Why do Atheists only attack Christians and no other religious group?

Atheists say the same to Satanist as they do to God believers, none of it is real. The difference is the God botherers hold positions of power, either in politics, money or in control of people's lives. I don't know many satanists involved in paedophilia but I know the Catholic Church globally has been involved in it for centuries and has so many victims.

While the notion was approaching exagerrated mass hysteria levels in the US in the mid 1980s, some so-called Satanic circles actually were involved in pedophilia.

Atheists, in general, seem to be one of the most vocal groups on the planet. In general, they're unwilling to coexist with religious values and lifestyles.

Really? What is the equivalent in atheism of the Vatican? Or Mecca? Or the thousands of TV channels devoted to religious BS pouring out in every country?

I don't know of atheist terrorists and atheists are quite happy to coexist with those of faith, where they draw the line is where you personal belief becomes influential in politics or the rule of law. It's fine to have your belief, but leave others alone that do not share that belief.

It's like Fox News but with a scientology angle. Nothing but top to bottom brainwashing.

Except that personal beliefs - primarily Christian here - are not only influential in politics, they are the basis of our morality, laws, and culture.

Atheists have taken legal action all the way to the Supreme Court in the US to try to remove everything from Nativity Scenes in public, Christmas trees at airports, the display of the Ten Commandments in goverment buildings to removing the mention of God from our money.

You honestly aren't aware that in Britain, where you're from, this has been so extensive that the Church of England has only 10% of the population calling themselves members, and a slowly increasing number of Brits seeking some sort of faith to join are turning to Islam because it doesn't get maligned as much because that would be considered racist?

Atheists can be a rather zealous lot themselves.

I couldn't believe some of the things you wrote, they seemed unbelievable but I looked up the Nativity Scene and it wasn't true. They didn't ask for its removal.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/atheist-group-forces-removal-of-nativity-scene-from-nebraska-capitol/

People in the UK are not turning to Islam, that's an import. Religion is on the decline and still is, even muslims are leaving their faith. (When not being threatened by their families)

Wish I could say I couldn't believe you still play the obtuse ignoramus, but alas,,,

Islam is an import to the UK? Yer joshin' me, ain'tcha?
Next you're going to tell me Islamic immigrants are the ones that brought Islam in.

Interesting, no wonder I couldn't find it, it's from 1984! No where does it say that an atheist brought this case but ruling was correct. Santa, Xmas trees and the rest are not religious at all, just goes to show snowflakes have existed for a long time...

Posting a meme doesn't make what you right in it correct....

no , but not knowing the difference between RIGHT and WRITE makes you look like a moron.

HA HA!!!

A screenshot of a Google search disproving your asinine lie about not turning anything up on the same is hardly a meme and, hate to break it to you, does.

yeah! some times we can go over the top with trying to show people some sense, but for the most part, athiests respect opinions

So are you open to letting public schools' science classes present students with evidence that Creationism might be true? Or will only the atheist opinion be tolerated?

Which one? Want the Hindu one to be taught too? The Sumerian? Zoroastrian?

It's not an atheistic opinion, it's a scientific one.

Creationism is pretty universal. It's the simple truth that the ecosystems, planets, and galaxies were organized by Intelligent Design instead of random chaos.

Biology class should point out the holes in the theory of macro-evolution. And other science classes should point out the holes in the assumption of natural formation.

It's not a simple truth, it's mytholgy for simple minded people who could not fathom the truth.

The continuing sequence of micro evolution adds up to macro evolution.
Granted, this was necessary to fill the glaring gaps creationism does not even bother to address, but all it does is verify evolution - graduated changes passed on to following generations.

I find the idea of random chaos organizing something so complex as genetic coding, the human brain, and this hospitable planet, to be more far-fetched than Creationism. Atheist arrogance is modern mythology.

Plants and animals reproduce after their own kind (Genesis 1:21-25). The original Neanderthal skeleton studied by Boule has more recently been shown to have been a person with severe arthritis (Harold G. Coffin, Creation: The Evidence from Science, p. 10).

Science is about observation, right? We’ve certainly observed microevolution—different breeds of dogs, different races of humans, mutating bacteria. It’s like minor horizontal changes, occurring within strict limits. Niles Eldredge said that virtually all members of a region’s, or an era’s, biology remain stable, with minor fluctuations (The Pattern of Evolution, p. 157). No one has ever observed macroevolution—major vertical shifts. It doesn’t seem to be happening now, for there are no living links between the different orders of life. I mean, there are felines and canines, but no “cafelines.”

If we take the fossil record at face value, macroevolution hasn’t occurred in the past either. According to Darwin’s theory, the fossils should present a line of indistinguishable, transitional forms in the process of evolving. But they don’t. It’s not just a case of one missing link…whole sections of the chains are missing.

What’s more, according to DNA, cows are more closely related to dolphins than to horses. Umm, that makes zero sense in Darwin’s evolution. But it makes sense in theology. You see, similarities in DNA structure don’t mean a common ancestry…just a common Maker. “There is no reason whatever why the Creator could not or would not use the same type of genetic code based on DNA for all His created life forms. This is evidence for intelligent design and creation, not evolution. …The apparently small differences between human and chimpanzee DNA obviously produce very great differences in their respective anatomies, intelligence, etc. The superficial similarities between all apes and human beings are nothing compared to the differences in any practical or observable sense” (Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., “The Scientific Case Against Evolution,” www.icr.org).

Darwin knew of DNA? He said Perrisodactyla and Artiodactyla are one? For the sake of your argument, let's say he did. Regardless:

1. The science was in it's new born infancy. Science, by design, seeks to perfect knowledge. Mistakes are to be expected in theory and are rectified when recognized.
The ossified mythology of people who think stars are angels and the world is a flat slab riding on a turtle's back does not.

2. Darwin was a charaltan anyways.
His story is that he sat on his idea for 20 years and suddenly 'remembered' it after Alfred Russell Wallace sent his theory to Darwin for review and aid in publication. Darwin did, only forgetting to mention Wallace.

So holding Charles to correct DNA analysis is not a prerequisite for the accuracy of the notion he stole.

The similarity between ungulates is accounted by Convergent Evolution. Horses and cows are hooved, but any farmer even back in Biblical times knew they were differences. Odd vs even toed, guts, teeth...

Horses are closer to humans and elephants (think middle finger) than to cows, who are closer to dogs than to them. It was originally thought Cetaceans evolved from Creodonts, also thought as the ancestors of Carnivores. Now it is known that they EVOLVED from artiodactyls - as you yourself backed by mentioning the close genetic link (also evidenced by sharing a four chambered stomach and distinctive ear bones). Heck, turns out Creodonts might not be the ancestors of Carnivores for that matter.
Almost forgot, the Bible identifies whales as fish, not mammals. Drawings from the heyday of whaling even show them with gills and scales!

Felines and Canines represent the two big branches of that order. There are different species, some closer, some more distant. Gaps occur as lineages diverge, remember?
Hyenas, despite a superficial resemblance to dogs, are closer to cats, as are mongooses. Weasels, which bear a resemblance to mongooses, are closer to dogs and bears.

Ahh, but I digress. Hippos, originally accepted as closest to pigs, are actually closer to whales & porpoises, DNA has shown.
Funny how this divine 'intelligent designer' created them as land whales, and left aquatic whales the remants of a useless pelvis within their body. Then again, we have equally useless appendixes and on occasion, wisdom teeth, and we were created in your intelligent designers defective image, so tis cool,,,

designer's*

Far fetched? Ever seen the human brain down to it's structure, nerves, cells, proteins, hormones that flow through it, etc, or that of one that is abnormal? Or aged? The Bible cover any of that? Oh, that's right, it does - demonic possession, or a curse from God visted unto the children of sinners...
And you are correct about that - easier to think a petty vindictive bogeyman in the sky causes cerebral palsy rather than nerves not sheethed in sufficient myelin, or demented rather than clumping nerves misfiring in the that of someone with Althzeimer's

You attempt to use bits of science configured to to a religious scaffolding - YOUR religion, conveniantly.

Despite Noah supposedly taking 2 of EVERY animal (or at least not the unclean ones, or, but he did anyways, and...), we have the remains of creatures which are extinct, most of those not mentioned in the Bible, despite the fact that Adam named every one of them - or was that only those in Eden, or outside in the world where the Gods also created them...?

Anyways, not every creature to have lived has been discovered, as new ones are found all the time. Of course there's gaps, but those are narrowing over time. Take the illustrious "Where's the missing link?" question STILL asked by creationists. In terms of humans, turns out there isn't one, there's several. Some are not even links, but branches, dead ends that didn't lead to modern humans. So much for this single linear threads of transition theory you refer to as Darwinism which is not.
Speaking of.... It has been known for decades that the first identified Neanderthal was riddled by athritis. The stoop shouldered image that lingered was incorrect. The rest found have not been malformed by such. Further, as they began to disappear, hybridized fossils of H Neanderthalis and H Sapiens have been found. Intermediary cranial features, limb lengths... Now we can openly admit that facial characteriscs of Caucasions (higher bridged nose, narrower elongated skull, sloping forehead) which resemble Neanderthals do because they came from them.

It is curious that chimps, as you mentioned, so closely resemble humans, reckon that intelligent designer was running short on ideas. The farther back, the closer they become. Bear in mind that the transitions are not merely variants on the same plane, as the greatest differences occur further down the strata. Creatures evolve, lineages separate, and links widen over time. That's what evolution does.

A final piece of evidence against evolution is the second law of thermodynamics, which says that all closed systems—physical, chemical, geological, and biological—all closed systems naturally deteriorate towards disorder and simplicity, unless an intelligent Design intervenes. “Simply saying that the earth is open to the energy from the sun says nothing about how that raw solar heat is converted into increased complexity in any system, open or closed. The fact is that the best known and most fundamental equation of thermodynamics says that the influx of heat into an open system will increase the [disorder] of that system, not decrease it. All known cases of decreased entropy (or increased organization) in open systems involve a guiding program of some sort and one or more energy conversion mechanisms. Evolution has neither of these. …Natural selection cannot generate order, but can only ‘sieve out’ the disorganizing mutations presented to it, thereby conserving the existing order, but never generating a new order” (Henry M. Morris, Ph.D., “The Scientific Case Against Evolution,” www.icr.org).

That is just silly.

Please show where any scientist has ever stated that the Law of Thermodynamics is dependent on Intelligent Design AKA Divinity in any regard, whether starting it or keeping it intact or anything else in between.

OK, there's evidence to prove that we evolved from micro bacteria, but all the evidence for creationism is a big, old, book. How about Epicurus. "Is god willing to stop evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able not willing? Then why call him god?" If god is all powerful, then why make other religions? Hmm? If he is all powerful, then how did an angel go evil, and become Satan? Why did Hitler, A CHRISTIAN, be so evil? God did make us to be like him apparently! So is god a fascist? A so-called brainless liberal? If god was all powerful, why doesn't he just destroy the devil, and stop all evil? Or is the devil too powerful? I've got more, just not more time.

I'm all for the truth being taught in schools, especially history. But I'm still waiting on that one, too. Here's an article inferring there may be scientific evidence supporting the Adam & Eve creation story:

https://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html

Back to one man and likely one woman (or maybe more than one woman, who knows).

well, we might as well be telling kids that pigs fly! no one make a police helicopter joke. i swear to god

See my responses to Modda below.

What do you think communist world revolution was about?

No, I mean the communists' goal of global revolution. To create "economic equality" for all mankind, and to get rid of such subversive concepts as individual freedom, faith in a higher power, and the divine inalienability of human rights.

Oh, my gosh. Really?
The Cold War. The Korean War. The Vietnam War. The Greek Civil War. The Soviet invasion of Czechoslovokia. What Castro did to Cuba.

Sorry, didn't realize the topic had gone so far off track from my original statement. I don't know of any wars started by non-believers meant to crush believers. Communism is something else, in my opinion. I mean specifically like the opposite of the crusades.

There are many atheists in Internet forums. And don't forget all those liberals filing lawsuits to silence religious speech and to infringe on religious freedom.

no. dont make generalizations and stereotypes based on your experience. you can say, "it seems that all atheists cant coexist" even then you'd be wrong. i dont give two flying monkey shits what religion you are! Muslim, Jewish, Hindi, Christian!

Good thing I didn't say "all."
I said "in general."

"Why do Atheists only attack Christians and no other religious group?"

Because 1: Most satanists are trolls who don't actually worship Satan; 2: because christianity is the most prevalent religion, and thus the easiest to "attack"; and 3:because you're cherry-picking to support your persecution complex. If you did the f**king research instead of whining online about how persecuted you are, you'd realize that there are plenty of examples of atheists attacking non-Christian religions.

Thank you.

Show of hands: who knows or has known a Satan worshipper? Okay now who knows or has known any Christians?

I'm not quite sure what your point is here, but I'm guessing you're saying there aren't a lot of Satan worshipers?

To answer your question, I don't know what your idea of "Satan worshiper" is exactly, but the way I understand it, according to the Bible, anyone who does not worship God (good), worships Satan (evil). I believe anyone who worships anyone or anything but the one true God, are Satan worshipers, even though most do not go to a Satanist church and "praise Satan."

With that in mind, I know a lot of "Satan worshipers" and a lot of Christians. Or I could just say I know a lot of atheists.

My point is that true Satanists, the kind with sacrificial pits in their backyards who do unspeakable things that I'm not going into here, aren't exactly out there with flashing neon lights saying "here we are!" I know where all the Christian churches are in my neighborhood. It's obvious. I see evangelists on my tv, they comment about politics on the news, the Pope is out there going on tour... People who aren't as religious feel as though the religious right is trying to push their beliefs on the populace, and they are. They donate to politicians, they're behind defunding planned Parenthood, and going after Roe v Wade... The day Satanists start being obvious about influencing legislation that affects people negatively, you can expect atheists to go after them, too.

It's better to be out in the open than to be hidden in the shadows. At least you know where those you hate and feel are dangerous are at as opposed to not knowing.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with being out in the open. I'm all for it. I heard of some church of satan somewhere that people actually attend but I'm not sure where it is. It's not in my town. Then again, there are also those who profess to be Christian who are actually wolves in sheep's clothing preying on the masses under the guise of religiosity, covering up pedophilia in the church and buying fancy houses and expensive cars with tithe money. That doesn't exactly shed a positive light on religion either, as far as atheists are concerned.

I agree with you about the wolves in sheep's clothing. It's like that in everything you see. One bad cop will make the rest seem suspect. One bad teacher makes you question the rest. Etc, etc.

You're close, But you skewed away, Those who deny Jesus are not Satanists, They're lost. Atheists don't believe in the existence of God, So their ideology is, If they don't believe, No one should believe, They'll take you to court for not agreeing with what they don't believe. Satanists are people who watched the Omen & the Exorcist when they were teenagers, High on whatever & rooted for Satan, Thinking it is cool.

They don't teach anything about Jesus in school, Or the Bible, Students have been suspended for bringing a Bible to school https://tinyurl.com/yahqqbrm, But They teach Islam & have prayer rooms for Muslim students https://tinyurl.com/y73hxfxy

Where's the separation of church & state? Having a prayer room for Muslim students isn't teaching kids to be Muslim.
You're proving my point, Atheists don't argue with Muslims, But Atheists will travel across the country to fight against Christianity.

The AG who complained about the Muslim prayer room to begin with is an atheist.

Also, the principal likely tried without success to enforce the rule about not leaving campus and only allowed the prayer room as a protective measure in light of all the islamaphobic hate crimes going on, especially in Texas, the hillbilly white power capital of 'Murcia.

I don't know of any public schools that teach Islam. This article was referring to one school where the principal set aside an empty room to keep the Muslim students from leaving campus every day to go pray somewhere. You're making it sound like they're forcing students to turn to Islam and that's not true.

Plus, the AG who complained about the prayer room also had a problem with a school hanging a poster for "A Charlie Brown Christmas" that had a bible quote.

It’s coming, as more Muslims immigrate to America

Atheists do not care if other other believe what we do, or at least I don’t, I get pissed when Christians get offended by what I believe and insist because “their god is the one true god” I have to believe what they believe. Your comment is completely reversed. I’ve never met a Christian who didn’t get offended over someone else’s different beliefs.

Agree to disagree then, I guess.

I'll agree to that.

Are you aware of how many other gods that claim to also be the one true god? Also, this comment is exactly why Christians being “attacked” is “seen more” you pick fights with idiotic comments like this.

I've known some Satanists.

More than the number of Christians you know?

That's not what you asked, nor what I said.

Aaaaand that's how liberals debate, in my experience.

I asked two questions, and you answered only one. And why do you think I'm asking? Because I'm with the census bureau? I explained my point below that most people know more Christians than satanists. In fact, most people, have never met one satanist in their entire lifetime. You, OTOH, know "some" ... and seem a little testy about the topic. Very interesting indeed.

I am, because you are using a strawman argument AND are questioning my honesty.

What's the straw man? The initial accusation was why atheists only attack Christianity And not Satanists. My point was that most people don't know any satanists and they're not out there trying to change laws to fit their religious views forcing everyone to abide by them.

You jumped in and got defensive then went on the attack when I never questioned your honesty nor was I even debating with you. I asked a question. The fact that youve met "some" is interesting considering most people have never met one. Now you're saying they're people in prison with satanic tattoos then that makes sense.

"More than the number of Christians you know?"

THAT is the strawman. It was not one of your original questions, nor could it be inferred from my answer.

"You OTOH, know "some"..."

THAT is what I took as questioning my honesty.

And I was "testy" about your use of a strawman to try and claim a win. Be honest or be quiet.

Well I can't fight through your delusions. But I guess you helped prove my point since you're obviously on the side of the religious right and you're the only one claiming to know any satanists here.

I stand by my original argument that atheists don't attack satanists because they don't know any and never hear or see any of them to have an issue with. Where on the other hand, Christians seem to be everywhere pushing their religious agenda on everyone while also behaving unchristian like both in what they say and do. If that's too difficult of a concept for you to grasp then by all means, continue with your ad-hominem attacks.

Or genuine Satanists are too scary for your average atheist to attack.

And you just can't help using strawman arguments, can you? I'm finished with you.

Like I said, you only answered one of my questions. When I questioned you further you unnecessarily went on the attack and started in about liberals debating. And there was no strawman. My questions led directly to my point that most people know more Christians than satanists.

You can get as defensive and antagonistic as you like but you're still wrong about my intentions. I wasnt accusing you of lying at all. I wasn't familiar with the abundance of satanists in prison. Now I know. It's really not that big of a deal. Still not sure why you're so angry.

You need to reread your questions AS ASKED and you will see that you DID make a strawman argument.

The use of quotes the way you did on "some" implies that my response was not honest.

YOU are the one on the defensive, because you won't own your mistakes. Since you won't be honest, take my alternative suggestion and BE QUIET!

In prison, the Satanists are fond of getting horns tattooed on their foreheads.

I'm a Christian, this meme is so true dou.

We know the Dumbocrat party!

Actually, to be honest, yes. I'm sick of all these self-righteous, pretentious, holier-than-thou know-nothing-know-it-alls with persecution complexes.

I'm honored that my venting was so notable that someone so high as you felt the need to comment on it.

Of course. Did I say anything that was factually incorrect?

1) I don't know anything about Satanists or what they believe, other than the fact they do not believe Christ is the true Son of God. I've heard from some claiming to be true Satanists that they believe that the Bible is opposite of the "truth" and that Satan is the actual god and God is the fallen being. Outside of that, I have no clue, so I can't tell you if you're being factual with that statement or not.

2) While I'll give you that Christianity is easy to attack (mainly due to the generally peaceful nature of true Christians), it isn't a religion. True Christians believe Christianity is a relationship Christ and not a religion. Religions like Islam are not easily attacked due to the fact they are violent in nature and will physically go after those who oppose. Christians (true Christians) do not.

3) On this point, you sound very angry when there is no reason to be angry. So you've had "bad experiences" with some so-called Christians. So what? You have no idea what the OP of this meme's intent was/is. You coming on here and whining about something you don't seem to have too much knowledge on shows your lack of civility. You just seem angry about Christianity in general because of some bad experiences. It would be the same as me hating all gay people because a few of them have stalked and r@ped me.

1. Actually pretty sound reasoning, so I'll skip this one

2. I actually can't believe you're saying that with a straight face. That's hilarious. The No True Scotsman fallacy is strong with this one! Until very recently, Christianity was just as violent, if not more violent, than Islam was. I'd provide examples, but to not have seen any examples whatsoever already, you'd have to have been willfully blind to them, so I won't waste my time just to hear more NTS BS from you.

3. Well, firstly, you aren't actually addressing my point at all. There are PLENTY of examples of atheists attacking non-Christian religions, it's just not addressed that much, since the theocratic far-right wouldn't have nearly as large a following without the Christian persecution complex which comes from the "Atheists are personally attacking us and only us and trying to destroy our religion, culture, and lifestyle", which is also BS. Just because a few people are being mean to you on the internet doesn't mean that you're suddenly not the largest religion on the entire planet. Secondly, you seem to be assuming that I'm an atheist who has some sort of grudge against Christianity. I'm not. My religion does not matter, and I take personal offense at peoples' ignorance and persecution complexes. When you call me "ignorant", I nearly burst into tears of laughter from the sheer amount of psychological projection. Thirdly, how could I have known the author's intent? Well, I quoted the title in my first post, didn't I?

Thank you for your time, but this is enough anger and amusement for me for now...

Be sure to come back later, kid! (hopefully when you've decided to actually have a rational discussion instead of using logical fallacies and baseless assumptions to try and make your point)

Actually, I was having a rational conversation.

The fact you believe Christians have been more violent than Muslims is quite amusing to me. Then you don't give any examples. Christians are not a violent people. People claiming to be Christians (the KKK, Westboro Baptist Church, etc) don't represent true Christianity as much as average Muslims in the United States don't represent true Islam. You can't name one violent act someone the name of true Christianity in the past 150 plus years. I can name thousands of violent acts done in the name of Islam in the past few years. Don't act like Christianity is far more violent just because you have some kind of vendetta against this group.

I'd like to hear (read) some of these so-called acts of violence done in the name of Christianity compared to those done in the name of Islam.

You can argue that using the term "true Christianity" is wrong, but I know what true Christianity is and the KKK and Westboro are not true Christianity. They may claim the religious part of it, but they aren't true Christians. They don't live it and they don't preach it.

What does true Christianity look like on the surface, anyway? I've seen more Christian-like behavior from some liberal heathens in the past few years than I've seen from others who go to church every Sunday and profess to ascribe to Christian ideals.

Okay, I understand that acts of violence IN THE NAME of Christianity do happen, but those committing the acts are not reflective of true Christianity.

I don't believe that they are more violent than Muslims, I believe that they WERE HISTORICALLY more violent than Muslims. Christianity has most definitely changed for the better in the recent few centuries, whereas Wahhabism, colonialism, ethnic conflicts, etc have gradually been making the already rather violent Islamic religion even more violent and politically radicalized. You say you want to have a rational conversation, but you continue to assume I have something against Christianity (and even "had a bad experience with 'so-called' Christians", something which is most definitely far from the truth of the matter), when I'm really just pissed off that another person who didn't do their f**king research is claiming that the largest religion in the entire f**king world is somehow "persecuted". You also continue to utilize the "No True Scotsman" fallacy despite me repeatedly informing you that it is a logical fallacy, which only opens you up to looking ridiculous. Also, I kinda can name a violent act in the name of true Christianity in the last 150 years. There have been many Christian terror attacks.

I'm sick of the Christian Right professing their allegiance to God while completely going against his teachings, if Jesus was alive today he'd get deported by these fools.

Well said and then some.

I used to frequent a forum where so-called Satanism (LaVay-ist nonsense is not Satanism, and like you pointed out in #1, most who say they are are just pretend) came up, especially with one resident who claimed to be one and wouldn't shut up about it (we thought him a troll too). Most of the members there were British, and the disdain they have for Christianity and other religions would make the cross waving 'victims' on this site evaporate like a wad of tissue paper at a Nevada nuclear testing site.

Anyways, this fella and the rest of the Halloweeny crew got racked over the coals like any other religion there regularly.

In the meantime, another member, a 'non-denominational' Christian (just like the rest of these zealots here who pretend they have no church but say the rest of us should go join one and find Jesus), kept doing the 'attack on Christianity' song and boo boo dance while saying Catholicism wasn't Christian and all of us on the site are going to hell. She'd post threads about this, all the while claiming she wasn't preaching.
People like that are a major reason I stopped going to church.

i'm a different type of atheist. we dont really care what you believe. but sadly, there are some who do criticise

I'm not criticizing religion. I honestly don't care about religious beliefs and stuff like that. I'm just countering the argument put forward by the meme...

I've done the research, I can't find 1 article or any videos that have Atheists debating with Muslims about the existence of God. There goes your narrative.

I googled "atheists debate muslims"

These came up immediately:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uSwJuOPG4FI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xOQWS12DQKg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFmaVvGy6Mk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CGFMwtJTyE

It was a simple google search. I call bullshit.

Now go to the video in the 1st link & read comments by Atheists, #1 in the list Although I'm an atheist, "I can confirm that islam's reasoning is somewhat better than what Cristians believe about the universe?" Typical deflection by Atheists, Attack Christianity when the conversation is about Islam. I smell your bullshit.

I think the point is that atheists do, in fact, debate Muslims. I mean, you couldn't find one video and CrazyPower found four. Whether one joe blo in the comments section thinks Muslims' creation theory is more palatable to him than Christianity's is beside the point. The bottom line is atheists do debate Muslims. I've known many atheists over the years and they're pretty much across the board about their disbelief. They don't usually give one religion a pass over the others, at least from my experience.

I've seen the videos, & I've read the comment on them, They're all the same. Atheists attacking Christianity instead of Islam, The topic of the video. CrazyPower did exactly what I knew he would.

And here you are, Attacking anyone who disagrees with your views, With typical profanity. Atheists don't believe in anything & have no problem ramming their beliefs in nothing down the throats of everyone.

Wow, triggered much?

There's the deflection, Right on schedule .

"I've done the research, I can't find 1 article or any videos that have Atheists debating with Muslims about the existence of God. There goes your narrative."

That was your original narrative.

I proved that it was a lie.

You were the one who was deflecting.

Nope, You did exactly what I knew you would do, You would link the 1st YouTube videos in the list. And pretend you won, You played the short game, I played the end game. Proving Atheists defend Islam while attacking Christianity.

I find your incoherent babbling, excessive moving of the goalposts, and love of the gish gallop and ad hominem fallacies mildly amusing.

Face it, you're just a sad little troll who lost an argument, but moved the goalposts so that you could pretend you won a massive victory over teh evol atheists. But please, by all means, continue. This is a comedy website, after all.

You limped onto this Meme triggered, Someone threatened your belief in nothing. You attack anyone who disagreed with you. Every one of your comment has profanity & insults. Typical of liberals. If it walks like a pigeon and whines like a pigeon.

Firstly, I was pissed off by OP's persecution complex, not triggered by OP's belief in Christianity or dislike of atheism.

Secondly, as I recall, you attacked me when I disagreed with you, then moved the goalpost when I proved you wrong. I attempted to have a logical debate, and kind of sort of did with Spurs, despite his patronization and use of logical fallacies.

Thirdly, most of my comments do have profanity, but when you claim every single one of my comments has insults, you're thinking of your own comments, kid. I only insulted you when I lost my patience with your ceaseless blathering.

Fourthly, I'm not an atheist.

Fifthly, as I already pointed out, I am not a liberal.

Good day.

Typical liberal, Pretending to be smart, Even after he lost..

I find that quote ironic, coming from the pigeon...

Also, I'm not a liberal, so nice job insulting me, dumbass.

No one wants to hear you whine, Or cares why you're whining, I didn't attack you, I replied & baited you Now you're playing the victim. Most of your comments have profanity because you were triggered & couldn't respond like an adult. You have shown the classic signs of a liberal

That's believing in nothing.
Christian song, Jesus loves the little children... Atheists song, No one loves the little children.

You believe in liberal ideology, We've established this already.
See how you twisted the song, Everyone you mentioned in the Atheist song is a given. You just can't admit you're wrong or you lost.

Oh coming from a moron who obviously hasn't done any research your comment is typical.