To all of you who are quoting the bible: "A book says so" is not evidence. "A book says so" is a written claim.
Like I said, there are approximately 4200 religions on Earth. They all have 'holy' books just like you. And they all have 'predictions' in them. Those predictions are generic and vague that is obvious will happen. For example - I predict that thousands (if not millions) of babies will be born tomorrow. As for the more specific predictions, don't you think it's possible to be the other way around? In other words the events happening and then being written in the bible? Without the original text and the original authors you have no good reason to claim anything with certainty. But back to the other religions' books. Let me ask you something: What makes you so certain that out of all the 4200 religions you are the ones who got it right and every other religious book is pure fiction? If "a book says so" was evidence, wouldn't that mean that all those other books are evidence too? I mean they all claim to be true, just like yours does. And they all claim to know with absolute certainty how the universe and everything in it was created, just like yours does. What reason do you have to dismiss the text written in those books but accept the text written in the bible as absolute truth? And while we're at it - Christianity has approximately 41000 denomination. And as you can probably guess every single one of them, without exception claims to be the true Christian religion. They all interpret the bible differently, cherry picking which parts they consider true and which ones "aren't meant to be taken literally". So, what makes you dismiss all the other 41000 interpretations of the bible and accept yours as absolute truth? Answer (if not here, at least to yourselves) all these question truthfully and you'll get an idea why atheists dismiss all those books AND yours too.
First off, why is it that atheists are the ones who need to provide evidence that god doesn't exist? Aside from the fact that you can't prove a negative - religious people are the ones making the claim. The one making the claim is the one who is required to present some evidence to support that claim. Approximately 4200 religions claim "There is a god", some of them even say multiple gods, and it's a different god for every religion. To which atheists say "I'm not taking your word for that. Prove it, then I'll believe you." Next. Seeing the big bang or evolution? Go back to school where they teach at least one of those two things - evolution and you'll know that it's a slow process that takes many many many years. Think of it as solving a crime. And evidence is little clues scattered around. So far all the clues science was able to find point to the big bang and evolution. And when you have multiple clues pointing to the same thing, you have a suspect. And that evidence is testable and verifiable unlike the holy books. If science discovers new facts, the theory of evolution and the theory of big bang will change. That's another difference between science and religion - science changes its position when it finds new data. Also, the big bang theory is not about the origin of the universe, it's about the development of the universe. And finally - you are saying that the universe and us humans are so well designed, therefore someone must've created us. Then who or what created god? By that same logic, if something that is complex requires a creator just because it's so complex, then who created that vastly more complex creator? But no, he is eternal. Forget that "complex things must have a creator" thing I just said, it only applies when it's convenient.
Yeah, right. Just like it takes noise to be silent. Perfect logic. Atheists don't rely on faith, they actually care if their beliefs are true or not, so they rely on evidence.
