Religion and Science are 1000% Opposite

[Paraselene]

I guess you never thought about that Lut, did you?  

I tend to think rationally about reality, you are correct.

[TheBeardedDude]

I continue to be amazed by the fact that rik, a batshit loonie with three quarter of his brain missing and overflowing with contemptible conceit, could still, after all these years, have the time and mental energy of numerous thinking people on this forum at his beck and call,  to waste as he pleases with his emoticons and incoherent Ramblings.

Either they are a troll, or they are so far gone off the deep end that debating them is pointless. I've seen from their responses no reason to take them seriously and engage with them.

[Little Rik]

Can you please go back few pages in this thread and see who make the claim that the supernatural is bullshit?

Do it please so after that we can see who made the claim.  

Irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all Lut.

The rule is that the burden of prove is with the one who make the claim.

Failed once again guys and one more dogma to add to your bankrupt atheistic philosophy.  

You guys are lucky that there is no price to pay for your continuous failing otherwise you would have already gone bankrupt.  

[Paraselene]

The rule is that the burden of prove is with the one who make the claim.

Incorrect in the instance of this thread and this conversation.

When someone makes the claim that Santa Clause (god) does not exist, there is no logic in then stating, "The burden of proof is on you to prove that Santa Clause (god) does not exist." It is already understood that there is no evidence for Santa Clause (god), and anyone making the claim that Santa Clause (god) is real has the burden of proof to provide evidence of Santa Clause's (god's) existence.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Nope, the burden of proof lies with you.

Can you please go back few pages in this thread and see who make the claim that the supernatural is bullshit?

OK well let's not use the word supernatural at all. Makes it even easier to demonstrate that your god does not exist because then it can only be made of matter or energy.

You're the one that is explaining your beliefs by referring to things outside of this universe:

Where does disembodied conscious get its power source from and how does it not violate the second law of thermodynamics?

One more silly question Mat.

Once the body die the consciousness take over and separate from the body.
OVER WHERE?
Certainly not in this universal dimension where the law of thermodynamics apply.
Remember that within this universe we have a physical dimension but the consciousness is not physical by nature.
She is abstract therefore she is not bound by the rules and restriction that apply in this physical universe.
Once she leave the dead body then she belong to a different dimension where the physical-mental energy do not belong.
Only once she take a further reincarnation then she will be bound to the rules that apply in this universal dimension once again.

Nor do you understand anything about science:

Give me an example of a stable pattern of energy persisting for a length of time without the use of matter.

What a stupid question Mat.
Matter is just one of the factor within this universe that is made of energy-consciousness although is in a latent stage.
Space, air, light and water are the other form of energy within this universe so energy is everywhere and if you are aware enough of how the system works you can access energy 24/7 matter or not matter.

Science believe in evolution so it come natural that a plant will turn into an animal an animal into a human and so on.

So try answering my questions again without referring to the supernatural or alternative dimensions.

Provide evidence because you are the one making the assertions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Is that what you think evolution predicts, Rik?...........

That some organism in the plant kingdom will somehow turn into an organism in the animal kingdom? Or that some organism in the animal kingdom will turn into some other organism already in the animal kingdom?  Why do you think that?

Would it clear up any pursuant misconceptions you had if you were informed that no human did or even could evolve from the plant kingdom...and that no dog is or could evolve into a human?

[Crossless2.0]

Is that what you think evolution predicts, Rik?...........

That some organism in the plant kingdom will somehow turn into an organism in the animal kingdom? Or that some organism in the animal kingdom will turn into some other organism already in the animal kingdom?  Why do you think that?

I'll take "Doesn't Understand the First Thing About Biological Theory" for $500, Khem.

[The Grand Nudger]

I doubt that a person has to know the first thing about biology to realize that a cabbage will never give birth to a human being....though in the case of some human beings..........the similarities between themselves and cabbages are striking.

The notion that evolution proceeds "up" the phylogenetic tree and backwards in time to the point of divergence...then "down" another branch of the tree and forward in time to the present day, such that a sunflower seed germinates and produces a puppy......which then breeds up the phylogenetic tree and backwards in time, to the point of divergence, then back down -again-..skipping all interims -again-, and gives birth to a girl named Sally goes far.....faaaaar beyond ignorance of biology.

It's completely unhinged.

[Little Rik]

The rule is that the burden of prove is with the one who make the claim.

Incorrect in the instance of this thread and this conversation.

When someone makes the claim that Santa Clause (god) does not exist, there is no logic in then stating, "The burden of proof is on you to prove that Santa Clause (god) does not exist."  It is already understood that there is no evidence for Santa Clause (god), and anyone making the claim that Santa Clause (god) is real has the burden of proof to provide evidence of Santa Clause's (god's) existence.

If you can not give evidence that you are in love (physical or mental) how on hell you expect that someone can give you evidence of a spiritual love that is a lot higher than physical love?

It is only when someone experience that love that the evidence can be given.
By saying that there is no evidence that God exist you automatically play the dumb idiot considering that you never engage in the system that give access to that spiritual love and God evidence.
Dumb like a little boy that doesn't yet understand why two adult people kiss each other and think that they are stupid.  

[The Grand Nudger]

I can tell you why two adults kiss each other.  Are you kissing god for the same reason, do you expect to get in it's pants?  Are you gonna try to knock it up - or do you hope to have it knock -you- up? Will your children be cabbages, dogs, or Littler Riks?