I don’t presume to know what Atheists want, so I'll leave the presumptions to you. It’s not unreasonable for me to expect creationists to make a supportable argument, one that doesn’t make appeals to magic and supernaturalism.
Your argument is that we must wait until death in order for your argument, (which you presume to be true) is proven true, until that time, we are required to accept your argument as true. I call that “ridiculous”
As to the creationist revising and re-writing their Bibles to make one day equal to one year, such manipulation is common yet it doesn't make sense to:
A. Use the bible as the source of your religious belief in the gods
only to
B. Dismiss what the bible says about the Gods in favor of something you'd like it to be instead of what it says.
As to those horrible evilutionist Atheists and their magnetic pole reversals, don’t listen to these guys: https://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-poleReversal.html <----- they're evil and only want to lead you astray.
Instead, read your Bibles. You’re not entitled to anything more.
Now, you're complaining when I am just laying out what Christians know and what atheists believe.
Atheists want proof because they have no proof of no God. They want empiricism. They also want to rebel against God. That's it in a nutshell. Otherwise, they would just go on living their lives to the fullest instead of being on R&E. There are those who even lie to themselves about it and claim atheism is not a religion. What malarkey. I have no idea what this has to do with magic and supernaturalism. Anyway, atheists are the ones who believe in that.
I didn't say that. What I said was that we all have to wait until after death for the day "every eye will see." This is what we all want. You can say that you don't, but then you wouldn't be on R&E answering questions about the afterlife or asking for empirical proof. You don't know, so how can you say that is ridiculous? I asked the empiricist here proof of there is no afterlife and none was presented. Thus, neither side has absolute proof.
Again, you confuse and jumble what I said. Nothing was rewritten. The Bible is read literally and the prophecies are allegory. In regards to this, we have God stretching out the universe. OTOH, we have dark energy stretching out the universe for the atheists. We will have dark matter explain the big bang. Something to replace God. Prior to this the universe was infinite instead of God being infinite. The other end time beliefs are global warming and being hit by an asteroid. AGW would be the long period of tribulation. The asteroid would represent the Day of the Lord. Just different interpretations of stuff from the Bible.
I didn't say NASA was evil either. These are the things you claim and like I said what the atheists believe from the NASA link. It also gets us off subject of the afterlife.
"Atheists want proof because they have no proof of no God."
Want proof of what? You are attempting to make an argument for a specific collection of Gods and when you're tasked with supporting that argument, you respond with the "you have no proof of no Gods".
Incorrect. I do, in fact, have proof of no Gods you have no proof I don't. See how that works?
I might have addressed this elsewhere, but for the new folks:
You cannot require "you have no proof of _______" (<----Gods in this case)" as a standard because you are establishing a fallacious standard. If you can demand, "my claim cannot be disproven” but not demand that the asserter prove there actually is reason to accept a claim, then anyone can counter your demand using your own standard: Thus, I do have proof disproving your false claim of “Definitive proof that gods exists!”, prove that I do not.
See? You have established that "prove it isn't" is a viable standard, and I am merely accepting your standards and playing it right back at you. I cannot be held to task for this, since if it is okay for you to have such a standard, I can have such a standard as well.
Therefore, it must be the asserter of all positive (i.e., such and such exists) premises to prove their assertion. With equal validity, I cannot "prove there isn't" a Santa Claus, leprechauns, gnomes, werewolves, etc. etc. etc., but we do not go around insisting there be an establishment of proof of non-existence for those things. Why does the assertion of an alleged supernatural entity get past this same standard?