Do atheists have any evidence to support their beliefs?

[KCfromNC]

I merely explore the rationale of atheism if it were true through reason, as did others including atheists of the past. Though atheism may appear to be just a footnote to the modern atheist, the consequential logic behind it is really quite remarkably illogical and irrational and unreasonable. It may make one question why modern atheists pride themselves in facts and logic and reason when they are antithetical to it. Nineteenth century atheists were serious about their atheism, and were well aware of the things I have pointed out, yet they didn't coddle and baby their followers by lying to them about the logical implications of their own beliefs.

Treating atheism as not that big of a deal, alludes to modern atheism being merely based on feelings rather than logic - and when convenient, atheism is all about reason and logic and is rational. It's basically intellectual cowardice, and Nietzsche would've most likely spit in contempt on the atheists of today. Though Nietzsche was wrong in his anti-God philosophy, in the end, became an insane and tragic figure; but at least he was courageous enough to be honest.

You make it sound like not believing in stuff that's unconvincing is some radical approach to life. Not sure why - you keep alluding to assertions you're making without explaining the thinking behind them. That in itself is pretty curious.

However, without God (atheistic perspective), every person is the sole arbiter of what's right, meaning no one can actually be wrong, even ISIS.

Speaking of illogical, this is a logical fallacy known as an argument from consequence.

 

[Ken-1122]

I merely explore the rationale of atheism if it were true through reason, as did others including atheists of the past.

Atheism is the dismissal of the man-made claim that God exist; nothing more. You want proof of atheism? The fact that I dismissed your claims of God is absolute PROOF that atheism is real and true.

There are no differences when we recognise that there are good and evil. How we interpret good and evil are also no different. For example we both agree that child abuse and racial discrimination is wrong, or, in the case of ISIS and it's structure of morality where women are counted as less than human, it's wrong. These are fundamentally, objectively, and inherently prevalent in us. However, without God (atheistic perspective), every person is the sole arbiter of what's right.

Under God every person is the sole artiter of what's right as well! What's the difference?

Reason is, atheism cannot account for good and evil, but Christianity can.

Atheism accounts for nothing; but individual atheists DO account for good and evil.

 

[Tinker Grey]

... but individual atheists DO account for good and evil.

And its absolutely trivial: Good are those things that facilitate a flourishing life; Evil is that which impedes a good life; neutral things are those that have no effect.

Simple. Accounted for.

Oh. Why? Because shtuff happens.

 

[Allandavid]

I’ll challenge you that. I think you have seen evidence. Look around you at the vast, wonderful, tremendously complex universe. Or look in the mirror at your similarly wonderful, complex body. I believe in a creator because I don’t believe that those things could have happened by chance. There is the evidence you seek.

Those aren’t evidence. They are examples of an Argument from Incredulity...

 

[the iconoclast]

Common error. As an atheist, l am absent a belief in a god. That is a different position from what you have stated; ie, that there are no gods...

Watch...it’s quite simple. Muslims claim that the god Allah exists and that Mohammed is his prophet. I presume that you are a Christian and that you reject that claim. I join you in that rejection. However, unlike you, I do not then proceed and make an affirmative claim of my own...

Hey hey sir.

How are those cold australian nights?