Ellis Dee said:

I completely agree. I've been finding that atheists are just as closed minded as Christian people. Of course Christian theology is easily disproven and a lot of atheists think that means there is no deity of any kind. Their entire mindset is nothing but belief in a negative which is as easily disproven as the Christian dogma.

---

Ellis Dee said:

I completely agree. I've been finding that atheists are just as closed minded as Christian people. Of course Christian theology is easily disproven and a lot of atheists think that means there is no deity of any kind. Their entire mindset is nothing but belief in a negative which is as easily disproven as the Christian dogma.

---

Deviate said:

Ellis Dee said:

I completely agree. I've been finding that atheists are just as closed minded as Christian people. Of course Christian theology is easily disproven and a lot of atheists think that means there is no deity of any kind. Their entire mindset is nothing but belief in a negative which is as easily disproven as the Christian dogma.

---

Christian theology is not easily disproven. Atheists may think they are disproving it, because they dont understand the power of God or the true meaing of the scriptures.

But the tenets of Christian theolgy, there is a transcendental god who is the good beyond good and the source of all things, who is eternal, loving and just, etc. are not easily disproven.

---

Deviate said:

But the tenets of Christian theolgy, there is a transcendental god who is the good beyond good and the source of all things, who is eternal, loving and just, etc. are not easily disproven.

---

Sasha Gallagher said:

I have now been watching the Atheist and Christian community (it is NOT an Atheist/Theist community, they only talk to Christians) and I just want to point something out.

Atheists don't like testing themselves. When someone like Bill Nye debates Ken Ham, they all talk like "Are we sure we should really validate Ken Ham like that?" but then when Bill Nye is not debating Ken Ham, Matt Dillahunty is debating Sye Ten and everyone else is debating G man. The way to prove these people are not worth validating is by proving them wrong, not by talking to them OVER AND OVER.

If anyone else has been watching, you have probably noticed that Atheism has not ever clearly beaten the Presup. I personally think ALL the Christian arguments fail, and I actually have rebuttals for most of them, but the Atheists have literally been on this SAME topic for almost a year. Can someone PLEASE just think of a better argument than "Well, maybe I'm in a Matrix, but that's ok" again, I don't think the Christians have good arguments, but the Atheists have failed here.

If someone like Bill Nye doesn't come and prove it wrong, it will literally have atheists yelling at their computers for eternity, then having chats afterwards to talk about how circular the eternal debate was.

If someone wants to beat the presup, all you have to do is appeal outside your own reason. Stop being so full of yourself, and accept that you are not using YOUR reasoning, but are building on the reasoning of your ancestors, using their reasoning AND your reasoning, and hearing the reasoning of other. I have literally been watching for almost a year, and no one has been able to do that.

When I first noticed the Atheist community on Youtube a few months ago, I thought they were honestly the more intelligent side. I saw Bill Nye debate Ken Ham, and I thought he completely destroyed him, no one ever talks about the biggest boats we have ever made. Why would no one else use that in an argument against Noah? The boats fall apart, period.

As I watched the debates, I continued to feel as if the Atheists were smarter. But when you watch 2 people like Max Mills and Nick Duncan debate, you can see that there are obviously still some smart people that believe in God (and in case atheists don't know, not all religions require a creator).

But then I noticed something. "Atheism" has simply attached itself to "science". They are not smarter, in fact, many of them are "Shit Slingers". they will literally just say things like "Any tradition from before Jesus was just there because they had no better answer for it", not realizing that Doctors today STILL say the Hippocratic oath. This made it clear to me that Atheism and Science are actually opposed to each other.

Atheists don't like History. If you were to talk to a family in Britain, I am pretty damn sure they would know about the Royal family and the history thereof, and if you went to Vietnam they would probably have a pretty good idea of their heritage.

But because these Atheists are in America (and I have noticed a lot from Australia), they have the mentality that "That is ancient history", having no idea that history is how we got here.

They can accept Cosmology, and think that because they accept that, somehow they are "Science". But Science is far bigger than the realms of the atheist argument. Which has currently devolved to shit slinging. Can someone at least mold their shit into a nice statuette before slinging the next steaming heap?

---

Pope said:

The validating bit is a real concern, i dunno bout ken ham whoever he is, but if someone is consistently illogical and annoyingly childish and such then responding to them among other things can give them the impression that they're worth responding to and promote keeping them in their way, which can cause them to make much more noises at you. You can't prove these things wrong, expecting bill nye or anyone to do so is unrealistic, you can think up and believe in a million things like god, nobody unless they go to each and every end of the universe could prove you wrong, but a lack of an argument against doesn't mean proof for. I won't argue with you about the swamp man, and even if i believed in him i wouldn't expect you to prove me wrong ever, i' the one making the claim so i should be the one wading through the swamps til i can find him and pull him up by his leaves/hair and say 'look here is the swamp man', besides i'd be the believer so i'd be the one knowing precisely what to look for.

this is why it always ends up amounting to talking over and over, you can't actually prove them wrong, but as soon as they ask you to you can just as evenly turn around and dump a thousand gods in their lap and say to prove them wrong. you can't even so much prove that things just happen rather than they were created, cause anything can have a 'god was behind it' thrown on top of it

i'm atheist but i don't like most of the atheist community, but i also don't like most of the christian community, i just don't like most people and they're all in communities.  i don't think they imply everything before jesus was there because people weren't as intelligent, there's plenty of disoveries and such that've been made all through history that most anybody could agree with, but theres still always been an overwhelming belief in the magical alongside that, they're likely attacking that side of things rather than 'all ancient people', gotta use a little sense. hippocratic oath has scientific aspects (such as i will apply discoveries and proven methods to combatting unwellness in people) but others are just agreements and feel goods, such as 'i will respect the patients privacy' which is nice because we all feel better that way, but it's not full on science, it's a mix of how most people would -prefer- and enjoy being treated and using scientific discoveries within that framework, but discoveries that are still independent of it. if you got hemmorhoids and i cure them and i say 'this man had butt blisters and i have cured them' i didnt do anything unscientific by saying so,  i went against the oath, but didnt go against science at all, just the subjective preference aspect of it. what are the ways that you know to prove a creationist wrong and why keep them to yourself while everyone else runs in circles if you do have something?

---

Yes