.
Do you really think you can?  

And again, you go for more unsupported assertions and zero evidence. What do you mean when you say consciousness? How can I determine if something is conscious or not? How do I see that all energy is consciousness?

[downbeatplumb]

Science limits itself to evidentially supported facts. God is neither.

Napoleon asked the astronomer Laplace why his model of the solar system made no mention of god. Laplace answered that he "had no need of that hypothesis". So far no scientific discovery has required the insertion of supernatural entities to support them.

Your guessing is very silly.
Suppose you are in love with someone.
I pop up and i say to you.........FROM WHAT I CAN SEE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT YOU ARE IN LOVE.
This is how science works.
Science only look at the material-physical aspect of the equation not at the consciousness one
therefore it miss the whole.
Physical science is doing his job but we can not say that the job is completed.
Part of the equation is missing and guess what?
You need a different type of science to completed the job to come up with 100% solution.
And this other science is not physical obviously.  

It is quite possible for someone to say they love you and not mean it. To really know that someone loves you you would need some supporting evidence. Science does not only deal with the physical. There are whole schools of science that deal with non-physical concepts; behavioural sciences, psychology and psychiatry etc.