Evidence for atheist claims

[Little Rik]

YOGA! YOGA!

MAGIC! MAGIC!

NDE! NDE!

CONSCIOUSNESS! CONSCIOUSNESS!

BRAIN! BRAIN!

YOU STUPID! YOU STUPID!

DOGMA! DOGMA!

I am so sorry to hear that you had an other rotten day at your clown show.  

Don't despair son.  

Tomorrow will be better.  

[Little Rik]

@Little Prick:

Bullshit, you unutterable cretin.

It's nobody else's fault than your own that what you offer as evidence is not capable of withstanding examination. It's certainly not on us to swallow your brainjizz uncritically, just because you are incapable of critical thinking. Condemning your interlocutors as closed minded simply for not leaping into bed with you tells us so much about you as a person.

You could indeed give a list of what you deem to be "atheistic unfounded claims", but it's far more revealing that you won't do so.

Oh, and please tell me I need help again, you sanctimonious prick. I enjoyed it so much the first time.

Here we go Mister.

1) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
2) We evolved what we are because of the evolution of the species.
3) When we die is all over.
4) Feelings (sight, smell, hearing.....and so on) are only physical senses.
5) There is progress in this universe.

and....blah blah blahhhhhhhh......

So who talk bullshit Mister?  

[Little Rik]

The heart stop.
The blood and oxygen stop flowing to the brain.
If you only knew the basic ABC about medicine you would know that after a very short time that the
heart stop working the brain is dead but you try to be smart and keep on creating guessing after guessing
just to keep your reputation alive and well.
Sorry yog.
You fail once again.    





Mine is not a theory yog.
A myriad of people went through these experiences.
You did not.
Yours is all about guessing and nothing else.





Whooooo, whoooooo, whooooooo yog.
What a mess in your head yog.  
You claim that............  Sight and sound are physical phenomena.........
How the hell do you know that they are only a physical phenomena?
But let me explain why ........... an NDEer cannot experience the sights and sounds of hell.
As we understand the hell suppose to be physical according the religions version.

When you die physically you leave the body behind so a possible physical hell that of course
does not exist would not be able to make you suffer.
Your physicality is gone so a possible physical hell could not touch you.

The hell therefore is only mental for those whose karma require it but it is not a permanent hell
because through reincarnation anyone can and will sort out his-her own problems.





Wrong again yog.

When the consciousness is stuck to a physical body she is not fully able to express herself
but when she is free from the constrain of the body like when the body die then she is able to
fully express herself and therefore we can have the full expression.
Physical senses are constrained by the condition of body-mind that is why they can not give
the full expression.

Tried but failed yet again, little Ricky friend!

How not to seem be able to get atheism through thick skull?

You not see why we atheism are certainly right about all of gods be so silly nonsense!  

When you try to open mind :: thinks :: to how dumb and gullibility,

You can see


How poopy  the God idea is!  Sorry that you have to feel so much smarter than rest of us. [emoji22]

When thinking body dies that true consciousness leave to fly away to outer space or be monkeys or some shit!

Some day Ricky when the banging of head on desk can stop, you will realize the TRUTH!  

Body worm meat!  :: worm ::  bye bye forever once died!

It okay Ricky, [emoji8] take your time!  [emoji850] We waiting for you to ketchup!

It a slow race who wins it

Gee, that is very very interesting my dear.  

So you did die and you know that is all over.
Oh no, wait a minute dear.
You did not die but you know that when you do it will be all over.
Oh no cam, wait a minute.
You die but not for real.
No, wait a minute Cam.
You guess it, did you Cam?
Oh no maybe somebody told you.

Cam, please help LR to understand.  
Did you die to know all this?
Did you not die.
Did you die but it wasn't a real death?

Helphhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...............

[LadyForCamus]

Oh, this is so very sad. He doesn't even realize I was mocking him, LOL!

[Cyberman]

Here we go Mister.

1) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
2) We evolved what we are because of the evolution of the species.
3) When we die is all over.
4) Feelings (sight, smell, hearing.....and so on) are only physical senses.
5) There is progress in this universe.

and....blah blah blahhhhhhhh......

You know what would be more convincing? Actual examples of forum members saying these things, in context, with links to allow proper investigation. There you go - homework for your brain cell.

So who talk bullshit Mister?  

Still you.

[Angrboda]

You could indeed give a list of what you deem to be "atheistic unfounded claims", . . . . .

Here we go Mister.

1) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
2) We evolved what we are because of the evolution of the species.
3) When we die is all over.
4) Feelings (sight, smell, hearing.....and so on) are only physical senses.
5) There is progress in this universe.

and....blah blah blahhhhhhhh......

So who talk bullshit Mister?  

First, as has been noted previously, there is support for these claims, so you're making them out to be unfounded is stretching the truth. More to the point, in past you've referred to these as "atheist dogmas." By your own admission, a dogma is a belief unsupported by evidence. Regardless of what you think of the relative strength of the evidence, by your own definition they do not count as dogma. Therefore, your calling them such is another stretching of the truth.

Regardless, you discount the evidence for these propositions primarily because you disagree with the conclusions. You repeatedly trumpet your own worldview and how it can explain things when challenged with evidence for materialist propositions. However the test of whether something is evidence or not does not lie in whether there is a competing worldview or hypothesis whose advocates believe does a better job explaining the evidence, there will always be such. Your disagreeing with the conclusions of materialism doesn't make the evidence for those conclusions any the less evidence as evidence for your disagreeing with the inferences drawn.

Ultimately, worldviews or hypotheses have to be judged not in some absurd 'winner takes all' contest of who can spin the most consistent and compelling tale, but on a comparison of how the evidence for each worldview or hypothesis stacks up in comparison to each other. Such a judgement doesn't come from adversarial nay-saying, but from a holistic and charitable examination of the evidence for each.

The materialist paradigm is not without its gaps and flaws, but as a whole, the materialist worldview is well evidenced with entries coming from many fields, from philosophy to quantum mechanics. What evidence have you proffered for your worldview? Nothing but a bunch of analogies, bare assertions, a questionable interpretation of NDEs, your 'feelies' about your meditation and your intuitions about it, the yogic tradition, and various bits of tantric lore. If you've got something else to add to the pile, NOW is the time to introduce it. But I've been listening to you a long time and I think it boils down to that.

Given the relative strengths of the evidence presented for each worldview as a whole, the notion that "Yoga" stands up to materialism as a viable alternate hypothesis must surely be regarded as yet another stretching of the truth.

[Little Rik]

Here we go Mister.

1) The consciousness is a product of the brain.
2) We evolved what we are because of the evolution of the species.
3) When we die is all over.
4) Feelings (sight, smell, hearing.....and so on) are only physical senses.
5) There is progress in this universe.

and....blah blah blahhhhhhhh......

So who talk bullshit Mister?  

First, as has been noted previously, there is support for these claims, so you're making them out to be unfounded is stretching the truth.  More to the point, in past you've referred to these as "atheist dogmas."  By your own admission, a dogma is a belief unsupported by evidence.  Regardless of what you think of the relative strength of the evidence, by your own definition they do not count as dogma.  Therefore, your calling them such is another stretching of the truth.

Regardless, you discount the evidence for these propositions primarily because you disagree with the conclusions.  You repeatedly trumpet your own worldview and how it can explain things when challenged with evidence for materialist propositions.  However the test of whether something is evidence or not does not lie in whether there is a competing worldview or hypothesis whose advocates believe does a better job explaining the evidence, there will always be such.  Your disagreeing with the conclusions of materialism doesn't make the evidence for those conclusions any the less evidence as evidence for your disagreeing with the inferences drawn.

Ultimately, worldviews or hypotheses have to be judged not in some absurd 'winner takes all' contest of who can spin the most consistent and compelling tale, but on a comparison of how the evidence for each worldview or hypothesis stacks up in comparison to each other.  Such a judgement doesn't come from adversarial nay-saying, but from a holistic and charitable examination of the evidence for each.

The materialist paradigm is not without its gaps and flaws, but as a whole, the materialist worldview is well evidenced with entries coming from many fields, from philosophy to quantum mechanics.   What evidence have you proffered for your worldview?  Nothing but a bunch of analogies, bare assertions, a questionable interpretation of NDEs, your 'feelies' about your meditation and your intuitions about it, the yogic tradition, and various bits of tantric lore.  If you've got something else to add to the pile, NOW is the time to introduce it.  But I've been listening to you a long time and I think it boils down to that.

Given the relative strengths of the evidence presented for each worldview as a whole, the notion that "Yoga" stands up to materialism as a viable alternate hypothesis must surely be regarded as yet another stretching of the truth.

Yog.  

I already explained what the word support is all about.
It can be a strong support made with concrete and steel or can be a support made with a weak structure
that will collapse soon.
Forget about support.
We are talking about solid evidence not bullshit.
So far there hasn't been any regarding the dogmas that I previous mention so all your long explanation
is like a weak structure that means absolutely nothing.
By the way you just forgot about your recent dogma   (unproven truth taken as real truth) about the
senses that are only physical or better say that the feeling can not be perceived by a consciousness that is not physical.

But don't worry guys.
As soon as I have a bit of time I will go through the hundred of previous post in which you say and repeated those dogmas.

Have a good day.  

[Little Rik]

Oh, this is so very sad.  He doesn't even realize I was mocking him, LOL!

My dear.  

I am so so so happy that it was only a mocking.
I though that the bank repossessed your house and you are out in the cold.
I am so relieved now my dear.  

[Angrboda]

First, as has been noted previously, there is support for these claims, so you're making them out to be unfounded is stretching the truth.  More to the point, in past you've referred to these as "atheist dogmas."  By your own admission, a dogma is a belief unsupported by evidence.  Regardless of what you think of the relative strength of the evidence, by your own definition they do not count as dogma.  Therefore, your calling them such is another stretching of the truth.

Regardless, you discount the evidence for these propositions primarily because you disagree with the conclusions.  You repeatedly trumpet your own worldview and how it can explain things when challenged with evidence for materialist propositions.  However the test of whether something is evidence or not does not lie in whether there is a competing worldview or hypothesis whose advocates believe does a better job explaining the evidence, there will always be such.  Your disagreeing with the conclusions of materialism doesn't make the evidence for those conclusions any the less evidence as evidence for your disagreeing with the inferences drawn.

Ultimately, worldviews or hypotheses have to be judged not in some absurd 'winner takes all' contest of who can spin the most consistent and compelling tale, but on a comparison of how the evidence for each worldview or hypothesis stacks up in comparison to each other.  Such a judgement doesn't come from adversarial nay-saying, but from a holistic and charitable examination of the evidence for each.

The materialist paradigm is not without its gaps and flaws, but as a whole, the materialist worldview is well evidenced with entries coming from many fields, from philosophy to quantum mechanics.   What evidence have you proffered for your worldview?  Nothing but a bunch of analogies, bare assertions, a questionable interpretation of NDEs, your 'feelies' about your meditation and your intuitions about it, the yogic tradition, and various bits of tantric lore.  If you've got something else to add to the pile, NOW is the time to introduce it.  But I've been listening to you a long time and I think it boils down to that.

Given the relative strengths of the evidence presented for each worldview as a whole, the notion that "Yoga" stands up to materialism as a viable alternate hypothesis must surely be regarded as yet another stretching of the truth.

Yog.  

I already explained what the word support is all about.
It can be a strong support made with concrete and steel or can be a support made with a weak structure
that will collapse soon.
Forget about support.
We are talking about solid evidence not bullshit.
So far there hasn't been any regarding the dogmas that I previous mention so all your long explanation
is like a weak structure that means absolutely nothing.
By the way you just forgot about your recent dogma   (unproven truth taken as real truth) about the
senses that are only physical or better say that the feeling can not be perceived by a consciousness that is not physical.

But don't worry guys.
As soon as I have a bit of time I will go through the hundred of previous post in which you say and repeated those dogmas.

Have a good day.  

As usual, you've got nothing but a bunch of empty talk. You didn't even remotely answer the substance of my post. I would say I'm disappointed, but I'm not. I've learned to expect no better from you.

Got evidence?

No? That makes you nothing but a deluded crank.

[Angrboda]