Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

It just doesn't sink in with you. I would not allege that something were "convicted" if i didn't believe it existed. This is the failure of understanding that you're attempting to support, and failing to support. Your weeping statues, etc., may not be explained (which i think is bullshit), but that doesn't constitute "a sign from god"--as i said, it is only evidence of your self-delusion.

No, i'm not willing to take your word. Link the post. Failure to believe what you allege is evidence of good sense, not ignorance. You twist the language pathetically.

It just doesn't sink in with you. I would not allege that something were "convicted" if i didn't believe it existed. This is the failure of understanding that you're attempting to support, and failing to support.

No, Christmas Has to do with the Birth of Jesus Christ, and Easter has to do with his death and resurrection, 3 days and so on (as you call it....)

But its funny, what has been revealed to me, that Christmas, the date, is NOT actually when Jesus was Born, but it was more toward October...

Is there anything else that could have been taught to us incorrectly? Easter and so on?

The history of religion has so much to offer us if we can set aside our bias for a little while.

The popularity of Saturnalia continued into the 3rd and 4th centuries AD, and as the Roman Empire came under Christian rule, some of its customs may have influenced the seasonal celebrations surrounding Christmas and the New Year.

People who witness something and then claim that it is "a sign from god" are delusional unless and until they can demonstate that a god exists. You claimed that atheists ask for a sign from god. Unless you can link a post to that effect, there is no reason to believe you. Shouting about it won't change that.

Nor did i say that anyone was looking for evidence. I simply noted that if you can't provide evidence, there is no reason for anyone to believe you. Absent such evidence, atheists don't beleive that there is a god. So they certainly would not be looking for "a sign" from something they don't believe exists. As i said, this just doesn't sink in with you.

Don't get your little lace panties in a twist, and stop shouting at me. You are the one who introduced the concept of an argument from ignorance, and it's being thrown back in your face because you are the one who is employing it.

But wouldn't you agree with wikipedia's explainations regarding this matter?

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.

I think that everyone should believe in the spaghetti monster because there is no proof that the spaghetti monster does not exist.
It would be just as ignorant not believing in the spaghetti monster as it would not believing in God. That is what it means to be logical correct?

There are in fact millions of things that could be wrong, I don't feel inclined to challenge everyone of them....

But the birth of Jesus was 1 A.D. which is MORE valid than customs which came about in the 3rd and 4th century,

When you have blind faith you just believe regardless and God will sort it all out?

Which customs are you referring to? Do you mean incorporating Christianity into saturnalia and calling it Christmas?

You do not understand the spaghetti monster is real and does all of what you listed, he tells me so and he told me to write a book and share it with others so that they too can worship him.

Do you see where this is going? If it is Your God or your religion it is OK, If it is someone else s religion it is normal thinking as well, "they just happen to be of the wrong faith. If it is something a little different such as the spaghetti monster or even the elephant god in some cases it is completely crazy

even the elephant god in some cases it is completely crazy