Before 9/11 terrorist acts like that never happened. The world was once a great peaceful place for most people. 9/11 changed the world for the worse and the last 15 years the world has been on a downhill slide.

doubtful. I'm sure the world was just as bad, but now everyone and their dog has a video camer to record stuff and show the world how bad it is.

Why should any science need to prove there is no god? If I say that I know an alien from Mars then it's my job to prove it and not the job of others to disprove it. 

That doesn't mean there is no god but it's still not the job of disbelievers to prove there is none. 

The very point of science is to prove things. Religion is about faith. To prove ones religion would be counter to that, just as to not prove something would be counter to science..

So yes, in this case it is up to you to prove that God or whatever you are talking about does not exist. There is nothing for a religious person to prove. They believe. 

No, the very point of science is to peer review factual findings and test them against the fabric of the universe in order to better understand reality. How can you do this with a belief claim? Your kind of thinking is so counter-intuitive considering the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, whether it's a belief or not.

Let's put it this way: A believer claims there is a God, a Scientists' claim will be that there is no evidence. You are now saying it is not up to the believer who made the initial claim, instead up to science, so explain to me this: How can science prove that there is nothing of something that doesn't exist?

You still don't get it. Religion is not a science, it is not a hypothesis. Someone religious is not putting out some theory that God exists and trying to prove it like scientists do for their theories. They just believe. A believer does not care about proof or not. They have faith, or believe. Proof is contrary to that. They don't need proof and don't desire to find proof. If you need proof to believe in God, you do not beleive in God. 

You and other non-believers seem to care about proof that he exists or not. Thus if you want that proof, then it's up to you to go and get that proof one way or another. 

I don't get that religion is not a science? Interesting evaluation.

Someone religious is not putting out some theory that God exists? And they aren't trying to prove it? You can't be serious... Just for starters look up William Lane Craig or Eric Hovind. There are hundreds of more authors who believe in God and millions of people who claim to 'know' God exists.

It's cute that you think your words represent reality.

The problem is how you interpret the book.

As for as I understand, the Bible and Torah has changed and updated many times over the ages, but the Quran stays the same, it's the newest religion on the block after all. I'm just sayin.

Everyone should watch the interview Yasmine Mohamed by Dave Rubin. It gives you a perspective of Islam from someone who experienced it from the inside.

Suprisingly, I couldn't agree with you more. Which is why I propose to you that because everything which we can conceive of has a cause, it is logical to suggest that all things, therefore, have a cause. If this is true, then in order to explain the very existence of time and space itself, we have to recognise a 'first cause', which can cause other things (The BIg Bang) and yet, needs no causing itself. The only thing which could fit such a criterion, would be an omnipotent being. This being, due to it being ominpotent, must be God.