Do you believe in Heaven?

Terry

Not sure

pretty-in-pink wrote:

each to their own, some of us believe, some of us don't. whatever works for you. I'm an a la carte catholic. if it was fire and brimstone for certain thins (sechs befoe marriage) then it's off to hell with me.

but I reckon if you're a good person,theres a deadly party (like the cocain and hooker ones) on the other side waiting for ya

With no hangovers or STI's.

Oman

Not sure

i think a lot of people dont believe but are afraid to say that they dont believe so maybe thats a reason that so many people said no because they aren't afraid to say they dont believe as they dont know anyone here personally

User45701

Not sure

Terry wrote:

I don't subscribe to that point of view.

I actually find that highly insulting to religious people (not the zealots, because they are ****ing lunatics. Just your average run of the mill person who believes in god).

Your assumption that they are all morons and weak minded is about as ridiculous as the view held by estebancambibas regarding aethiests, as retarded as that arguement itself is.
In fact, your view there sums up his arguement.

To class all religious people as morons is extremely stupid.

If someone finds comfort in religion, who are we to judge them?
It's their way of life and it is how they choose to live it.

You're not big and clever by slamming the religious beliefs of others.
It might seem like that when you're 14, but as an adult, it's just really pathetic.

Im not trying to seem big and cleaver with that post. Ive never encountered a religious person who could explain to me why they believe, ive asked but they cant give a good reason like a event that showed some proof or some thing they read that had some effect on them, In almost all cases its normally a result of there upbringing or schooling. There are some who found religion for a reason, some traumatic event and religion brings them comfort and i have no problem with that, that makes sense to me. I have a problem with people who believe in religion simply because they where brought up to believe.

eoin5

I'm going to live on russells teapot just outside mars when I die, I guess its a heaven of sorts

RoyalMarine

Not sure

dont believe in heaven myself. but i believe in something after this life.

as for going to hell, well if there is one, im going straight there.
ive broken 10/10 commandments...

thats if you take thou shalt not kill > killing someone, or causing hurt to someone with a purpose.

dan719

Not sure

eoin5 wrote:

I'm going to live on russells teapot just outside mars when I die, I guess its a heaven of sorts

But it's so small to be invisible to the naked eye- where will you fit?;)

MooseJam

Not sure

looking at who voted yes it's nearly all wimmin and that esteban bloke. The wimmins believe in heaven, us hard blokes don't grrr

tech77

Surely the only reasonable standpoint to take is agnosticism.
How the fcuk can living people assert either way that there is or there is not a heaven.

You got the religious fundamentalists on the one hand and the militant atheists on the other and i'd say it's a fair bet that none of them have experienced the presence/absence of an afterlife.
Yet they bang on endlessly about it.

It's just arrogant unfounded belief either way.
(or 'faith' in the case of the religious crowd)

I don't have a whole lot of time for organised religion anymore TBH but that Richard Dawkins fellow and his militant atheist brigade equally annoy me with their arrogant shtick. When he proves the non-existence of heaven i'll start listening to him.

Admittedly i'd like to believe in what could be termed a heaven but until then i'm agnostic i suppose...

MrJoeSoap

Not sure

tech77 wrote:

When he proves the non-existence of heaven i'll start listening to him.

I did spend quite a bit of time writing this reply, so I hope you do get the time to read.

I'll address this as rationally as I can, so as not to further any view that Atheists are militant, but because we do tend to hold a view that is completely polar to almost each and every religion I'm sure it can seem that way.

If you can suspend all previous beliefs for the sake of an example, just imagine for a moment that Heaven and God were concepts created by man in a book called The Bible, is it actually possible to prove that Heaven does not exist? Dawkins is a clever guy, but even he might struggle with that.

All that he and other Atheists can do is disprove countless aspects of the Bible as being invalid, the concept of Adam and Eve being completely disproved by Darwin's idea of natural selection and evolution for example, one of the most water-tight scientific theories (and it is just that for the moment, a theory). The universe is not 6,000 - 7,000 years old, as close studies of the Bible have suggested. Science proves that the light coming from other stars takes billions of years to travel, and there are various more ways of proving that the earth is older than that. These are things that are taught in secondary schools all across the country, schools that teach religion classes at exactly the same time. I never once had an Atheism class in school, but I did have five periods of Science each week, which were every bit as important in me forming my opinions.

No aspect of Atheist "teachings" for want of a better word, have a problem with homosexuals, nor do they encourage violence or hatred. Hence the only way in which one can generally term Atheists as "militant" is tongue-in-cheek or metaphorical.

Religion has been, and remains, the main source of conflict on the planet today. You only have to look at Northern Ireland to see that two groups of people, whose views in the wider scheme of things hardly even differ at all, have been fighting for decades. I'm certainly not trying to play the "Religion causes wars, why not try Atheism?" card here by the way, its just a bit of a tangent I've found myself going in!

Anyway, I doubt I've swayed you but I'd recommend that you have a look at the Bill Bryson book "A Short History of Nearly Everything". It's not written from any religious or atheist point-of-view, it is very much matter of fact. It is massively entertaining and funny, very reader-friendly and very hard to put down. It might change your views, it might not, but at least it will challenge them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Short_History_of_Nearly_Everything

MooseJam

Not sure

I think you mean Darwin not Einstein

MrJoeSoap

Not sure

Oops, yeah him sorry. Haven't read either to be honest. Pick holes if you will!

Haven't read the Bible either mind you...

Mr.Nice Guy

No

I believe in Heaven and I believe in God. I'm surprised at the amount of people who have voted No in this poll.

Most human beings throughout history have believed in an afterlife even though they have been separated by oceans and continents. This continues to be the case in the present day. If there's no heaven then why is it that so many people were convinced that there was? Those in Asia, Africa, Europe and beyond. Presumably an atheist thinks they were ALL wrong. I don't agree with that.

MrJoeSoap

Not sure

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

Presumably an atheist thinks they were ALL wrong. I don't agree with that.

I would imagine that by definition, an Atheist would believe they are all wrong.

Most human beings throughout history have believed in an afterlife even though they have been separated by oceans and continents. This continues to be the case in the present day. If there's no heaven then why is it that so many people were convinced that there was?

It's simple, fear of there being nothing after death leaves people grasping at straws. When a frog or a butterfly dies does it go to an afterlife? Why are humans any different? Why are humans so incredibly upset when they lose a loved one, even though their 'beliefs' suggest the person is gone to a better place? Because deep down they don't know that, and a good deal of them are afraid to say it.

tech77

Did you read my post fully.
I said i was agnostic (meaning i don't subscribe to either view).
It sounds as if you think i'm a religious nut though just because i don't subscribe to atheism.

If you can suspend all previous beliefs for the sake of an example,

That's just it. I don't hold any such beliefs, either atheistic or theistic/religious.
I'm best described as agnostic.

All that he and other Atheists can do is disprove countless aspects of the Bible as being invalid, the concept of Adam and Eve being completely disproved by Darwin's idea of natural selection and evolution for example, one of the most water-tight scientific theories (and it is just that for the moment, a theory). The universe is not 6,000 - 7,000 years old, as close studies of the Bible have suggested. Science proves that the light coming from other stars takes billions of years to travel, and there are various more ways of proving that the earth is older than that.

No argument from me here.
Doesn't prove that heaven does/doesn't exist though.

No aspect of Atheist "teachings" for want of a better word, have a problem with homosexuals, nor do they encourage violence or hatred.

Eh, again not much argument from me here.
Read 'militant' as in dogmatic, passionate, single-minded, narrow-minded, opinionated, evangelical.
Not militant as in hate-filled, violent, bigoted, homophobic etc.
Sheesh.

Hence the only way in which one can generally term Atheists as "militant" is tongue-in-cheek or metaphorical.

See previous.

Religion has been, and remains, the main source of conflict on the planet today.

Not much argument from me here.

Look I'm probably more rational/scientifically-minded than most people i know and remain sceptical about most things unless proven rigorously.
I've no problem reconciling such thinking with Agnosticism rather than Atheism.

MrJoeSoap

Not sure

tech77 wrote:

Did you read my post fully.

Yes, twice or three times.

I said i was agnostic (meaning i don't subscribe to either view).

I know...

It sounds as if you think i'm a religious nut though just because i don't subscribe to atheism.

I don't think anything of the sort, and you're putting words in my mouth.

That's just it. I don't hold any such beliefs, either atheistic or theistic/religious.

Agnostics still have beliefs, what I meant by what I said was "try to ignore any past thinking on the matter". Any clearer now? Go back and answer the question that you skipped now, if you can.

I'm best described as agnostic.

I knew that from the first post, no need to keep going on.

No argument from me here.
Doesn't prove that heaven does/doesn't exist though.

So how do I go about proving that something doesn't exist? Imagine I said there was a sock on the desk in front of you, does because you can't see it mean it doesn't exist? Why can't the same logic be applied to heaven and/or hell.

Read 'militant' as in dogmatic, passionate, single-minded, narrow-minded, opinionated, evangelical.
Not militant as in hate-filled, violent, bigoted, homophobic etc.
Sheesh.

Using those terms you're a pretty militant agnostic so, true?

Mr.Nice Guy

No

MrJoeSoap wrote:

It's simple, fear of there being nothing after death leaves people grasping at straws.

LOL so it's nothing to do with a genuine belief that there might be something after this life? My faith is not based on fear of nothingness. I believe because I think it's true.

MrJoeSoap wrote:

When a frog or a butterfly dies does it go to an afterlife? Why are humans any different?

We're different for lots of reasons. We have awareness, morals, faith. Things which animals do not. That makes us special.

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Why are humans so incredibly upset when they lose a loved one, even though their 'beliefs' suggest the person is gone to a better place? Because deep down they don't know that, and a good deal of them are afraid to say it.

Humans get upset when they have to move away from relatives, never mind when they die. It is because humans have love that they get upset. Faith in an afterlife can bring comfort to many who have lost loved ones.

I would like to ask you why atheists like yourself get so incredibly upset at the idea that there might be an afterlife when so convinced that there is not one? Maybe because deep down you're not as convinced as you'd like everyone to believe...

MrJoeSoap

Not sure

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I would like to ask you why atheists like yourself get so incredibly upset at the idea that there might be an afterlife when so convinced that there is not one? Maybe because deep down you're not as convinced as you'd like everyone to believe...

Upset is not a term I would use. Disheartened perhaps.

Do you really think Noah took two of every creature on an ark?
Is the earth really less than 7,000 years old?

tech77

Sorry for coming across as aggressive.
Apologies.

Anyway all i'm asserting is it's impossible to say whether heaven exists or not therefore i'm best described as agnostic.

Whether it's more reasonable to be theistically/atheistically agnostic is another story.

But i would have a problem with those who actively reject the possibility of a God.

MrJoeSoap

Not sure

Okey doke, each to their own I suppose. A lot of it depends on who you are, what you've read, who your parents are and who you were brought up as. We would all have different beliefs if we were brought up in Baghdad or Mecca.

Makes you wonder if the whole debate is pretty pointless to be honest...

Mr.Nice Guy

No

MrJoeSoap wrote:

Upset is not a term I would use. Disheartened perhaps.

Do you really think Noah took two of every creature on an ark?
Is the earth really less than 7,000 years old?

I think a lot of the OT is based on a desire to help people understand the world around them.

Do you really think the universe is the result of an explosion which simply went off for no reason? That's no more logical or realistic than two of every creature being put on an ark.

bringitdown

Not sure

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I think a lot of the OT is based on a desire to help people understand the world around them.

Do you really think the universe is the result of an explosion which simply went off for no reason? That's no more logical or realistic than two of every creature being put on an ark.

Whoa whoa whoa .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang
Plus its a theory: prove it wrong perhaps?

I will take something that is demonstrable over a superstition any day.

Now I know Dawkins doesn't subscribe to Non-Overlapping Magisteria, neither do albeit with a caveat: If a religious person practices(!) their faith in their own time and keeps their 'moral guidance' / beliefs to themselves flair enough.

It is when religious superstitions interfere with secular life (from 9/11 to shortened pub hours on a Sunday) that I as an athiest, and Dawkins and Hitchens and Harris and so many others get 'militant'. I very much doubt Dawkins would strike a person (or worse) for their views but vice-versa?

Anyway that is all getting way way way OT ... :
To the original question - No I don't believe in heaven or an afterlife. Wouldn't it be grand to have eternal life - well no, am pretty sure I'd get bored. I would'nt mind living a little long in the prime of my health ... but thats more me getting old then anything else.

Dave!

Not sure

Mr.Nice Guy wrote:

I believe in Heaven and I believe in God. I'm surprised at the amount of people who have voted No in this poll.

Most human beings throughout history have believed in an afterlife even though they have been separated by oceans and continents. This continues to be the case in the present day. If there's no heaven then why is it that so many people were convinced that there was? Those in Asia, Africa, Europe and beyond. Presumably an atheist thinks they were ALL wrong. I don't agree with that.

How is that an argument that an afterlife exists? "Because lots of people believe it"?..... Has anybody alive ever been to this afterlife? Ever experienced it? So how would the fact that alot of people believe in an afterlife demonstrate in any way that one exists? All it shows is that the concept of an afterlife has been prevalent in alot of civilisations. Nobody argues that.


Do you know how many sun and sky gods there have been in history? All different civilisations and continents...

Egypt, India, Africa, Indonesia, China, America (natives), the Aztecs, the Celts, the Greeks........

Does that mean that the sun is a god? Which god is real and which are bogus? And why does nobody worship any of them anymore?

Could it possibly be to do with scientific advancement, and the fact that we actually understand the sun now?

I'm sure there's a similar number of water deities, yet nobody worships them anymore.

Rob_l

Not sure

shut this thread down it s way off point:D


The poll at the head of the thread was wheter people believed in heaven or not



Just because people believe there is no heaven does not mean they do not believe in a god.

Sleepy

Not sure

Nope, I only believe in things there's a logical reason to believe in and I don't consider 'wanting to' to be a logical reason.

Nala

Would someone be able to point me to a decent site that outlines basic Roman Catholic views? Like are we actually supposed to believe the earth only came about 2007 years ago? So in the eyes of the church, dinosaurs never existed? Are we supposed to take all those stories (loaves and fishes etc) as fact? I remember our religion teacher told us that Adam & Eve never happened but that we were meant to take the moral of the story about not giving in to temptation.

And if God says gay people are wrong why does he create them???

User45701

Not sure

Sleepy wrote:

Nope, I only believe in things there's a logical reason to believe in and I don't consider 'wanting to' to be a logical reason.

Makes sense


I knew a kid when i was like 7 or so, VERY religious family, anyway im sure most of you remember the big big dinosoar fad. He was not allowed, the grandmother even contacted the school to try and ban the dinosoar collectable cards from the school.

I have to say i love the way some shows like family guy slag creationism because saying dinosoars are not real or the devil's trickery its complete bollox. I mean why not post a poll and see how many people belive in creationism.

Dave!

Not sure

User45701 wrote:

Makes sense


I knew a kid when i was like 7 or so, VERY religious family, anyway im sure most of you remember the big big dinosoar fad. He was not allowed, the grandmother even contacted the school to try and ban the dinosoar collectable cards from the school.

I have to say i love the way some shows like family guy slag creationism because saying dinosoars are not real or the devil's trickery its complete bollox. I mean why not post a poll and see how many people belive in creationism.

http://www.ottergoose.net/imgs/family_guy_average_retarded_creationist.png

hehe

Ciaran500

Not sure

Nala wrote:

Like are we actually supposed to believe the earth only came about 2007 years ago?

About 6000 years ago, google young earth creationism.

Nala wrote:

So in the eyes of the church, dinosaurs never existed?

They say they existed along side man and that large creatures that are mentioned in the bible prove this.

Nala wrote:

Are we supposed to take all those stories (loaves and fishes etc) as fact?

Depends some people take it word for word and some people think they are metaphors. Being discussed in the religion forums at the moment

Nala wrote:

And if God says gay people are wrong why does he create them???

Because they chose to be gay apparently. Although then you run into the argument if god is omnipotent he already knew they would be gay.

Orange69

Not sure

DaveMcG wrote:

http://www.ottergoose.net/imgs/family_guy_average_retarded_creationist.png

hehe

That pretty much sums things up right there, maybe replace the word creationalists with the term "people who believe in god"...

Ciaran500

Not sure

DaveMcG wrote:

http://www.ottergoose.net/imgs/family_guy_average_retarded_creationist.png

hehe

Sigged

Attractive Nun

Not sure

Nala wrote:

Would someone be able to point me to a decent site that outlines basic Roman Catholic views? Like are we actually supposed to believe the earth only came about 2007 years ago? So in the eyes of the church, dinosaurs never existed? Are we supposed to take all those stories (loaves and fishes etc) as fact? I remember our religion teacher told us that Adam & Eve never happened but that we were meant to take the moral of the story about not giving in to temptation.

And if God says gay people are wrong why does he create them???

When it comes to describing the physical world, there are no uniform Roman Catholic views. The Bible details a long family tree from Adam and Eve up around Jesus' time - X begot Y, Y begot Z etc. - and from simple addition, the conclusion would be that human beings have been around for ~6/7,000 years. Some Christians (creationists, who aren't Catholic so much) take this literally. Others take this and much of the Old Testament metaphorically. The actual intention of the writers of the Old Testament is far from clear, so the result is that people are left essentially drawing random conclusions and making things up. Quite a few just say it's not important so God didn't feel the need to descrive anything conclusively in the Bible.

I'm nearly sure the Catholic Church has repudiated literalist accounts of the Old Testament, and I recall the Pope proclaiming that the Big Bang theory was consistent with the Bible, though we're not supposed to explore it any more because it's 'against God's will' or something.

As for the dinosaurs, the odd fundamentalist will say that dinosaur fossils were planted by God as a test of faith, or by the Devil to deceive us, but most will fit the dinosaurs in somewhere. The loaves and the fishes, and the other miracles of Jesus, are absolutely meant to be taken literally - though it is difficult to see why they should be regarded as anything other than myths. Gays are gays because they have free will (which is a whole other theological problem for Christians) and they are bold much like murderers and adulterers, though most Christians will ignore the fact that homosexuality is supposed to be a sin these days.

Basically, you can make up whatever **** you like in theology. By incredible feats of debate, the most skilled Christians can debate their way out of most of the flaws and contradictions in their belief system (not all, however) but they will almost certainly end up describing a 'God' that is incredibly different to the one of the Bible. In other words, theology is equal parts interesting and frustrating - but ultimately a waste of time, because it's all a load of rubbish really.

And, no, I don't believe in heaven.

Ishmael

Don't believe in an happy place filled with clouds and angels but i like to believe in the ideals of heaven and hell. I.e Heaven being something of ultimate goodness and hell being the opposite.

Kinda of like Infinity and Zero in mathematics. Both are Unquantifiable, but required as reference points for everything else.

nice1franko

No

The books that the bible comprise of have all been copied by hand and translated (read 'mistranslated') countless times. Even today there dozens of variations of it. At this stage, it must be tainted and diluted by the mistakes and views of translators and copiers.

Still though, it contains remarkable wisdom, food for thought and good rules for life.

To take it all as literal is idiotic. Although it's interesting to hear others views on it, it's also idiotic (or, at best, naive) to let someone else interpret it for you, but worst of all again, is to disregard it because of someone elses interpretation or confuse it with someone elses interpretation.

Attractive Nun

Not sure

Double post

Attractive Nun

Not sure

nice1franko wrote:

Still though, it contains remarkable wisdom, food for thought and good rules for life.

Not to mention plenty of idiocy, jibberish and very very bad rules for life.

Terry

Not sure

User45701 wrote:

Im not trying to seem big and cleaver with that post. Ive never encountered a religious person who could explain to me why they believe, ive asked but they cant give a good reason like a event that showed some proof or some thing they read that had some effect on them, In almost all cases its normally a result of there upbringing or schooling.

This is known as blind faith.
Nobody is required to have a reason for their beliefs.
I find anyone who questions the faith of others to be arrogant. This country does not require you to have any particular religious persuasion and because of that, people are free to choose whatever faith they wish to follow.

Schooling and upbringing does play a major part, but once someone becomes and adult, they are free to choose their own path in life.

Blind faith is something that cannot be explained by logic. It is illogical, but not everything in life has to be logical.

There are some who found religion for a reason, some traumatic event and religion brings them comfort and i have no problem with that, that makes sense to me. I have a problem with people who believe in religion simply because they where brought up to believe.

Why do you have a problem with these people?
Do they offend you in any way?

If they are preaching hellfire and brimstone, then I can see how you would be upset, but someone going to mass on a Sunday and praying in their own home really doesn't have an effect on anyone else.

Religion does bring people comfort to some people. If it gets them through hard times, then it can only be described as a good thing. It shouldn't matter if someone has been brought up in a religious background or if they found religion later in life. It all boils down to the same thing. A belief in a higher power.

nice1franko wrote:

The books that the bible comprise of have all been copied by hand and translated (read 'mistranslated') countless times. Even today there dozens of variations of it. At this stage, it must be tainted and diluted by the mistakes and views of translators and copiers.

Still though, it contains remarkable wisdom, food for thought and good rules for life.

To take it all as literal is idiotic. Although it's interesting to hear others views on it, it's also idiotic (or, at best, naive) to let someone else interpret it for you, but worst of all again, is to disregard it because of someone elses interpretation or confuse it with someone elses interpretation.

I agree with franko here.
Misinterpretations can be a bad thing, but the core of the old testament is basically a book on how to live a good life.
It tells us to have respect for other people.

Fair enough, some of the stories are quite violent, but the world was a different place 5,000 years ago.

If you look at the stories as analogies, rather than the truth, then you can get a lot out of it.

We know the universe is more than 7,000 years old, but if you take the book of genesis as an analogy on how to lead a good life, rather than take it literally, it makes quite a bit of sense.

It really boils down to the fact that you should try not to succumb to temptation, that there are evil people in the world and that your actions determine how your life will turn out.

humanji

Not sure

Orange69 wrote:

That pretty much sums things up right there, maybe replace the word creationalists with the term "people who believe in god"...

Funny, I'd group of people who believe 100% in there being a god, with those who 100% don't believe in a god. Neither side has proof, but have somehow come to the conclusion that they must be right and quite often (like yourself) think that the other side must be crazy or stupid.

MrJoeSoap

Not sure

How do you prove something doesn't exist???

humanji

Not sure

MrJoeSoap wrote:

How do you prove something doesn't exist???

why would you need to? :P

MrJoeSoap

Not sure

humanji wrote:

why would you need to? :P

Exactly. If someone says something exists, the onus should be on them to prove it, not on me or anyone else to disprove it.

humanji

Not sure

But without anyone proving it to exist or not, can you ever really be certain it doesn't? It's a whole "If a tree falls in a wood, does it make a sound" type thing. Personally, I don't really care. By all accounts, god is a jerk and I want nothing to do with him.

Dave!

Not sure

humanji wrote:

But without anyone proving it to exist or not, can you ever really be certain it doesn't? It's a whole "If a tree falls in a wood, does it make a sound" type thing. Personally, I don't really care. By all accounts, god is a jerk and I want nothing to do with him.

No you can't be certain just like you can't be certain that the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist, so that's why we (humans) ask for evidence for everything if we are expected to believe it. Except religion seems to be exempt from this for some reason. hmmmm.

indough

At the same time, believers are not required to provide proof. They are entitled to believe in what they want and it's their own job to question their beliefs, not anybody elses.

Jigsaw

I believe in heaven. Nothing else for it tbh.

Savman

No

I believe in God and Heaven. I don't bother with these religious discussions anymore because they rarely stay rational, anyone with a strong opinion on the issue is likely to have too stubborn a position to be really as open minded as they say.
Believe what you want.

Thank you, have a nice day.

Dave!

Not sure

indough wrote:

At the same time, believers are not required to provide proof. They are entitled to believe in what they want and it's their own job to question their beliefs, not anybody elses.

Of course. Nobody is forced to debate religion, but if they do decide to, then I'm afraid "you can't prove he DOESN'T exist" doesn't wash with me or anybody else with a brain.

indough

Yes, but you are then forced to prove the opposite theory. You can't just hide behind the 'can't prove a negative' one. Everybody has a brain, it's how you choose to use it that matters

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Not sure

yeah, you can choose to use it.. or you can go pray

Dave!

Not sure

indough wrote:

Yes, but you are then forced to prove the opposite theory. You can't just hide behind the 'can't prove a negative' one. Everybody has a brain, it's how you choose to use it that matters

You can't disprove something exists.......!!!

For my part, I usually make points as to why it's likely a man-made invention, but I can't prove that god doesn't exist. The burden of proof is always on the person making the claim, as it should be. Innocent until proven guilty, etc. You would require proof for any claim to be taken seriously, so why would religion be exempt?

indough

It's funny that's the first thing you blurt out, it's the usual atheist response (I am an atheist myself, but always challenge my beliefs or lack thereof). Next comes "well if God created the Universe, who created God?"

I already know that you can't prove a negative already, but it's not really a fair to just say that and not provide conclusive evidence for your own theories. Science has give us a lot but we shouldn't ever get complacent about what we think we know.

Remember that just because you may not be able to prove someone guilty, that doesn't necessarily mean that they are innocent.