These physicists might be right or they might be wrong.
But let's be honest, you think they're right. Don't try to present yourself as some sort of neutral party now.
I posted the article as I wanted to see how atheists would react to scientific opinion which is unsettling to their worldview, ie, immortality of the conciousness, as opposed to a scientific opinion which is not, such as dark matter.
1) This is not scientific opinion. Just because an opinion is voiced by a scientist, doesn't mean the opinion itself is scientific.
2) Why would the immortality of consciousness be unsettling to us? Quite the contrary; I would very much like to have an actual reason to believe in the immortality of my consciousness; I do not want to cease existing, so if there was actual objective reason to believe I won't then that would make very happy indeed.
The physicists who expressed these views are not crackpots, indeed somne of them are quite eminent.
1. Define eminent.
2. Establish the original source for the quotes, since it just looks like quote-mining at the moment.
3. Whether they're eminent or not is irrelevant; appealing to such a thing is what we call an argument from authority; a fallacy.
All I saw was a reaction much like I predicted, ie, the same as I would get if I said to a creationist the universe is billions of years old.
No, you saw no such thing. What you saw was people expressing skepticism and asking for something more than vague claims and quotemined blurbs. Pointing out (rightly so), that the claims in the article have not been scientifically vetted and do not in fact represent anything more than unsubstantiated opinion is *not* akin to a young earth creationist's reaction to scientific facts.
There was not one refutation based on the scientific method. Again much like a creationist.
Reversal of the burden of proof. He who makes the positive claim has the burden of proof. Furthermore, why would you expect us to refute vague statements that haven't been supported by actual arguments and evidence first? Exactly how are we supposed to refute something when there's nothing to refute? If you tell me you believe in an afterlife, I can't refute that. If you tell me you believe in an afterlife because 3+3 equals 7, then I have something to actually address and refute. All the quotes in the article show are vague statements without evidence or specific claims to address.
Braces_for_impact even posted a pic implying that he knows everything about quantum physics.
A picture that makes fun of your arguments does not imply that he thinks he knows everything about a given subject. It just implies that he thinks you're an idiot.
I have no doubt whatsoever that if the article had been about something else related to quantum physics there would not have been one refutation.
I have no doubt that you're wrong. Because of the nature of QM however, I can not say what about.
Who even has the knowledge to refute this?
So let's say, for the sake of argument, that nobody here has the necessary knowledge to refute claims regarding quantum mechanics. WHY exactly does that mean we're supposed to take these claims seriously? Do you lend credence to any and all claims regarding a subject you're not knowledgeable about? Would you believe someone telling you that you can run your car by pouring in sugar instead of oil just because you don't know how engines work?
This shows huge bias and closed mindedness.
Those words, I don't think they mean what you think they do. Expressing skepticism about vague claims that have no arguments/evidence in their favor is neither biased nor closedminded, even less so when said expression is followed by requests for actual evidence and arguments.
So much for free thought eh.
Again, I don't think that term means what you think it means.
You mention argument from authority and then ask for a peer review. Isn't that another argument from authority.
Asking for peer review is obviously not an argument from authority, and if you think that it is then you probably shouldn't be trying to argue anything relating to science.
Peer review ensures that a scientific hypothesis is in fact scientifically sound. The whole point of peer review is to present your claims before the merciless judge of science. Peer review lets the rest of us know that a scientific claim has been vetted by independent experts. It lets us know that true or false, it's good science; that it follows the scientific process and isn't so easy to knock down as to be pseudoscience. Asking for peer review isn't an argument from authority, it's asking for a willingness to put one's claims to the test. A person who is not willing to put his claims to the test, is a person whose claims aren't worth considering.
Unlike you, I don't need arguments from authority.
Yet you have done almost nothing but appeal to authority. According to you, we're supposed to take these claims seriously because they're supposedly made by "international" physicists (even though it looks like quotemining to the rest of us, so we're not even sure if these claims represent their actual views). That is the very definition of an argument from authority.
As skeptics, we do not find ourselves compelled to take the claims of anyone seriously based purely on such reasoning. Nor do we find the other argument you're making; that the claims have merit by virtue of the fact we can't provide evidence that they're wrong; particularly compelling either. As mentioned, that is a reversal of the burden of proof. We no more have to provide evidence that these claims are false than you have to provide evidence I have not created a time machine: you can not provide such evidence. At best, you can argue that my own evidence for its existence is lacking.
I don't need one or more scientists to tell me what to think.
Then why make mention of them at all? What's the point of the OP?
You also have not explained what is illogical and irrational about the continuance of consciousness,
Again, he doesn't have to. It's a reversal of the burden of proof.