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

[Angrboda]

I should have known better than to say that.

[GrandizerII]

So it's the same old same old as always. Quick question: Rik vs. Drich? Who's more annoying? Who trumps whom in what?

[Homeless Nutter]

Tough question. Drich doesn't annoy me since I stopped reading his posts. Rik stopped annoying me, when I started annoying him...

[Redbeard The Pink]

That is a load of garbage Pinky.
You can see all the things that you describe but you can not see the Boss.
Who's the Boss?
The Boss is the one who decide to start the action to think or to do something.
You can open a car.
You can see the energy as fuel or stored in the battery.
You can see so many things but until the driver decide to start the car nothing really happen.
You are confusing the physical side with the entity that is in charge.  

That's what we've been trying to tell you, Rik. There is no "Boss." There is no "you" or "self" in the sense that your brain generally considers those words. You are merely a conglomeration of brain functions that work together to steer a body around. If we start turning off parts of your brain, the parts of "you" that those areas gave function to will cease to exist as long as that part of the brain is off. Your personality, your ability to recognize faces, your ability to use language...all of these can be disabled by simply damaging or removing specific parts of your brain. If those things were part of a spirit or permanent consciousness of some kind, then those parts of you would still be there despite the body being compromised.


What you're claiming here is that there is some other, undiscovered function making consciousness happen because we can't prove there isn't and you can't believe there isn't. That is nothing more than an argument from ignorance wrapped in an argument from personal incredulity, both of which are fallacies. Until you can produce evidence that something else is present and responsible for consciousness, there is no reason to believe you.


For the last time, NDEs are not evidence that the mind does not need the brain. During the near death experiences you've described/linked to, the person loses consciousness, their brain activity drops below detectable levels, and then they wake up later. For all you know, the "visions" they describe are happening in the moments of unconsciousness before brain activity drops below what's detectable. It's also possible that during those moments, we're just not currently able to detect or assign meaning to whatever meager brain activity is still happening, and you'd have to rule out that possibility before moving onto "magic consciousness" because it's simpler and more easily testable. Occam's Razor, bitch.

[Edwardo Piet]

So it's the same old same old as always. Quick question: Rik vs. Drich? Who's more annoying? Who trumps whom in what?

Fucking hell that's like saying who has the better narrating voice Morgan Freeman or David Attenborough! It's impossible to answer!

They are both as annoying as fuck.

[Little Rik]

Oh, sure.
Science is everything.
It can even show us how to find permanent peace of mind which is what human beings are after all the time.
Can it?
Are we sure?
Are you sure Evie?  

Yeah because wanting permanent peace of mind to be "shown" to us is an argument 

Yeah.
Why you think 2/3 of people smoke, drink, use drugs, various tablets, gamble or try in different way to feel good?
We also have smarter people who try to feel good in a natural way without screw their body-mind up like me.
I would say that atheists are not immune to trying to find peace of mind in whichever way they choose so definitively yes, it is a very important argument because peace of mind is where God is according to yoga.
Just think about it Evie.
Atheists in theory are not interested in God but in practice they try like everybody else to get there.
It is the wrong way to get there of course but nevertheless they unconsciously try and try.
Isn't that funny?  

[Little Rik]

So it's the same old same old as always. Quick question: Rik vs. Drich? Who's more annoying? Who trumps whom in what?

Oh no Irra.  
You shouldn't read Rikki posts.  
An intelligent bloke like you shouldn't waste his precious time in this way.  
Much better talk to other intellectual people.  
Oh, by the way Irra what it is that attract you to Rikki posts?  
Is not that your subconsciousness try to tell you something?  

[Cyberman]

This thread is even funnier than the joke one; and that's supposed to be funny.

[Little Rik]

This thread is even funnier than the joke one; and that's supposed to be funny.

Stim.  
You are like a beacon of light to me.  
I always look for your tips so i can learn more and more.  
I just was thinking about the colonel advise that is in your signature.
Any doctrine that will not bear investigation is not a fit tenant for the mind of an honest man.
Now when somebody say........the consciousness is a product of the brain......shall we investigate whether it is true or not?  
Please Stim help Little Rik to understand.  

[Edwardo Piet]

Yeah because wanting permanent peace of mind to be "shown" to us is an argument 

Yeah.
[...]

Ok I'll stop you right there, no it's not that's utterly ridiculous. Wanting something is never evidence of anything. For. Fuck's. Sake.