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

[Angrboda]

Cells have far too many similarities to our human bodies therefore they are bodies and bodies need consciousness to be alive.

I just noticed this fail. The fact that two things have similarities does not mean that they are the same. If that's what you think, then your head is screwed up. Your therefore does not follow from the conditions given. Fail.

(emphasis added)

[Cyberman]

Babies have two legs.
Ducks have two legs.
Therefore babies fly south for the winter. Also go great in a curry.

[Angrboda]

The more I read about Bruce Lipton, the more obvious it becomes that he is nothing but a new age fraud. You couldn't have picked a more untrustworthy source for your information. He has a self-published book, The Biology of Belief: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter, & Miracles which apparently is little more than a marketing tool for an unproven therapy, PSYCH-K.

It's clear that you chose this source because it echoed what you wanted to hear, rather than because it is a reliable source. That's typical of your 'citations' -- you don't care whether it's likely to be true, only that it aligns with what you believe. This makes your 'researches' worthless as they are nothing but an exercise in confirmation bias.

You are an idiot, and your sources suck. And to think that you used to criticize me for using Wikipedia articles; what a hypocrite you are.

[Angrboda]

Some kind of material, computational substrate is a necessary condition for the existence of a mind (whether it is sufficient is a different, irrelevant issue). In humans, the brain is this substrate. We know this principle as a scientific fact, for five reasons. I quote here from The Case Against Immortality, by Keith Augustine.

(F1) The evolution of species demonstrates that development of the brain obtains a corresponding mental development.
“First, phylogenetic evidence refers to the evolutionary relationship between the complexity of the brain and a species’ cognitive traits (Beyerstein 45). Corliss Lamont sums up this evidence: “We find that the greater the size of the brain and its cerebral cortex in relation to the animal body and the greater their complexity, the higher and more versatile the form of life” (Lamont 63).”

(F2) The same principle is demonstrated by brain growth in individual organisms.
“Secondly, the developmental evidence for mind-brain dependence is that mental abilities emerge with the development of the brain; failure in brain development prevents mental development (Beyerstein 45).

(F3) Brain damage destroys mental capacities.
“Third, clinical evidence consists of cases of brain damage that result from accidents, toxins, diseases, and malnutrition that often result in irreversible losses of mental functioning (45). If the mind could exist independently of the brain, why couldn’t the mind compensate for lost faculties when brain cells die after brain damage? (46).”

(F4) Experiments and measurements on the brain (EEG, stimulation of various areas) indicate a correspondence between brain activity and mental activity.
“Fourth, the strongest empirical evidence for mind-brain dependence is derived from experiments in neuroscience. Mental states are correlated with brain states; electrical or chemical stimulation of the human brain invokes perceptions, memories, desires, and other mental states (45).”

(F5) The effects of drugs show correspondence between brain activity and mental activity.
“Finally, the experiential evidence for mind-brain dependence consists of the effects of several different types of drugs which predictably affect mental states (45).”

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/ath...ind_brain/

evidence, noun

5. a. Ground for belief; testimony or facts tending to prove or disprove any conclusion.

[Little Rik]

Some kind of material, computational substrate is a necessary condition for the existence of a mind (whether it is sufficient is a different, irrelevant issue). In humans, the brain is this substrate. We know this principle as a scientific fact, for five reasons. I quote here from The Case Against Immortality, by Keith Augustine.

(F1) The evolution of species demonstrates that development of the brain obtains a corresponding mental development.
“First, phylogenetic evidence refers to the evolutionary relationship between the complexity of the brain and a species’ cognitive traits (Beyerstein 45). Corliss Lamont sums up this evidence: “We find that the greater the size of the brain and its cerebral cortex in relation to the animal body and the greater their complexity, the higher and more versatile the form of life” (Lamont 63).”

(F2) The same principle is demonstrated by brain growth in individual organisms.
“Secondly, the developmental evidence for mind-brain dependence is that mental abilities emerge with the development of the brain; failure in brain development prevents mental development (Beyerstein 45).

(F3) Brain damage destroys mental capacities.
“Third, clinical evidence consists of cases of brain damage that result from accidents, toxins, diseases, and malnutrition that often result in irreversible losses of mental functioning (45). If the mind could exist independently of the brain, why couldn’t the mind compensate for lost faculties when brain cells die after brain damage? (46).”

(F4) Experiments and measurements on the brain (EEG, stimulation of various areas) indicate a correspondence between brain activity and mental activity.
“Fourth, the strongest empirical evidence for mind-brain dependence is derived from experiments in neuroscience. Mental states are correlated with brain states; electrical or chemical stimulation of the human brain invokes perceptions, memories, desires, and other mental states (45).”

(F5) The effects of drugs show correspondence between brain activity and mental activity.
“Finally, the experiential evidence for mind-brain dependence consists of the effects of several different types of drugs which predictably affect mental states (45).”

http://www.strongatheism.net/library/ath...ind_brain/

evidence, noun

5. a. Ground for belief; testimony or facts tending to prove or disprove any conclusion.

Sorry yog, but this guy must be a total idiot.  
Consciousness as life start get stuck into a body-mind so it is obvious that when one element
doesn't work all the rest suffer.
The same thing happen when you are stuck inside a car.
When it doesn't go it is obvious that the driver suffer or when the driver is under the effect of drugs or booze the car can smash and everything get screwed up.  
This guy can well keep on sucking his cigar while masturbating his brain.  

[Little Rik]

The more I read about Bruce Lipton, the more obvious it becomes that he is nothing but a new age fraud.  You couldn't have picked a more untrustworthy source for your information.  He has a self-published book, The Biology of Belief: Unleashing the Power of Consciousness, Matter, & Miracles which apparently is little more than a marketing tool for an unproven therapy, PSYCH-K.

It's clear that you chose this source because it echoed what you wanted to hear, rather than because it is a reliable source.  That's typical of your 'citations' -- you don't care whether it's likely to be true, only that it aligns with what you believe.  This makes your 'researches' worthless as they are nothing but an exercise in confirmation bias.
You are an idiot, and your sources suck.  And to think that you used to criticize me for using Wikipedia articles; what a hypocrite you are.

Imbecile.  
Lipton has studied all his life on the subject.
He got several degree so he is an expert in his field.
It is natural that there is always someone who criticize someone else.
I guess that is also unloved by atheists as he was an atheist himself and become a theist after
studying how the cells work and have consciousness.  
David Gorski is one of his critics.
But the game of criticize goes all around so also Gorski is criticized by someone else.
Gorsky is a fundamentalist of the first degree and by the way he is not an expert as Lipton in the field of
cells consciousness or not consciousness.
But let me say something about me criticize you for getting material from Wiki.
That rely to few years ago if i remember.
In that instance i ask you and other people about the meaning of philosophy and
i pointed out to express your opinion without you get information on the net or Wiki in that case.
It was when i realize that you took information from wiki that i criticize you.
So the point has really nothing to do with wiki being reliable or not but with the fact that you could not
express any thing of yours.
Comprende?  

[Little Rik]

Babies have two legs.
Ducks have two legs.
Therefore babies fly south for the winter. Also go great in a curry.

Look mate.  
Analogies sometime make sense while other times do not but nevertheless most people who discover something use them for help in the process of discovering.
I believe that a body without any consciousness can not possibly exist.
But let us start from the beginning.
First of all i already destroyed the notion from one poster here that a cell is not a body.
As Lipton said a cell has far too many similarity to a human body so yes cells are bodies.
The problem with atheists is that they yes believe in evolution but at the same time haven't got the slightest idea how evolution works.
They say.....oh a cell can not have any consciousness as consciousness is a product of the brain
and there is no brain in a cell.
What a stupid comment is this mate!  
Brain and a developed mind come at a later stage when the consciousness get more and more expanded.
In the meantime they rely on that small amount of consciousness that mother nature provide them.
In the stone age people use to walk in order to get from point A to point B.
Much, much later on those humans discovered the cart and the wheel.
Much much later on they discover the pushbike and later the car the plane and soon we will travel
in spacecraft and so on.
So from here it is easy to realize that as the consciousness expand a new form of vehicle is needed to
carry on with the new situation.
As the cell will expand his consciousness and become an animal or a human being she will need a brain and a mind capable of deal with his new situation.
This is how evolution work mate.
In the future it is obvious that humans will born with smaller bodies as hard physical work will be done by machines or robots and bigger head in order to contain a bigger brain needed to sort out more difficult tasks.
But i doubt that atheists will ever get bigger brains as far as they keep on not understanding how evolution works.  

[Homeless Nutter]

[Cyberman]

Rik, I'm not going to insult you by saying that you must have thought that any part of what you just wrote addressed anything that I said.

I'm going to do it the traditional way. Stop being a twat.

[Red_Wind]

Sometimes i wonder if he really believes what he's typing.