Evidence for atheist claims

[robvalue]

So now you've alienated absolutely everyone on the forum, what's your next step?

[Whateverist]

Go fuck yourself with a rusty barbed wire rahat pentru creier, because, frankly, giving yourself tetanus is the best thjng you could do for humanity.

Look at that. This cannot be the norm in this forum, right?

No, not the norm. It looks like you've penetrated the constable's skin to a depth beyond the usual. Was that your intention, to get under people's skin? I also find your abrasive, intentional or not, but I did answer your OP. Like Ben Davis, I too have been ignored. Guess I have to call you something or wish you ill to show up on your radar.

[Mister Agenda]

I am starting this post because, so far, no atheist ever showed me evidence for their beliefs (or as you say, "lack of beliefs") and I am curious. I will play the person you believe I am, a "dumb redneck christian" and I will ask you things so you can answer them to me with evidence, of course. First question:

If God did not create the earth, how is it that we have an earth here and we live in it? Also, I beg, provide evidence for your claims.

Have I ever told you about my friend, the invisible Dragon Fnarg? It does my bidding, and if you don't give me all your money now and in the future, it will haunt you in the afterlife and forever burn you with its fiery breath. You'll surely agree that you should comply and proceed with the money transfer asap.  Fnarg is not a very pleasant fellow.

I've taken to thinking of that as an informal fallacy: the Fallacy of Enormous Consequences. In no other arena but religion is it considered wise to make a decision based on consequences you only know about by hearsay, no matter how big they are. In RL, the bigger the consequences threatened, the less we are likely to believe they are real. If I promise to give you a hundred bucks for washing my car, you might believe me; if I promise you a million, you'll want to at least check to see if I have that much money, and a history of pissing it away on car washes. Islam has just as big a reward and punishment system as Christianity, but Christians are blithely unconcerned about it simply because they don't believe it.

[robvalue]

He's trying to pretend he hasn't learnt anything, but I saw him adjust "atheist" to "materialist atheist". See. I can't fell a whole forest, but I can rub myself off in the bush.

[Whateverist]

Beating off around the bushes again, are we Rob?

[robvalue]

I have to take what I can get these days.

[Mister Agenda]

Besides the poster that came after me, no one really answered anything, well, anything besides unbased mockery which I am getting used to.

Now, I have read this claim "The Earth is thought to have been formed about 4.6 billion years ago by collisions in the giant disc-shaped cloud of material that also formed the Sun. Gravity slowly gathered this gas and dust together into clumps that became asteroids and small early planets called planetesimals. These objects collided repeatedly and gradually got bigger, building up the planets in the Solar System, including the Earth.

The details of how the Earth formed are still being worked out. Scientists study meteorites and the oldest rocks on Earth to understand what happened in these earliest times in the Solar System. They also observe other solar systems in our galaxy, the Milky Way." but you are not better than any theist by just stating it so, if you read this claim without any further information it looks like a beautiful tale. I need, as you, evidence for this claim. What is the evidence behind this?

You said I could read the internet but that is not my point. This is a debate forum and if we would search the internet everytime we have a doubt there would be no forum at all, I want you guys to explain this to me.

You're making a category error. The only claim atheists make as atheists is that they don't believe in any God or god. The only claim theists make as theists is that they believe in at least one God or god. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God. There are no other 'atheist' claims, not even a claim that there is no God; only that we don't believe there is, we don't hold it to be true that any deities are real. Some atheists might claim that, or assert some versions of God don't exist while remaining agnostic about others; which only goes to show we only have the one claim in common.

You seem to be conceding the entirety of science to us, which is flattering, and a high percentage of scientists ARE atheists compared to the general population, but around half of American scientists are Christian. most of whom have no problem following the evidence wherever it goes. It's not our job, as atheists, to defend science; if you went to a general science forum, you'd find plenty of Christians defending science.

Maybe you're ready for the 'varieties of atheists' talk. I think for this thread you want to take on the 'rational skeptics' or 'scientific skeptics'. Lots of atheists in America fall into that category. We tend to be careful and precise in how we use words when debating, and are known for a tendency to be grammar and spelling Nazis; and to be agnostic atheists (because we're reluctant to make blanket assertions, it comes with the territory).

[Mister Agenda]

My apologies, double post.

[Ben Davis]

Excuse me, Ben Davis, but if you cannot comprehend that in this post there is a lot of brainless commentaries and that yours was lost between them we are not going anywhere.

Excuse me, Wryetui, how dare you?! Where do you get off being rude to me when you can't be bothered to read all of the posts in your own thread? If you don't understand basic manners and common courtesy, we are not going to get anywhere. I've been nothing but courteous and patient with you. You owe me an apology.

I do not have time to read trough the whole page you provided,

If you can't be bothered to read it, why do you ask for the evidence?

I have opened it and it is full of technicism I do not understand...

You mean it's full of the scientific notation, technical language and facts that are required to answer your question. Your inability to understand the subject matter alongside your unwillingness to put the effort in doesn't bode well for the fruitfullness of this discusion.

...that is why I just asked you to simplify them and to give me a brief and simplified answer, is it that hard?

Yes it is because of the question you asked. You wanted evidence and because of that, there is no easy answer or one-page summary that can answer your question.

[Wryetui]

Besides the poster that came after me, no one really answered anything, well, anything besides unbased mockery which I am getting used to.

Now, I have read this claim "The Earth is thought to have been formed about 4.6 billion years ago by collisions in the giant disc-shaped cloud of material that also formed the Sun. Gravity slowly gathered this gas and dust together into clumps that became asteroids and small early planets called planetesimals. These objects collided repeatedly and gradually got bigger, building up the planets in the Solar System, including the Earth.

The details of how the Earth formed are still being worked out. Scientists study meteorites and the oldest rocks on Earth to understand what happened in these earliest times in the Solar System. They also observe other solar systems in our galaxy, the Milky Way." but you are not better than any theist by just stating it so, if you read this claim without any further information it looks like a beautiful tale. I need, as you, evidence for this claim. What is the evidence behind this?

You said I could read the internet but that is not my point. This is a debate forum and if we would search the internet everytime we have a doubt there would be no forum at all, I want you guys to explain this to me.

You're making a category error. The only claim atheists make as atheists is that they don't believe in any God or god. The only claim theists make as theists is that they believe in at least one God or god. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God. There are no other 'atheist' claims, not even a claim that there is no God; only that we don't believe there is, we don't hold it to be true that any deities are real. Some atheists might claim that, or assert some versions of God don't exist while remaining agnostic about others; which only goes to show we only have the one claim in common.

You seem to be conceding the entirety of science to us, which is flattering, and a high percentage of scientists ARE atheists compared to the general population, but around half of American scientists are Christian. most of whom have no problem following the evidence wherever it goes. It's not our job, as atheists, to defend science; if you went to a general science forum, you'd find plenty of Christians defending science.

Maybe you're ready for the 'varieties of atheists' talk. I think for this thread you want to take on the 'rational skeptics' or 'scientific skeptics'. Lots of atheists in America fall into that category. We tend to be careful and precise in how we use words when debating, and are known for a tendency to be grammar and spelling Nazis; and to be agnostic atheists (because we're reluctant to make blanket assertions, it comes with the territory).

I understand what you have said, but I do not think it is wrong that I have said "atheistic cosmology", since every person has a cosmology, and an atheist has one of his own, right? When I said "atheistic worldview" I referred to a worldview where any divinity is out of the case. I do understand that atheism is not like the Orthodox Church where every believer professes the same beliefs and that atheists disagree with themselves. I should have said naturalistic or matherialistic claims.