What are the evidence for no god?

[IATIA]

Satanism - when it gets to the point of sacrificing animals, raping children, and sacrificing babies, it ain't no better than Islam.  Satan don't care what you do as long as you don't believe in God, he's got ya whether you know it or not.

Say what?  To believe in Satan requires a belief in god also.  And where is your source on "sacrificing animals, raping children, and sacrificing babies".  Catholic priests rape children.  Many an animal was sacrificed to god of the bible.  The bible condones 'baby killing' on numerous occasions.

So, are you saying the god of the bible is Satan?  If not, what is your source for accusing Satan of those atrocities?

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]Intelligent Design does not need an explanation. 

Of course not. That's because it's made up nonsense and religious propaganda. No need to explain that.

Theories have to be explained and accepted.  Even at that, they will never be fact.

They're not supposed to be. Facts are facts. Theories are just scientific ways of explaining and predicting facts.

[Edwardo Piet]

The Blind Watchmaker debunks the I.D. argument, go read it. The watchmaker is blind... it is evolution through natural selection.

[I_am_not_mafia]

Satanism - when it gets to the point of sacrificing animals, raping children, and sacrificing babies, it ain't no better than Islam.  Satan don't care what you do as long as you don't believe in God, he's got ya whether you know it or not.

That does not happen in Satanism. You are ignorant of what other beliefs are about.

If the theories are 100% perfect, why are they still called theories if they are perfect? 

Doesn't mean to say that they aren't correct. There is an overwhelming body of evidence to tell us that we know that they are correct.

Why not intelligent design? 

That's not a theory. It cannot be demonstrated and has no explanatory power. We cannot use it. We can use evolution in theory and practice. It explains a lot that we depend upon. Intelligent design is not falsifiable. You are ignorant of the scientific method.

I do think there is micro evolution, but macro-evolution

There is no difference. Your so called macro evolution works by using the smallest steps possible. There is no mechanism to stop the small steps that you refer to as microevolution accumulating to become big changes over time. So if you believe in microevolution and not macroevolution the onus is on you to demonstrate or theorise about some mechanism to stop small changes accumulating over time. Otherwise you believe in macroevolution as well.

Monkeys again would be extinct completely if human became from monkeys no. 

Humans did not come from monkeys. Monkeys, apes and humans all had a common ancestor and fill different evolutionary niches. You are ignorant of evolution.

There is also scientific proof that the universe is younger than what you think based on scientific evidence.

No there isn't.

There have been rocks proven only to be 40 years old when they were originally thought be hundreds of years old. 

No there aren't. Even hundreds of years old tells us that you know nothing about the subject. Try millions of years old. You are ignorant of geology.

Astrologists have found that some stars do not last as long as some of the the other stars and also prove the age of the universe. 

If you knew what you were talking about you would know that astronomy and astrology are two different things.

Let's look at the definition,  a theory is an educated guess. at best. 

You are ignorant of what a scientific theory is.

There is no proof of the big bang because humans simply didn't exist. 

You are ignorant of astrophysics. Explain the cosmic background radiation and red shift.

I didn't want to be fed your propaganda.  I wasn't in the mood the the atheist propaganda you are selling.  Your theory of evolution has been dismissed as a deceitful lie that I knew it was.  So what part of your brain did you turn off?

So you admit that you deliberately remained ignorant and did not want to learn.

I'll remind you:

That is why they do not educate their women.  Ignorant people are easier to control.  

Please remember this.

[downbeatplumb]

Why does intelligent design "not need an explanation"? It seems to me that it does.
Why were things designed?
How were they designed?
Why does all the evidence not support intelligent design, and there is SOOOO much evidence?
why for most of the history of life was there very little variation if there was intelligent design?

or his he like the god of evolution on the disc world.

Turning his back completely on the human race and moving to Mono Island, he then threw his energies into re-designing living creatures and seeking to improve on them. This is hampered as he can only do things one at a time: until he has a frank chat with Mrs Whitlow, he is ignorant in the fine details of how to get his creations to reproduce themselves. Many of his early creations proved non-viable, due to his misguided attempt to put wheels on everything; of the ones that made it, the hermit elephant can be considered typical of his "improvements".

By then, most of the wizards have taken advantage of Argo Nauticae Uniquo to leave the island. Ponder Stibbons stays - for just long enough to grasp the awful truth of how far this God has turned his back on the human race.

The future has six legs and is cockroach-shaped. Insects are the pinnacle of life. Larger animals are there mainly to provide dung, or hosts for parasites.

[LostLocke]

Intelligent Design does not need an explanation.

Is that because.....
A- There is no explanation?, or
B- Because it's fully explained?

If A, then there's no basis to believe it's true.
If B, then explain it.

[Edwardo Piet]

Lets face it, I.D is pathetic. "Irreducibility" can fuck off.

[Vincent]

Russel's Teapot (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot)

The burden of proof has always and will always fall on the believer. You make the positive claim, YOU must provide the evidence. I'm not sure why theists can't seem to grasp this concept, no matter how many times it is explained to you.

I can't speak for other theists. I do grab that concept. You are right about the burden of proof has always and always will fall on the believer. Science says you have to provide evidence so therefore we are programmed to think this way. Proving God exists no believer can provide proof and that is where the concept of faith comes in. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong. Atheists want proof, but doesn't comprehend what faith is. I have also heard of some atheists praying to God when things go so wrong for them while others know what the Bible says, but choose to reject it. There are others who believe in evolution, while others can't believe that there just maybe might be a more powerful force out there besides humans. There are still others who can't explain their position. There are again others who blame God for something that has hurt them so bad such as a death of their newborn, child, etc so they stop believing. There are others who have been hurt by Christians and walk away. There are others who choose to reject all ideas about any deity or power. I get that as a theist if that is what you want to call me. Just curious. If the account of Noah's flood isn't true, then how is it possible that we have found Noah's Ark split up into three pieces? How about the burning bush? We found our way to that. The Muslims will kill you if you try to find it because it is heavily guarded because they are hiding it from the world to find out that the Biblical accounts may be true after all.

First off, no, there has never been evidence of the Ark discovered. Perhaps you should double check the shit you read online before putting every ounce of faith into it. Every claim ever made about the Ark or the Bush or shit under the Red Sea being found has been debunked almost immediately after the claim is made. 

I comprehend what faith is. However, so many theists (Christians in particular) try to bring their god into the realm of science, where he does not belong. So many will insult atheists and call us fools for not "seeing that he exists", like the evidence is actually out there when it is not. I wouldn't ask for proof if Christians didn't state it as fact. Simple as that.

[robvalue]

No...

A scientific theory means it has passed rigorous examination and represents the best model we currently have. It's not the same usage as the informal "theory" which is just an idea. This would be, in science, a hypothesis.

That's what the words mean in this context. If you want to substitute your own words, that's fine, but you don't get to substitute your own meanings.

Evolution is not a competitor to ID, only ID proponents draw those battle lines. Evolution is science, it is as close to fact as you can get. The fact that it happens to make ID look stupid is a side effect.

Science is not propaganda, nor is it anything to do with atheism.

[Cyberman]

Redefining words is usually the only way the faithful can make their stories work.