That's a good little sheep...

*@kdanley ---"Most atheists are guilty of "moving the goalposts." They demand evidence and then they reject any evidence presented as either insufficient or ridiculous. They will then expect you to accept their claims without support."

Where to begin? When I submit a scientific paper to a journal, it gets reviewed by experts in the field. They don't just accept it on the honor system. I have to provide data. Lots of it. And even then, they ask questions and I have to answer them. Without support? It's as much support as we can give given the technology we have attained. Here's the catch. When one of these ideas is found to be incorrect, to ANY degree, because technology or better data become available, we change our theory. Religion is incapable of that because you hinge it to an ancient text of "absolute truth".

You offer support? Somebody pulls a piece of wood out of the sand in the Middle East and you guys claim it's part of Noah's Ark EVERY TIME. And every time, it turns out it's part of a cart dated back a whole 50 years ago. Stop making ridiculous claims and offer proof that can make it through the same standards we put our proof through and we'll take you seriously.

It just occurred to me that you just took popular atheist arguments against religion and replaced "religion" with "atheist".

**@Rt5whatever

What scientific peer-reviewed papers are there that prove atheism? Atheists always reject Christianity because of insufficient evidence, but embrace atheism despite the fact that there is absolutely no evidence or logic to support it. That is like refusing to go to America because it isn't good enough, but then choosing to live in the middle of the Sahara Desert.

Atheism is the belief in the negative, meaning we don't believe in god because there's no evidence(basically speaking). I can't prove that unicorns don't exist because I can't be everywhere at every time. Does this mean that they exist? Of course not, because there is no evidence that they do. The evidence and logic behind atheism is that deism has even less proof. Most of the things Christians have attributed to their divine being have turned out to be caused not by supernatural divinity but by a simple scientific process. It is not our job to disprove god, it is your job to prove him. Asking someone to prove the negative is ludicrous. You can prove you've been somewhere, but you can't prove you haven't been somewhere. The America/Sahara comparison doesn't really fit since it depends on perspective. Of course you see Christianity as something great. You believe in it. From my perspective, Christianity is the Sahara.