TriNitroToluene thanks for admitting that you are only moral because of a reward (heaven)and isn't this what religion is about. All the evidence shows that there is no creator needed so why should a scientist add a creator, if the evidence points to no creator ? Just for your pleasure ? You haven't even understood the concept of science, it is not about subjective feelings or extraordinary claims its about evidence and handling it in an objective manner.

Its seems to me pretty obvious that you are trying to play the fear and hurt feelings card but that are the most subjective things you can possibly bring up in such a discussion. But what do you got left you have no evidence to prove your claim just a bunch of fairy tales and the old hurt feelings and hell card, what a bad argument.

Do you really think that there is a major conspiracy from all of science just to piss off Jesus or the “Invisible Man in the Sky” ?

You always have to ask yourself “What is more likely that all the natural laws are altered when it comes to religion or that your are simply mistaken ?