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

[robvalue]

I think he just enjoys the attention.

[Angrboda]

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?  

Liar.

Not all the information coming from Wiki are incorrect but many are that is why in the scientific world this source is not taken in much consideration.

[Angrboda]

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.

That's an interesting hypothesis, but that's all it is, a hypothesis. The evidence is consistent with both your hypothesis and his, so it cuts both ways. It's equally as true, given what he said, as it is given what you said. The evidence doesn't lean one way or another, for or against his hypothesis. But you are too blinded by your dogma about the car and driver to see that. Which makes you the total idiot.

Whether you agree with his hypothesis or not, the points he lists constitute evidence that consciousness is in the brain.

[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.

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.

So what's your point here? That we shouldn't pay attention to criticism? That all sources are equally credible? They aren't. Is it that we should ignore criticism when a person is roundly condemned by everyone in the field? That's awfully convenient for you. ("Lipton remains on the sidelines of conventional discussions of epigenetics. Mainstream science has basically ignored him." -- Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment) The truth is that criticisms matter and some criticisms are more meaningful than others. And the criticism that Bruce Lipton has accumulated by being a charlatan and a quack are quite relevant and meaningful.

Here's what Wikipedia says about the applied kinesiology which Lipton is pushing with his book:

Nearly all AK tests are subjective, relying solely on practitioner assessment of muscle response. Specifically, some studies have shown test-retest reliability, inter-tester reliability, and accuracy to have no better than chance correlations. Some skeptics have argued that there is no scientific understanding of the proposed underlying theory of a viscerosomatic relationship, and the efficacy of the modality is unestablished in some cases and doubtful in others. Skeptics have also dismissed AK as "quackery," "magical thinking," and a misinterpretation of the ideomotor effect. It has also been criticized on theoretical and empirical grounds, and characterized as pseudoscience. With only anecdotal accounts claiming to provide positive evidence for the efficacy of the practice, a review of peer-reviewed studies concluded that the "evidence to date does not support the use of [AK] for the diagnosis of organic disease or pre/subclinical conditions."

In 2014, a randomized, double-blind trial was conducted to evaluate applied kinesiology results. The output of that study equated successful identification of a material via applied kinesiology techniques as statistically no better than chance. The summation of the work concluded that "The research published by the Applied Kinesiology field itself is not to be relied upon, and in the experimental studies that do meet accepted standards of science, Applied Kinesiology has not demonstrated that it is a useful or reliable diagnostic tool upon which health decisions can be based."
[emphasis mine]

That's scientific studies showing that Lipton's chosen therapy to push works no better than chance.

That's a meaningful criticism.

[Angrboda]

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 ...

The nucleus doesn't perform a function even remotely like a brain. And the same goes for the cell membrane. Your author has overreached. "As Hume states the relevant rule of analogy, "wherever you depart in the least, from the similarity of the cases, you diminish proportionably the evidence; and may at last bring it to a very weak analogy, which is confessedly liable to error and uncertainty" (Hume, Dialogues, Part II)."(http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/) Your author has departed greatly from the similarity of the cases. Really? The cell membrane is like a brain? No it is not.

I believe that a body without any consciousness can not possibly exist.

Nobody gives a flying fuck what you 'believe' based on your Yoga, we care what you have evidence for. So far the only thing you've used to support your belief is bad analogies, bare assertions, and what you believe based on Yoga. That's not evidence. Anybody can spin similar stories about most anything. ("A cell is like a factory. Factories have smoke stacks. Therefore a cell has a smokestack, it's just nonphysical and can't be seen." )

A false analogy is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone applies facts from one situation to another situation but the situations are substantially different and the same conclusions cannot logically be drawn.

Sometimes these differences are outright ignored by the person presenting the fallacy; other times, they may not be aware of the differences. The fallacy occurs, and is common, because real-world parallels are always limited; the differences between things can often overpower their similarities.

Analogies and metaphors can be very useful to explain things to people and often play an important part in learning. However, because of the prevalence of false analogies they're much less useful in making arguments.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/False_analogy

Joseph C. Keating, Jr., PhD,[34] discusses vitalism's past and present roles in chiropractic and calls vitalism "a form of bio-theology." He further explains that:

    "Vitalism is that rejected tradition in biology which proposes that life is sustained and explained by an unmeasurable, intelligent force or energy. The supposed effects of vitalism are the manifestations of life itself, which in turn are the basis for inferring the concept in the first place. This circular reasoning offers pseudo-explanation, and may deceive us into believing we have explained some aspect of biology when in fact we have only labeled our ignorance. 'Explaining an unknown (life) with an unknowable (Innate),' suggests philosopher Joseph Donahue, D.C., 'is absurd'."

Wikipedia | Vitalism

[Little Rik]

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?  

Liar.

Not all the information coming from Wiki are incorrect but many are that is why in the scientific world this source is not taken in much consideration.

So you reckon that there is a contradiction among the two statements and that make me a liar?
Let us see.
In the first statement i say ....... the point has really nothing to do with wiki being reliable or not.........here i am not saying whether wiki is good or bad, no judgement therefore.
In the second statement i say .........Not all the information coming from Wiki are incorrect but many are that is why in the scientific world this source is not taken in much consideration........here i say that wiki some time is correct while other time is not.
How these two statements contradict each other only Santa and an imbeciles like you know.  

[Little Rik]

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.

That's an interesting hypothesis, but that's all it is, a hypothesis.  The evidence is consistent with both your hypothesis and his, so it cuts both ways.  It's equally as true, given what he said, as it is given what you said.  The evidence doesn't lean one way or another, for or against his hypothesis.  But you are too blinded by your dogma about the car and driver to see that.  Which makes you the total idiot.

Whether you agree with his hypothesis or not, the points he lists constitute evidence that consciousness is in the brain.

Idiot.  
I never said that the consciousness is or is not in the brain.
I rather said that the consciousness is not the mind or the brain.
That doesn't mean that they all can be located in the same place
like a driver that is located inside a car so the car thanks to all of them can move.
Comprende?      

[Homeless Nutter]

I think he just enjoys the attention.

I think he enjoys dragging his ar*e across the carpet...

[robvalue]

That would at least leave some kind of impression.

[Cyberman]

He is definitely a shining wit, as the Reverend Spooner would say.