It's been around for awhile, why nothing really wrong with it, besides religious jokes are hilarious.

Yeah, but the atheists can't take atheist jokes. Trust me; I've tried with them. I'm done.

Well depends on the jokes, if it's something thats just based off of bad logic or an ignorant idea.

If it's an actual joke then sure why not lol we don't mind.

Oh, I'm sure you don't mind; you're a decent person.

But I have never seen a post poking fun at atheism get anywhere near 100 thumbs. Plus, the "logic" the atheist posts question is questioned due to the lack of applying the other parts of the Bible that explains what they're Criticizing, such as the laws of the Levites (Don't cut your temple-hair, no clothing of 2 materials) were declared fulfilled by Jesus in the book of Luke.

But aside from that, you are the good example of an atheist, one I can argue civilly with.

Well i would have to say the main reason they don't get over 100 thumbs is because (Atleast I personally haven't seen) they only fall on failed logic about why atheists are wrong, and they don't make me laugh when the post is blatantly ignorant.

Personally I agree with those loose string arguments against christianity because they are only in specific situations, but I do feel there are alot of obvious ones they could use instead.

Personally, you probably wouldn't find me a good example of an atheist. Yes I don't directly cause conflict or provoke it but I do think religious people are delusional and make no effort to hide that fact.

Well, yeah, that's why you're an atheist.

I find a lot of very large gaps in atheist logic myself, which is why I'm religious. That's how it works, really. I would be upset with you if you didn't have a reason to be an atheist.

My reasoning for being and atheist is because theists have failed in providing evidence, plain and simple.

I'm not sure your feelings on the subject but if you feel at all like continuing this conversation, may I ask the gaps in atheist logic? Maybe I can shed some light on them.

Sorry if you don't feel like it, it's just fun for me to be in a relatively intelligent conversation.

Hey, I love running into civil arguers.

Several gaps, such as the law of the Universe; matter cannot be created or destroyed. That before the Big Bang, there was no time.
How can there be a Bang if there was no time in which for matter to act?
All scientist have said is that minerals formed together and created bacterial cells; they have never given anything close to a mathematical or chemical reaction thesis on which how that happened.

I believe in the Big Bang, understand that. I just believe that for the Laws of the Universe, someone had to have Banged it.

Honestly, it's hard to give strong arguments by text. But I hope this at least gives you understanding of my thinking. And even if they 'prove' these things, it still won't rock my belief, since it really doesn't contradict with it.

bible proves that everything in the bible is truth. circular reasoning works becasuse circular reasoning works.

1) Well, there is no evidence to our knowledge, and evidence is the presentation of facts in order to prove a hypothesis by definition, so there is in fact an absence of evidence (Though like I said, if the evidence came, it would still not change my believe)

2) Don't get me wrong; there are naturally occurring minerals and amino acids in order to create life, and I believe that they did in the beginning, but for it to happen, for them to collectively come together in the most unbelievably precise and perfect manner, in the natural world and not in a laboratory (That we cannot recreate in, mind you), requires a miracle, or in my case, a God.

3) 'Matter, time or energy can neither be created nor destroyed'. 'In order for an action to occur, the matter must require a medium of time to react'. There was no time before the Big Bang, and thus no medium for an action to occur, making a Bang impossible by the laws of physics

I'm a Christian, but I stand by science just as strongly as any atheist. The only difference between me and an atheist is my belief that the Bible is fact.

1.) The evidence is there because it obviously did happen (otherwise we wouldn't be here), we just don't have the ability to find it. (So if we were able to choose the universe wasn't created by a god you wouldn't change your faith? That is completely against the idea of science and to say you stand by it as strong as anyone else is ridiculous, because people change their opinions and knowledge when evidence is provided. You obviously would not.)

2.) Why would it need a miracle lol?

2A.) first of all, no it didn't have to come together in an unbelievably precise and perfect manner AT ONE POINT. There is an entire universe, and if we follow the idea of probability, anything that can happen in a space, WILL eventually happen. Life isn't anything special in the grand scheme, it was eventually going to happen, and yes it did.
So how does it require a miracle, if it is going to happen. That's like saying flipping a coin and getting it heads up after getting tails for 10 times in a row is a miracle. Just because something is unlikely, hardly makes it need god.

2B.) We cannot recreate all of the amino acids because the conditions for some of them are very extreme, while others are unknown to scientists as of yet.

3.) It's matter and energy. Time isn't a thing, it's a measurement that we perceive. So if something did happen before the big bang, there would be time. So your argument fails because time isn't something that "can or cannot exist", it exists by something else happening. You have to prove that couldn't have happened before you can say time didn't exist and as a result, we don't know.

All of your arguments (flawed or not) only try and support a god, not which god. The bible isn't fact and nothing you have given can prove a god, much less which god.