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

[Little Rik]

Actually there's a mountain of evidence, like the fact that one never hear's again from one's deceased relatives. If grandma and grandpa are still there, why don't they come to visit their grand kids once a month, and I don't mean as an abstract feeling, but rather why don't they just sit and talk, if "god" forbids them, why would your god do such a thing?

Actually, I'm more agnostic than atheist in that I think there is an afterlife but its a natural biological phenomenon that exists regardless of religion, and I personally have a hunch that the behavior of electrons and two quantum phenomena known as quantum entanglement and the Kondo state will explain it, but even if that were true it wouldn't substantiate your religion. While I may not know all that's going on in the universe, I do know, as surly as I know that the earth orbits the sun, that your religion is bull.

Ok here's one of the statements you wanted me to provide criticism on.
I don't think there's any evidence provided that everything is over after death, only things that can be observed which show a lack of evidence that everything is over after death.  The poster even then pretty much admits this by saying he actually thinks there is something that happens to the human consciousness after death.
The poster of the statements also seems to think you're part of some religion aswell which I don't think you are. You have to understand that this STILL has nothing to do with atheism.  And the title of this thread is messed up too.
You say atheism is unscientific, then make claims which have nothing to do with atheism, THEN say "but science can't observe everything."
Anything you claim outside of science is unscientific by definition, so you saying MAYBE there's a soul or whatever that zooms out of your body when you die then you go to the magic themepark or you're just a soul type thing out in whatever is past the observable universe.  That's an unscientific statement.

Pablo, once again you are getting lost.
You say......Anything you claim outside of science is unscientific by definition............

Now you presume that physical science is the only science.
That is a dogma or false belief.
Spirituality is a science too and this science is not physical.
By practicing this science you can understand what exist outside the physical reality
so i am not unscientific.
Atheism on the other hand is unscientific.
By not practicing spirituality is not possible to understand what exist outside this physical reality
therefore by denying God existence without first trying spirituality or the intuitional science it is obvious that the belief that God doesn't exist is unscientific.
By using the wrong science it is unscientific.
It is like to pretend that a plumber can fix your electrical wiring or an electrician can fix the sewerage pipes.    

Every type of science lead to different goal.
Physical science can take to the moon while spiritual science or intuitional science can take you to the realization of who you really are.  

[Crossless2.0]

This thread has been around so long there is really no way to know whether one has already shared a 'new' response.

This thread has been around so long it could "end" at the beginning, Finnegans Wake-style, and just start over post-for-post and I doubt anyone would notice.

[robvalue]

This makes even the weirdest parts of the never ending story look like Oscar Wilde.

[Whateverist]

This thread has been around so long there is really no way to know whether one has already shared a 'new' response.

So any way I think I agree with the thread's title.  Atheism, in my case at least, is entirely unscientific.  My non-belief in gods is not the result of any scientific considerations.  Science doesn't enter into it.  God, as a field of study, has not progressed even to the point of having well defined terms.  There may be data pertaining to gods or there may not be.  It all depends on what a god is and what would count as evidence for one.  
For me silly stuff that no one can point to doesn't rise to the level anything deserving my immediate attention.  Gods go in the same round file of non-urgent, non-important drivel as other mythical, fanciful or fictional source materials.

May i ask you what field of study you think God should be studied?
Do you mean with physical science or something else?  

Oh intuitional science, of course.  Why study the car when you can study the driver?

[paulpablo]

You presumed I presume that all science is physical and not spiritual. I never said that.

But science deals with testable explanations and predictions.

There are many things that were unobservable that are now observable.

If you or anyone else can show predictions and tests they have done with spirits they can scientifically express these results.

All you have to do is simply show the tests and experiments you have done with spirits then use your findings to make reliable predictions about the none physical world.

I have no idea how a person would begin to study things which aren't physically there, and to make predictions about spirits, I don't really think you have either, so I remain an atheist until you or someone else can prove to me they have made testable reliable scientific

You were the one who said science can't observe everything, now you contradict that by saying science can observe the spiritual.
That's the contradiction I'm pointing out.
Its my opinion that if spirits and non physical things can be observed and tested they can become subject to scientific experimentation.

[paulpablo]

You presumed I presume that all science is physical and not spiritual. I never said that.

But science deals with testable explanations and predictions.  

There are many things that were unobservable that are now observable.

If you or anyone else can show predictions and tests they have done with spirits they can scientifically express these results.

All you have to do is simply show the tests and experiments you have done with spirits then use your findings to make reliable predictions about the none physical world.

I have no idea how a person would begin to study things which aren't physically there, and to make predictions about spirits, I don't really think you have either, so I remain an atheist until you or someone else can prove to me they have made testable reliable scientific experiments that show their is a god type spirit thing in the land of non physical non things.

You were the one who said science can't observe everything, now you contradict that by saying science can observe the spiritual.
That's the contradiction I'm pointing out.
Its my opinion that if spirits and non physical things can be observed and tested they can become subject to scientific experimentation.

  Sorry I was typing my last post in work and got disturbed, this is the correct edited version of it.

[Little Rik]

You presumed I presume that all science is physical and not spiritual. I never said that.
But science deals with testable explanations and predictions.

The science of spirituality is fully testable.
The only thing that differ from physical science is that the testability is individual.
What you "earn" belong to you and stay with you.
The material things on the other hand can be transferred to other so they are visible.
I am sure that in the near future new technologies will be able to scrutinize individual consciousness
and see the difference between the one who practice spirituality and the one who doesn't.
 

There are many things that were unobservable that are now observable.

Sure, give time and many more things will be available for scrutiny.
In the meantime those who work hard for real progress will advance while those who wait and wait for things to happen will get nowhere.    

If you or anyone else can show predictions and tests they have done with spirits they can scientifically express these results. All you have to do is simply show the tests and experiments you have done with spirits then use your findings to make reliable predictions about the none physical world

In the past saints use to be represented in paintings with an aureole or aura above the head.
In those times there was no technology to understand whether someone was a saint or not.
The presence of someone spiritually elevated can be perceived without any technology.
A tamasik person (bad people) would absolutely hate to be in the presence of someone elevated.
The bad vibration of a tamasik person would suffer terribly in contact with positive vibration.
There is no need to tell the bad person that an elevated person is close to him-her or the other way around.
The two different vibration act as signal, they perceive the opposite vibrations so they tend to take the distance from each other.
The bad person would keep well away from places where people do meditation and people engaged in spirituality would never go in a pub or similar tamasik places.  

I have no idea how a person would begin to study things which aren't physically there, and to make predictions about spirits, I don't really think you have either, so I remain an atheist until you or someone else can prove to me they have made testable reliable scientific

Considering your attitude i am afraid Pablo that you will wait for ever.
Consciousness is an abstract entity.
There is nothing physical.
You don't make predictions, there is no need for.
It is all about an idea.
When you think that after fighting and struggling all the time you are getting nowhere a simple idea come in your mind.
And that idea make you think that there got to be something better than this.
From here on everything is revealed and the way to proceed is unfolded.

You were the one who said science can't observe everything, now you contradict that by saying science can observe the spiritual.
That's the contradiction I'm pointing out.

Wrong again Pablo for no paying attention to what i did write.
I said physical science is not able to solve all the problem especially the biggest and main problem that
concern human being such as peace of mind.

Its my opinion that if spirits and non physical things can be observed and tested they can become subject to scientific experimentation.

As i already said in the beginning it is quite possible that sooner or later new technologies will be able to
perceive the consciousness but that will not be an easy task as consciousness is an abstract entity.  

[Angrboda]

Consciousness is an abstract entity.
There is nothing physical.

Still waiting on evidence of this. That you haven't seen or touched a person's consciousness is not evidence.

[Edwardo Piet]

This thread has been around so long it could "end" at the beginning, Finnegans Wake[...]

Ooh cool album!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNrZJyLMTKE

[Anomalocaris]

May i ask you what field of study you think God should be studied?
Do you mean with physical science or something else?  

God should be studied in the field of medical science, under the cognitive disfunction specialty, and under the field of social and behavioral sciences, under the mass hysteria specialty.