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

[Longhorn]

Consciousness. You're using the word wrong. Cells do not *have* consciousness, and they are not 'made up' of consciousness. They don't have brains, so they don't have minds, ergo they are not conscious.

You're drunk on Chopra.

So according to you a consciousness must have a brain?

Yes, consciousness requires a brain. It is the process resulting from a working brain.

And it's not according to me.

consciousness
[kon-shuh s-nis]
noun

1.
the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

2.
the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people:
the moral consciousness of a nation.

3.
full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life:
to regain consciousness after fainting.

4.
awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge:
consciousness of wrongdoing.

source

Those are the definitions of consciousness. All of them require a brain. If you don't agree, please demonstrate an instance of consciousness occurring as described by one of the above definitions that does not.

You are perfectly welcome to make up your own meanings of words and use them accordingly, but don't expect others to accept them.

[Little Rik]

[...]The small always merge into the big so to me it is totally UNSCIENTIFIC to say that with the physical death everything die. 

You don't know what SCIENTIFIC means. It's not things that you recon to be obviously true (which they're not, btw). And anyway - who said atheism is a scientific theory? There's no way to test whether your gods, angels, souls, devils and pixies are real. However scientific method requires, that until you have actual evidence for any of those entities, you should proceed as if they did not exist.

 You should realize something - like most of us, you are pretty dumb. You'll do well to assume, that any conclusion, that you came to on your own, using your intuitive "understanding" of the world - is wrong.

A lot of guessing Nutter but you don't answer my question which is...........HOW COME THAT carnivorous (and here i include both humans and animals)
are aggressive while vegetarians are more relaxed?
If they are not getting the feeling of aggressive or relaxed  behaviour from what they eat then where from? 

[ignoramus]

Everything was going poetically well until I read line 4 about the consciousness bit!
Then it dawned on me! I had to get some milk for work tomorrow!

[luka]

This Little Rik person must be a troll. Please tell me you are. Before I go, what does it mean to be a "Neimen?"

[Longhorn]

You don't know what SCIENTIFIC means. It's not things that you recon to be obviously true (which they're not, btw). And anyway - who said atheism is a scientific theory? There's no way to test whether your gods, angels, souls, devils and pixies are real. However scientific method requires, that until you have actual evidence for any of those entities, you should proceed as if they did not exist.

 You should realize something - like most of us, you are pretty dumb. You'll do well to assume, that any conclusion, that you came to on your own, using your intuitive "understanding" of the world - is wrong.

A lot of guessing Nutter but you don't answer my question which is...........HOW COME THAT carnivorous (and here i include both humans and animals)
are aggressive while vegetarians are more relaxed?
If they are not getting the feeling of aggressive or relaxed  behaviour from what they eat then where from? 

Hate to break it to you, Rikky, but that's laughable.

Predators are more aggressive because they need to hunt for pray. Duh. While herbivores eat plants, which don't put up much of a fight. DUH.

And if we follow your line of reasoning, if the aggressive ones eat the relaxed ones shouldn't they be relaxed? Shouldn't lions act like zebras and zebras like grass and grass like the sun?

And herbivores are not 'relaxed' either. Ever seen a charging elephant? Or a bullfight?

Please open a biology book.

[Little Rik]

So according to you a consciousness must have a brain?

Yes, consciousness requires a brain. It is the process resulting from a working brain.

And it's not according to me.

consciousness
[kon-shuh s-nis]
noun

1.
the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

2.
the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people:
the moral consciousness of a nation.

3.
full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life:
to regain consciousness after fainting.

4.
awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge:
consciousness of wrongdoing.

source

Those are the definitions of consciousness.  All of them require a brain. If you don't agree, please demonstrate an instance of consciousness occurring as described by one of the above definitions that does not.

You are perfectly welcome to make up your own meanings of words and use them accordingly, but don't expect others to accept them.

You do one more mistake Neimen.
You assume that the level of consciousness must be the same for every living thing so if humans got a brain also a plant or a cell should have a brain
in order to have a consciousness if not she can't be conscious.
Didn't you go to the primary schools before you got into the high school and then to the uni?
Don't you know that the level of consciousness grow as you evolve?
Did Santa told you that without a brain you can not be conscious?
So how a plant can express a sense of pain then? 

[robvalue]

Did the "do you believe in God" thread run out of pages?

Why do I keep looking...

[Longhorn]

Yes, consciousness requires a brain. It is the process resulting from a working brain.

And it's not according to me.

consciousness
[kon-shuh s-nis]
noun

1.
the state of being conscious; awareness of one's own existence, sensations, thoughts, surroundings, etc.

2.
the thoughts and feelings, collectively, of an individual or of an aggregate of people:
the moral consciousness of a nation.

3.
full activity of the mind and senses, as in waking life:
to regain consciousness after fainting.

4.
awareness of something for what it is; internal knowledge:
consciousness of wrongdoing.

source

Those are the definitions of consciousness.  All of them require a brain. If you don't agree, please demonstrate an instance of consciousness occurring as described by one of the above definitions that does not.

You are perfectly welcome to make up your own meanings of words and use them accordingly, but don't expect others to accept them.

You do one more mistake Neimen.
You assume that the level of consciousness must be the same for every living thing so if humans got a brain also a plant or a cell should have a brain
in order to have a consciousness if not she can't be conscious.
Didn't you go to the primary schools before you got into the high school and then to the uni?
Don't you know that the level of consciousness grow as you evolve?
Did Santa told you that without a brain you can not be conscious?
So how a plant can express a sense of pain then? 

Having a brain =/= consciousness, having consciousness = having a brain. IOW not everything that has a brain is conscious but everything that is conscious has a brain. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Please provide an instance in which a plant demonstrates consciousness as defined above.

[Ashground]

A drop of water will sooner or later merge into the creek.
The creek will merge into the river and the river will merge into the big ocean.

???

If bad poetry was convincing enough I'd be following the bible/koran/torah/[insert random fuckwittery]

Your desperate desire to convince others of your conclusions would be better supported by evidence.
Evidence.
Evidence.
Evidence.
But by all means carry on with your 'but we're the river merging into the ocean and carried away on the mystic winds!'

[Homeless Nutter]

---

[...]The small always merge into the big so to me it is totally UNSCIENTIFIC to say that with the physical death everything die. 

You don't know what SCIENTIFIC means. It's not things that you recon to be obviously true (which they're not, btw). And anyway - who said atheism is a scientific theory? There's no way to test whether your gods, angels, souls, devils and pixies are real. However scientific method requires, that until you have actual evidence for any of those entities, you should proceed as if they did not exist.

 You should realize something - like most of us, you are pretty dumb. You'll do well to assume, that any conclusion, that you came to on your own, using your intuitive "understanding" of the world - is wrong.

---

A lot of guessing Nutter [...]

Uhm... What? Did you even read my post or are you just blind-trolling? 

As for your "question" - Ugh... no. Just: no. You clearly have no basic understanding of biology (or anything else, for that matter) and luckily - it's not my responsibility to tutor you. I sure don't envy the person, who has that gig...