Why I Don't Think Militant Atheists Are That Really Free to Think and Open Minded as They Claim to Be

Atheists have the claim that they're "freethinkers" and that people are bound to think for themselves. But is it really the case? I want to really give my thoughts on why atheists are not really free in their thinking as they love to claim it. One of the biggest lies atheism says is that atheism is when people think for themselves, that they analyze everything they think but are they really that free to think or analyze things as they claim? 

A militant atheist I knew years ago may have called Ken Ham an idiot may also be because of this cartoon on the right from "Answers in Genesis". In the atheist educational system, you're actually required to believe that there are no absolutes (while hypocritically condemning theists Christian or not), that people are just animals (while hypocritically getting mad when people act like animals), that the disasters brought humans to existence, that there's no God and that the Bible isn't true. All the while they teach that the Bible isn't true and that God doesn't exist why attack the Bible and God like there's no tomorrow? 

Are these militant atheists really free as they think? Not really based on what I've observed. In the system of atheism, you are most likely not allowed to question anything. No other alternatives are really possible and you must always believe what scientists says. Then they say that only atheists may become true scientists never mind that most of the contributors to scientific studies rejected atheism. Even some evolutionists were not atheists but had some kind of pagan belief system. But for these militant atheists, you can't be a true scientist unless you're an atheist while they hypocritically study the notes of scientists who were creationists. I guess they better stop listening to evolution lectures from non-atheistic evolutionists. 

In the militant atheist setting, you can't really ask any questions and you need to believe that this atheist scientist has to say no matter how absurd it is. The comic strip above shows the atheist professor is really "open minded". I'm being sarcastic because militant atheists aren't open-minded as they claim. If they were open-minded why deny other scientists who aren't atheists to share evidence. One answer may lie in their fondness of Ad Hominem (attacking the person instead of the argument) and the use of strawman arguments. They can even misrepresent a person by showing, "Ha by saying he believes in God, he's discredited himself. Let's not listen to him" never mind that the creationist scientist's research may have 1,000+ pages of scientific wealth of knowledge that proves that there's really a God, that Intelligent Design is a reality and that life isn't an accident. 

If you're supposed to be open-minded why don't they allow people to question their claims or prevent any evidences that may prove them wrong? If you're a scientist you need to really allow people to question your claims. In a real scientific research people must be allowed to question their claims and and any good scientist must be willing to accept mistakes and republish their study as many times as necessary with new information and admit they've been wrong. Not so with the atheist because they tend to think they're smarter than everyone. What's worse is that the more stupid a person is, the higher their self-worth is towards themselves. Isn't that that in Romans 1:22 it says that they profess themselves to be wise that they became fools? Proverbs 12:15 warns us that stupid people think they're so smart. I guess anybody can observe how stupid people make fools out of themselves when they profess to be wise. It's quite different from Christians who are told many times to be observant, humble and discerning by the Bible that atheists hate so much. On the other hand, atheist instructors may continue to tell people to just believe everything that their scientists have to say without questioning it. 

For the atheist who thinks that Christianity makes you unscientific I guess that they won't take an advice from a competent Christian doctor and may rather take advice from an incompetent atheist doctor. I could imagine a setting of an atheist male homosexual couple seeking to make the "wife" pregnant. Let's just say that the first male acts as the husband and the second male acts as the wife so he underwent transgender surgery. In order to avoid the hassles of adoption the male homosexual couple seeks to go to a doctor. The Christian doctor tells them the plain honest truth that it's impossible and may even give them a scientific lecture to why it's impossible. So they say, "Baloney! You're a Christian doctor!" They go to an incompetent atheist doctor who may go to much absurdity as to implant a womb to the transgender homosexual who acts as the "wife". Some time later, the "husband" takes his transgender "wife" for check-up. Another Christian doctor warns that a "wife" isn't pregnant but has a malignant tumor that must be removed as soon as possible. They dismiss the second Christian doctor and they go back to that same atheist doctor. The atheist doctor may say that the "wife" is now "pregnant". Then months later, the "wife" finds out he's not pregnant but the Christian doctor told him the truth about his malignant cancer out of concern. So who's close minded now?