Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

Sure, knock yourself out. Keep in mind, asking for evidence does not mean "asking for a sign."

Picking up a single piece of trash only once a year and throwing it away is a beneficial act but in comparison to the amount of litter there is in the world. It almost makes no difference when compared to a group who devotes an entire day every week to cleaning up an entire area.

And would you say that Lincoln had something to do with that? or was he MORE concerned with the south reuniting, and that the steam engine, and horse collar was why slavery ended all together??

I am not sure what all the reasons were but if I recall correctly one of them according to Lincoln was a book {best selling novel of the 19th century} went viral around the world and touched the emotions of others.

Where not evolving at all then, because the same exact brainwashing will come from Atheism, and from grown atheists telling children at young ages that there is no such thing as a God....The goal should then be, not the focus of a God/no God but that the duty of society is to "progress humanity" plain and simple....and then we would be evolving (if your theory is correct)

Where not evolving at all then, because the same exact brainwashing will come from Atheism, and from grown atheists telling children at young ages that there is no such thing as a God.

However you can denounce a god as picture in the bible that is so full of love for
the human race that at one point he kill all of it but for one family by drowning.

Strange he used that method of killing us as one would assume that he could had just wave his hands in the air and wiped us all out of existent without any pain or fear being involved.

Kind of similar to a man who is too cheap to go to the vet and therefore kill a litter of kittens by drowning them in a pail.

The Christian god as picture in the bible is a very evil god indeed.

We all get things wrong atheist and Christians alike but that does not mean that we will not evolve.

How is that any different than a grown atheists telling children at young ages that there is no such thing as a Santa?

.It shows ignorance....Your approaching it as your views and ideals are the correct ones even for future generations....When you like everyone else could be wrong..

If people embrace Christmas, than it should be because of the belief of Jesus Christ's birthday....

Does this apply to you as well? Can you be wrong about God?
Could you be promoting something that could be harmful for society?

I call things what they are. "thing that I do not know for certain" but this does not mean that I am going to consume my life with things that can not be proven to exist such as unicorns, aliens, Gods and so on.

I am certain that my Ideas are not the best and that there are better ideas to come. I am also certain that some of my ideas are completely wrong I just wish I knew which ones they were.
I think that moral philosophers should always keep this in mind about their understandings.

I thought that this was about saturnalia and the winter solstice am I wrong?

The gifts, the date, the death and the resurrection 3 days so on and so on?

I call things what they are. "thing that I do not know for certain" but this does not mean that I am going to consume my life with things that can not be proven to exist such as unicorns, aliens, Gods and so on.

Even Wikipedia characterizes this type of logic as an “appeal to ignorance” – an approach asserting that something is false only because it has not been proven true – that the lack of evidence for one view is substitutionary proof that another view is true.

It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

I see . . . this means you can't back up your bullshit claim. If someone does not believe that there is a god, they're not going to be "asking for a sign" from what they don't believe exists.

However, if you insist that there is a god, there's a good chance they're going to ask you to provide evidence to that effect. Pointing to any one a number of random events and saying "See, a sign from god!" won't be evidence of anything other than your self-delusion.

Do you have a post to cite in which someone has asked you for "a sign from god?" Or were you just making it up as you went along?

This is purley bullshit, and your source is playing fast and loose with the truth. In fact, it is the god squad which employs the argument from ignorance. From the Wikipedia article linked by your sources: