The real religion off-course, not that fake weird stuff.

I don't recall reading aklim's submittal proving anything here. Did you read otherwise?

One can neither prove OR disprove the other's beliefs. It's ALL moot entertainment arguing what one does OR doesn't believe - since NEITHER can present proof of their own beliefs, much less controverting proof disproving the other's beliefs.

I'm just pointing out the obvious here.

So you're saying you're agnostic then?

http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/u...pscd86c533.jpg

Going back to the original question from the OP. A (fanatic) religious person can answer this question without hesitation and has no problem defending his/her decision.

For a non religious person it's a much harder question to answer this with absolute certainty. There is no proof for the existence of hell, no one has seen it or has come back from it. But science, that I know of, has not disproved it either.

This is the only thing I've found on the interweb about science and hell:

"First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate at which they are leaving, which is unlikely. I think that we can safely assume that once a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let’s look at the different religions that exist in the world today.

Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle’s Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:

1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes over.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman year that, ‘It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,’ and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over. The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct….. …leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting ‘Oh my God."

I'd say that you do not have a very clear understanding of science. While it does not have all the answers and I doubt it ever will, it does provide a very good understanding of our world and the universe that we live in.

If you're talking about the Global Warming science, that decided it was global cooling before it decided it was really global warming, then decided it was global change, yeah, I understand that science's agenda quite well. :D

Science, at any given time, is whatever they want it to be, when they aren't really certain - they're just saying they're certain. That's the science I recognize.

So, yes, I have science's number........

Is that how you do it if you had to write a scientific paper? I have a thesis and you have to prove it is false? Or how about if I told you that I have a gadget that makes the sun rise in the east or west or north or south at my choosing? If you cannot prove I am wrong, it is right? Maybe it extends to the flat earth theory too?

My position is that if you can't prove it, it doesn't exist. Can it exist? Sure. But if you want to claim it does, prove it. Till then, it might or might not exist but claiming it exists invites the call of "prove it".

Then claiming it is real is as much of a joke as claiming pink elephants can fly.

I think that is an old disconnected number you have. The nice thing about science is that it can be a theory and that theory can be disproved should more information come in. Religion makes a claim it cannot prove.

Scientist didn't make the change between "global warming" and "climate change"; GOP polsters did. And before you ridicule me use google or bling and look it up.

Like I said. I don't think you have a very clear understanding of how the scientific process works .

Pink elephants can fly. I can prove it. All I need is a C-5, an elephant, and about 5 gallons of pink paint.:D

I'm a dyslexic agnostic insomniac.

I stay awake all night wondering if there is a dog.

Given the COTUS was drafted based on Jewish and Christian principles, it's the only way it would be safe. It's you and your liberal friends that want to see it thrown out the window.