Answering Atheists

[1213]

...The myths are taken from Mesopotamian creation myths. ...

No proof for that. I think it is more likely that the others copied from Jews and their ancestors.

 

[ecco]

Unlike man, God can control the weather, and he can teach man to properly manage, and keep the right balance in earth's systems.

Alternatively, He could have made trees and coal and oil in such a way that burning them would not screw up His perfect environment. What good are omnipotence and omniscience if you don't use either effectively?

 

[Nimos]

More than survival?

Yes, animals like sharks etc. are not know for being able to change anatomy within a few weeks, so they wouldn't have changed in such a short amount of time. So something must have changed them, if what you are saying should make sense.

What evidence is there against a shark being designed to eat seaweeds?

What do you mean, what evidence? have you heard of a great white shark eating seaweed?

According to your people adapting different traits and abilities is not unheard of.
Study reveals lactose tolerance happened quickly in Europe
The ability for humans to digest milk as adults has altered our dietary habits and societies for centuries. But when and how that ability -- known as lactase persistence or lactose tolerance -- occurred and became established is up for debate. By testing the genetic material from the bones of people who died during a Bronze Age battle around 1,200 BC, an international team of scientists including Krishna Veeramah, PhD, of Stony Brook University, suggest that lactase persistence spread throughout Central Europe in only a few thousand years, an extremely fast transformation compared to most evolutionary changes seen in humans. Their findings are published in Current Biology.

Why then would God need to intervene, when he designed everything with the mechanism for change? Even rock changes.

"When we look at other European genetic data from the early Medieval period less than 2,000 years later, we find that more than 60 percent of individuals had the ability to drink milk as adults, close to what we observe in modern Central European countries, which ranges from 70 to 90 percent" said Veeramah. "This is actually an incredibly fast rate of change for the gene that controls milk digestion. It appears that by simply possessing this one genetic change, past European individuals with the ability to digest lactose had a six percent greater chance of producing children than those who could not. This is the strongest evidence we have for positive natural selection in humans."

Still took around 2000 years, a shark is not going to survive without food for that long.

Genesis 1:1

Yet, we are talking about where he screwed up?

Besides that how is that amazing, compared to what?

Also for some people life is good, but for a lot of people it is not, their life is filled with horror and suffering.

Well if you want God to take away people's urge to do wrong, why is rebellion against God to be excluded?

Its not, if God find it to be wrong. But if that is the case he doesn't apparently find the urges people have to do bad things wrong either? And therefore there is nothing wrong in calling him out for it.

1) stop humans from being independent thinkers, or developing their own character, or person.

No, why would that be the case? Most people can and does indeed live lives where they don't hurt or kill others, and doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

2) remove the essential elements necessary for protecting and sustaining life on earth.

Only because of how it is designed. Again that design is not necessary when we are talking God, he could have made it different and you wouldn't have know the different.

Do you know how volcanoes, lightning bolts and the movement of magma in the earth's crust, contribute to life on earth? These are all essential elements.

Yes im well aware of that, but are you saying that God was forced to make it like that, that he have no control over how nature should work?

Question : If there is an almighty creator, would he not know better than you, what to do?

Maybe, but at the moment I don't think we have any prove of that. When people are starving, humans have the capability and have found solutions to help and in most cases we do, despite not being very good at it, God is not doing anything is he?

So if he is so superior, why are people starving, while he haven't solved it?

You could just say, you think God does not exist, because you think things would be different if he did.
, fullstop.

No, my issue is that whenever a person question, the claims that God is all powerful, all knowing, all good. And point out how God could have done things better, the person making these claims are the first to say "God couldn't do that..", "Its just stupid to think that he could/would do that.." Why all the limitations on God? If he is so superior, how come he can't do simple things that we humans can easily think of, why claim that he is all powerful, all knowing and all good then?

None of the things I have suggested are especially complicated compared to how things already works.

He could have made oranges to taste like bush too. In fact he could have made everything to taste like bush.

God made humans with free will - the freedom to choose. There is nothing wrong with that. Perhaps only 10% of humanity would think that's a problem.

Free will is not a valid reason. For the most part we don't have free will, we have the illusion of it. Yes, you are free to kill others if you want, but most people don't and live perfectly fine not doing it.
Furthermore, having free will is only a benefit for those that want to do bad things. Those of us that doesn't do it, is not really benefitting a lot from free will. So what is it that you want to do using your free will, that you can't do, if you couldn't hurt other people?

Again, we are not talking about whether humans could do something medical, to deal with these things, but rather that God could have designed it that way, and you wouldn't have known the different anyway.

What things would not be there? We were talking about evil, right?
The solution to evil does not lie in removing man's heart. How about training the heart. What if man developed the heart that does not include evil. How about that?

What difference would it make, you wouldn't know the difference, you would live in a world where everyone were satisfied and happy. The concept of evil would not even be known to you.

If evil is necessary, then clearly heaven and the new earth must be a lie. Because these couldn't exist according to you then.

According to the scripture, God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life
Why, might they be destroyed? Since you say you read the Bible, then you can answer that question.

He didn't give anything, Jesus had a rough weekend and that's it. He was never in danger, he knew that we would be saved 3 days later (especially if you believe in the holy trinity). Yes, it might have been annoying for him, having to take the "blame" for his fathers screw up. And why Jesus didn't simply tell God to just "forgive" humans or ask him to apologize to us, I don't know and I guess we will never know. But apparently God thought that it would be best to nail him to a cross instead, maybe so it appeared as if humans were wrong here. I don't know.

But clearly no one other than God is to blame for the whole original sin. He screwed up from the very beginning and he probably should have started all over already back then, instead of letting it go so far.

 

[joelr]

No proof for that. I think it is more likely that the others copied from Jews and their ancestors.

Did you just say "no proof of that?"
It's well known and is consensus opinion in Biblical historicity that the early Biblical stories are re-writes of earlier myths, 2nd temple Judaism is incorporating Persian and Hellenistic myths. There is no question on this. They won't tell you in church but if you look at literature in the field that has been peer reviewed you will get an understanding of what is known.

Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology,[17][18] but adapted them to their belief in one God,[2] establishing a monotheistic creation in opposition to the polytheistic creation myth of ancient Israel's neighbors.[19][20]

Genesis 1–11 as a whole is imbued with Mesopotamian myths.[17][21] Genesis 1 bears both striking differences from and striking similarities to Babylon's national creation myth, the Enuma Elish.

The Enuma Elish has also left traces on Genesis 2. Both begin with a series of statements of what did not exist at the moment when creation began;

Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, the Atra-Hasis epic – parallels that in fact extend throughout Genesis 2–11, from the Creation to the Flood and its aftermath. The two share numerous plot-details (e.g. the divine garden and the role of the first man in the garden, the creation of the man from a mixture of earth and divine substance, the chance of immortality, etc.), and have a similar overall theme: the gradual clarification of man's relationship with God(s) and animals.[25]


Eden, where God puts his Garden of Eden, comes from a root meaning "fertility": the first man is to work in God's miraculously fertile garden.[URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative#cite_note-FOOTNOTELevenson200415-76'][75] The "tree of life" is a motif from Mesopotamian myth: in the Epic of Gilgamesh (c. 1800 BCE) the hero is given a plant whose name is "man becomes young in old age", but a serpent steals the plant from him.[76][7[/URL]
[URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative#cite_note-78'][/URL]
The Noah story is even more exact and clearly uses the Epic of Gilamesh flood story as it's template.


Historians do not believe Genesis was historical but took from earlier myths and legends to create a story for a new emerging people. Here is an excerpt from one paper:

Religion Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel

K.L. Sparks (ordained Baptist Pastor, PhD in Hebrew Bible/Ancient Near East)


As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible's account of early Israel's history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israel's origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel's history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. It's primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all), who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from all sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories); he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn "what actually happened" (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002, pp 37-71; Maidman 2003).

As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are better understood as windows into Israelite history than as portraits of Israel's early history. Almost as problematic as an historical source is the book of Exodus. This book tells the story of Israel's long enslavement in Egypt and of it's eventual emancipation; it also narrates the first stages of Israel's migration from Egypt toward Palestine. The trouble with this story, historically speaking, is that the Egyptians seem to have known nothing of these great events in which thousands of Israelite slaves were released from Egypt because of a series of natural (or supernatural( catastrophes - supposedly including the death of every firstborn Egyptian man and beas

 

[1213]

...The Noah story is even more exact and clearly uses the Epic of Gilamesh flood story as it's template....

One could as well say it is the opposite. I have no reason to believe in those beliefs of “scholars” who have exalted their opinions to facts without anything solid to support them.

 

[night912]

One could as well say it is the opposite. I have no reason to believe in those beliefs of “scholars” who have exalted their opinions to facts without anything solid to support them.

The problem with this is that the epic of Gilgamesh was dated to be before the story of Noah's Ark. Until we find records of the Noah's Ark story predating the Epic of Gilgamesh, we go by whichever one is the earlier one.

 

[nPeace]

@Nimos
There are a number of common mistakes that you keep making, and these stem from a common flaw in man, which originated from the same wrong thinking of the first one to rebel against God - thinking more of oneself than is necessary. Pride, it is called.

mistake #1 - thinking one knows what one really does not know.

Spoiler: Pressures to survive drive rapid adaptation

Evolution to the rescue: Species may adapt quickly to rapid environmental change, yeast study shows
Evolution is usually thought to be a slow process, something that happens over generations, thanks to adaptive mutations. But environmental change is happening very fast. So, according to a biology professor, the question arises, "Can evolution happen quickly enough to help a species survive?" The answer, according to his most recent study, is a resounding yes.

Evolution is usually thought to be a very slow process, something that happens over many generations, thanks to adaptive mutations. But environmental change due to things like climate change, habitat destruction, pollution, etc. is happening very fast. There are just two options for species of all kinds: either adapt to environmental change or become extinct.

How rapid can new traits, and features be acquired?

Spoiler: No one can say with certainty, how rapidly adaptation can occur

Rapid adaptation to invasive predators overwhelms natural gradients of intraspecific variation | Nature Communications
Invasive predators can exert strong selection on native populations. If selection is strong enough, populations could lose the phenotypic variation caused by adaptation to heterogeneous environments. We compare frog tadpoles prior to and 14 years following invasion by crayfish. Prior to the invasion, populations differed in their intrinsic developmental rate, with tadpoles from cold areas reaching metamorphosis sooner than those from warm areas. Following the invasion, tadpoles from invaded populations develop faster than those from non-invaded populations. This ontogenetic shift overwhelmed the intraspecific variation between populations in a few generations, to the point where invaded populations develop at a similar rate regardless of climate. Rapid development can have costs, as fast-developing froglets have a smaller body size and poorer jumping performance, but compensatory growth counteracts some costs of development acceleration. Strong selection by invasive species can disrupt local adaptations by dampening intraspecific phenotypic variation, with complex consequences on lifetime fitness.

...native species often inhabit heterogeneous environments, and populations exposed to diverging selective pressures by natural gradients can show local adaptations, which allow them to cope with different environmental challenges. The new selective forces exerted by invasive species are expected to interfere with the pressures imposed by the extant environmental context, thus the effectiveness and long-term consequences of evolutionary responses to invasive species remain difficult to predict. Despite the growing literature on the evolutionary consequences of biological invasions, few studies have considered how selective pressures imposed by invasive species interfere with pre-existing patterns of local adaptations and environmental heterogeneity of native populations.

Spoiler: For one with a narrow minded view, perhaps now is a good time for change

Why rapid, adaptive evolution matters for community dynamics
Since the realization that evolutionary processes can be relatively fast, the traditional notion to consider evolutionary biology and ecology as two independent fields has changed dramatically. Although it is known that ecological change can drive evolutionary processes through natural selection, the interplay of ecology and evolution as a dynamic interaction in both directions and on contemporary timescales, has only recently been considered. In ecology, populations are usually considered to be genetically homogeneous and without variation in traits. Evolutionary processes are traditionally considered to be too slow to interact directly with ecological change. Initial theoretical models predicted the potential of rapid evolution to drive the entanglement of evolutionary and ecological dynamics (Abrams and Matsuda, 1997). Now, increasingly more studies underline the idea that populations can exhibit substantial genetic variation in traits that affect population dynamics (Tessier et al., 2000; Lankau and Strauss, 2007; Franks and Weis, 2008; Johnson, 2011; Yang et al., 2012; Novy et al., 2013), and population dynamics can alter the strength and direction of selection within a few generations (Yoshida et al., 2003; Becks et al., 2010, 2012). This confirms the paradigm that demographic and evolutionary changes are ultimately entangled (Ford, 1949; Pimentel, 1961, 1968).

The importance of this tight interaction between ecological and evolutionary change on one timescale has been emphasized in several studies and recent review articles (Fussmann et al., 2007; Pelletier et al., 2009), which has also been named the “newest synthesis” (Schoener, 2011). However, we currently cannot tell how changes in this interaction affect our ability to predict ecological and evolutionary trajectories. Are there ecological processes that are more likely to be affected by evolution within a few generations? And in return, are there ecological processes and species interactions that are more likely to promote rapid evolution? How widespread is the occurrence of a continuous feedback between ecological and evolutionary change? At present we simply do not know.

mistake #2 - thinking that one's thinking is so special, or superior - i.e. one is so wise that they have the right view.
Were you given the reason God chose to allow suffering? Did you consider it? Were you able to give any reason(s) for why that choice is wrong?
Consider...
Some men working on a pipe system, may be allowing gallons of water to spill into the street.
Along comes a passerby, who starts to curse the workers... "You idiots! You are wasting gallons of water. Can't you stop the water, and then fix the pipes?"
Although given an explanation why though that may sound reasonable, it would not in the long run be the correct choice to make, the man continues to hurl abuses, thinking he has the solution down packed.
He raves off, down the street, while the workers look at each other, and shake their head. "Some people, uh." They lament.

We cannot change a person's mind from thinking they know everything in a given situation, and it's not going to get us anywhere if the person is not going to consider the explanation given, and reason on it.
i am willing to reason with one who objects to the action taken by God, if that is willing to reason, with valid objections surrounding the situation.
However, just listening to one claim that they know best, when they are not considering the whole situation, is not proving very productive, because the whole picture needs to be looked at, if one is considering the situation.
I hope you understand, and agree.

I have a question though, seeing as you are Atheist.
Why do Atheists like to criticize Christians, and have no problem doing that, but when faced with criticism by the Christian, the get upset, and vexed, as though they are so "thin skinned" as to face criticism?
I have an idea, but I am just wondering what an Atheist might say to that.

 

[ecco]

But clearly no one other than God is to blame for the whole original sin. He screwed up from the very beginning and he probably should have started all over already back then, instead of letting it go so far.

My theory (if I were a believer in such things) is that the Creator God of our existence is a very young Child-God. Daddy gave him a sandbox to see how he would do. Our existence is in the early stages of Child-God's first try at universe building. Any day now, Daddy will come along and tell Jr to wipe it all out and start a new one, hopeful that Jr will have learned a little something along the way.



Really good universes are built by mature God/Jrs after years (theirs, not ours) and hundreds of trials and errors.


How many times did you start a new CIV before you got reasonably good at it?

 

[ecco]

One could as well say it is the opposite. I have no reason to believe in those beliefs of “scholars” who have exalted their opinions to facts without anything solid to support them.

Of course, you have no reason to believe the findings of religious scholars who have spent years getting educated and more years researching and studying and learning.

After all, they are just as ignorant and opinionated as the biologists and geologists, and physicists who support evolution.

It's surprising that you accept heliocentricity. (You do accept heliocentricity, don't you?)

 

[joelr]

One could as well say it is the opposite. I have no reason to believe in those beliefs of “scholars” who have exalted their opinions to facts without anything solid to support them.

First that's insanely ironic because you follow a religion with no evidence and tons of evidence that it's borrowed mythology.

The Mesopotamian myths pre-date Genesis and the oldest and most complete version dates to the 12th century. It isn't just isotope dating methods but these are written in languages and formats that were common in this era. The isn't any question about what is Mesopotamian, Egyptian or later writings from Israel and Canaanite societies. The scholars who work on Mesopotamian culture could explain much to you. Of course you cannot go down these lines of education because they will conflict with your beliefs so denial is easier.

Just the fact that you hand wave the scholarship who deals in early human civilizations and clearly have no idea what they know and how they know is clear evidence you simply do not care about what is actually true.
Even having to put the word "scholars" in quotes as if they are not actually real scholars shows you have to drag truth down to the level of a conspiracy theory to protect your beliefs. So weird?

This is exactly what flat earthers say about physicists who show gravity disproves a flat earthh as well as math, flight paths, and several other lines of evidence. They say the exact same things. Call their work "opinion", put them in quotes, claim they have no solid evidence....

 

[nPeace]

One could as well say it is the opposite. I have no reason to believe in those beliefs of “scholars” who have exalted their opinions to facts without anything solid to support them.

Am I mistaken 1213, or is the Epic of Gilgamesh no older than the third millennium B.C.E.?
Isn't the flood reported to have happened about a millennium prior?
So if the Bible recorded the actual event after the Epic of Gilgamesh myth, how does that automatically translate to copying the myth?
You know, the reasoning of some scholars do give the impression that they are not very good scholars at all. So I think you did well in putting that in quotations.

Clearly, the flood myths of the scattered inhabitants from the Mesopotamian region, after the flood, were diverse and filled with their false religious ideas, but the followers of the true God, reported the facts.

We know why we can trust the Bible, and we have the evidence for why we can.

 

[ecco]

filled with their false religious ideas, but the followers of the true God, reported the facts.

Every proponent of every religion that has ever existed knows that their god is the True God.

They can't all be right because you are the only ones who are right.

We know why we can trust the Bible, and we have the evidence for why we can.

Oh, if only you had some evidence, any evidence. Of course, you don't. To make up for your lack of evidence you must disparage actual scholars and scientists who do have evidence that counters your Bible-inspired beliefs.

 

[1213]

Am I mistaken 1213, or is the Epic of Gilgamesh no older than the third millennium B.C.E.?
Isn't the flood reported to have happened about a millennium prior?
So if the Bible recorded the actual event after the Epic of Gilgamesh myth, how does that automatically translate to copying the myth?...

I think you have a good point. If many people knew the event, it is possible that they independently told about the same event. Similarity does not necessary mean copying.

Also, the problem with these is, the oldest scripture remaining is not necessary the original. It is even possible that there was older version of the Gilgamesh and it is possible that there has been older version of the Bible story. I don’t know what is the age of the Epic of Gilgamesh, but it really is not useful, when we can’t know is it the original, or was there even older.

But, that we have many similar stories is a strong indication that there really was a great flood.

 

[1213]

...
It's surprising that you accept heliocentricity.

I have not enough evidence to prove it is correct.

 

[1213]

The problem with this is that the epic of Gilgamesh was dated to be before the story of Noah's Ark. Until we find records of the Noah's Ark story predating the Epic of Gilgamesh, we go by whichever one is the earlier one.

There are two problems with that. We don’t know surely when the Arks story happened and it is possible that the dating of the epic of Gilgamesh can be wrong.

 

[ecco]

But, that we have many similar stories is a strong indication that there really was a great flood.

The God fearin' folks who lived alongside Trace Creek in Tennessee are right to believe that they were victims of a great flood.

That does not mean that what happened in Tennessee was a global flood that only those in an ark could survive.

Those who survived the Japanese Tsunami flood of 2011 are right to believe that they were victims of a great flood.

That does not mean that what happened in Japan was a global flood that only those in an ark could survive.

Those who survived the Indonesian Tsunami flood of 2004 are right to believe that they were victims of a great flood.

That does not mean that what happened in Indonesia was a global flood that only those in an ark could survive.

 

[ecco]

It's surprising that you accept heliocentricity. (You do accept heliocentricity, don't you?)

I have not enough evidence to prove it is correct.

We don't meet too many admitted geocentrists on RF these days. Do you have enough evidence to warrant a belief in a spherical earth or are you a flat-earther also?

 

[night912]

There are two problems with that.

Nope, those are not problems, and are easily dismissed right away. Explanation below.

We don’t know surely when the Arks story happened

You forgot, "if it did happened at all." This is easily dismissed right away because if we don't know when, then there's no point in even bringing it up. Saying something along the lines of, "we don't know when this event A happened, therefore event B can't be older than event B." That's an argument from ignorance.

and it is possible that the dating of the epic of Gilgamesh can be wrong.

I agree that it's possible, but that goes for every ancient historical event. So, this too, is easily dismissed.

See how easily those are dismissed?

Now for the explanation of how ancient historical "events" are acknowledged by the academic world, in which you have misunderstood how it works.

Regarding ancient historical events such as those, historians "date" them according to their recorded evidence, and not by the date that the event was supposed to have occurred.

With that being said, the oldest recorded record found for the Hebrew Bible is the Ketef Hinnom scrolls, dated to be around 600 BC. As for the Epic of Gilgamesh, the oldest recorded record is the 12 clay tablets, dated to be around 1000 BC to 1300 BC. That's roughly twice as old as the evidence for the Hebrew bible.

So your two problems that you had, are actually problems from your end, and not from mine or the historians due to your ignorance of how historians deals with ancient historical events.

 

[night912]

No proof for that. I think it is more likely that the others copied from Jews and their ancestors.

Same goes for you. No proof for that. And your thoughts, in context of this discussion, is irrelevant. You're not the authority on this, especially when you have no evidence to support your claims.

Source for Hebrew bible

Source for the Epic of Gilgamesh

PS
Just in case, even if you disagree with the evidence presented here and decide to just go ahead and state what you believe and/or post scriptures from your religion, that, in no way, changes the facts regarding these two stories that were discussed.

 

[Nimos]

mistake #1 - thinking one knows what one really does not know.

This doesn't address the problem, a shark or a lion despite how fast an evolutionary change is, is not going to last years without food. So I don't even know why you are quoting these rapid evolutionary changes as if they support what you are saying?

A shark living during the fall, would have had to change anatomy within its own lifetime and within weeks or it would die.

mistake #2 - thinking that one's thinking is so special, or superior - i.e. one is so wise that they have the right view.
Were you given the reason God chose to allow suffering? Did you consider it? Were you able to give any reason(s) for why that choice is wrong?
Consider...
Some men working on a pipe system, may be allowing gallons of water to spill into the street.
Along comes a passerby, who starts to curse the workers... "You idiots! You are wasting gallons of water. Can't you stop the water, and then fix the pipes?"
Although given an explanation why though that may sound reasonable, it would not in the long run be the correct choice to make, the man continues to hurl abuses, thinking he has the solution down packed.
He raves off, down the street, while the workers look at each other, and shake their head. "Some people, uh." They lament.

That analogy won't work.

Because we have a clear comparison here and with clear goals. Lets go with people that die of starvation.

We know that they die from starvation and that this can be avoided if they get food. Therefore whatever other solution there might be, which result in people dying, it must be a worse one than simply giving them food.

Your example is about a person being ignorant about why those workers are fixing the pipes, because you haven't specified what the final goal is in your example.

We cannot change a person's mind from thinking they know everything in a given situation, and it's not going to get us anywhere if the person is not going to consider the explanation given, and reason on it.

But there haven't been given any explanation, that is the whole issue. God haven't explained why people have to starve to death, if he did, maybe it would be best to let them die, but so far, he haven't done it and therefore helping them seem to be the correct option.

If you truly believe that God have a plan with starving people, then you ought to fight against helping them and promote that we should just let them die, because its all part of God's grand plan. Yet I don't see a lot of people on the street with signs supporting this.

However, just listening to one claim that they know best, when they are not considering the whole situation, is not proving very productive, because the whole picture needs to be looked at, if one is considering the situation.
I hope you understand, and agree.

No, I don't agree

Again, reason being, that no explanation have been given. You merely state that God might have a plan or that you believe he knows better and therefore there might be a reason for it.

That is not an explanation, it merely you guessing or assuming that there might be some good reason behind it, yet you don't know what it is.

But that argument is not good enough for me and it is definitely not good enough for those people that die of starvation.

I have a question though, seeing as you are Atheist.
Why do Atheists like to criticize Christians, and have no problem doing that, but when faced with criticism by the Christian, the get upset, and vexed, as though they are so "thin skinned" as to face criticism?
I have an idea, but I am just wondering what an Atheist might say to that.

Its not about liking to criticize Christians, its about all religious claims and more general about making claims in the first place without anything to back it up.

For instant look at what is going on in Afghanistan, this is 100% driven by religion. Peoples lives are being ruined or they are getting killed, because some people believe they know what God think is best for them.

As an atheist, not believing there is any God(s) to begin with, seeing how these things decide life and death for a lot of people is devastating to us, because we constantly yell for religious people to back up their claims.
Yet, you don't seem to understand why some atheists are very opposed to religions. Imagine that you should discuss with a Taliban, its impossible to talk any sense to them, if what you are trying to explain to them interfere with their religious beliefs, they simply wouldn't care about what you are saying, because in their mind you are wrong and don't know the "real" God. You would obviously claim the opposite, that the God you believe in is the right one.

While the atheists are standing on the sideline, asking for any of you to prove that your God exist.

Some atheists might get upset, I don't get upset in that way, I get tired of arguments that doesn't make sense, like when you try to argue that a shark could change from eating plants to meat in mere weeks, and then quote stuff that doesn't support what you are saying.

I have no issue with people wanting to believe that some God exist, if that give them meaning in life etc. that is fine. But I don't think that its to much to ask them for proof for such believes if these impact other peoples lives. Like with the Taliban, their beliefs are being forced unto other people, without them providing any evidence for why they are right and to me that is simply not good enough.

Furthermore, when you criticize an atheist, you can only do it, if you know what there position is on a given topic, lets say abortion or something. Simply criticizing us for being atheists will have no impact on us, because its not something we believe in, its something we are identified as, its not like there is a whole lot of beliefs attached to being an atheist, except that we are not convinced that gods exist.