We are definitely not speaking the english to each other a-pretty-pretty-good, that's for DAMN-sure.

Originally posted by Malacasta
Consciousness is not an invisible pink unicorn. Consciousness is something every conscious human being has and recognizes. An invisible pink unicorn is something that requires faith to believe in because it can’t be recognized.
The problem here is that no one believes in invisible pink unicorns. People believe various things regarding spirituality because they experience the world spiritually, in their opinions, through their immaterial conscious awareness. Invisible pink unicorns, aside from being self-contradictory (if they are invisible they can't be pink), are a straw man sort of argument against religion. I included the reference merely to be cute. It was a superflous comment. Sorry for the confusion.

Originally posted by Malacasta
This is a really strange argument because I already said that there are things that science has no strong explanation for yet. That doesn’t mean we should stop trying to understand those things and give them up as proof of the existence of god or some other supernatural thing. If we did that for every little thing that science had no explanation for, then we’d still be subscribing to the belief that the universe is a set of crystal spheres.
Another straw man, and the second time you have refused to acknowledge my out and out admission that the consciousness may very well be phenomenon that is nothing to do with the supernatural. The point is that if it is perfectly natural, then there is no reason to believe that other spiritual beings do not exist naturally, but simply have yet to be percieved by you or certain others.

Originally posted by Malacasta
Your posts are frustrating because you keep raising arguments that nobody has made about things already answered. Science doesn’t have a good explanation for consciousness to my knowledge. This proves nothing about science apart from the fact that it doesn’t have the all the answers to everything we could learn about our existence. If that’s supposed to be some sort of victory for your side, then so be it.
Since you've never actually acknowledged that Urgot did indeed imply that religion is useless in light of science, the victory of getting you to admit that science has not yet demonstrated its superiority in defining our place within the universe might seem to you to be a small thing, sure.

Originally posted by Malacasta
I also don’t see what this has to do with atheism being a religion.
Because you have not yet acknowledged how Urgot's system of belief resembles religious dogma.