Why can't atheists get it through their heads?

I understand , same for atheists who are not convinced by the arguments for god.

I have seen your answers and sometimes you get the cart before the horse.

"The cosmic background radiation is an objective measurement but it is not empirical evidence for the Big Bang. The Big Bang is inferred from the measurement but there are other explanations that work equally as well with the observation that don't require the Big Bang. Just another example demonstrating you don't really understand science!"

The presence of the cosmic microwave background was predicted in 1948 by Alpher and Herman and supported by George Gamow. The origin of this radiation was supposed to be in the era of the formation of atoms, during which mainly ultraviolet and visible light were emitted by electrons dropping into orbitals, some hundreds of thousands of years after the big bang. The expansion of the universe was supposed to have smeared this radiation out so it peaks in the microwave band now.

This background could not be predicted by Hoyle's continuous creation theory which was the other plausible theory of cosmic expansion at the time.

It is very well known that the background was discovered by two radio physicists in industrial employment who were NOT looking for it but were setting up for telecommunications satellites. It is well known that they did not know what it was at first and it was only after asking that someone suggested that it was the proposed CMB.

Here's where the cart gets before the horse -

The BB theory is not inferred from the CMB. It is inferred from the recession of distant galaxies first noticed by Vesto Slipher about 1910, confirmed by Hubble in the 1920's and literally millions of times since then. The discovery of the CMB supported Alpher and Herman and thus the BB theory and eliminated Hoyle's continuous creation.

Now you have claimed that the CMB can be predicted by other theories. That may be true, but what are they? They may predict some microwave radiation, certainly. But do they predict the spectrum of that radiation and does that spectrum agree with BB theory to an exquisite degree as shown by the COBE satellite? Do they predict the WMAP observations? BB theory modified by inflation, which was proposed three decades ago made those predictions. Do these theories agree with these observations?

Do any of these theories predict the overall chemical composition of the visible matter in the Universe at about 75% hydrogen and 25% helium with traces of deuterium and lithium? Big bang conditions predict this and this is still pretty much the observed composition.

Unfortunately, young Earth creationists persistently claim things which are known to be false. There is not enough room in a dozen Yahoo! Answers to list these. They vary from the crude forgeries of human footprints at Glen Rose Texas, to the rather more clever lies about the decay chains of uranium 235, 238 and thorium to their respective isotopes of lead.

They also lie about history, for instance the claims that two modern skulls were found nearby and at the same level as the "Java man" fossils,which the discoverer, Eugene Dubois is supposed to have hidden. Not only is this a lie, they have defamed the dead to spread it. Another case of such defamation are their attacks on the honesty of Bernard Kettlewell over the peppered moth.

Therefore any claims they make about the big bang theory have to be treated with the greatest suspicion.

So since us godless scientists don't have enough evidence (to any rational person we do) to shake your faith, GOD AND JESUS AND THE BIBLE AND TALKING SNAKES AND NOAHS FLOOD. Atheists denounce belief in a god because there is simply more evidence for our side than on the side of a theists (whose only 'evidence' are very broad things that cannot be attributed to one thing, i.e. trees, birds, the sky, etc.). You theists have the burden of proof since your claims are contrary to what 95% of scientists believe (that is to say that 95% of scientists are atheists). You simply point out some of the holes in things like the fossil record and then make these BASELESS claims that have no evidence for them except some old book written by goat herders, for examples of these ridiculous claims, see above in capitals.

The validity of a science hypothesis depends directly on the strength of evidence in its favor. We should not accept things without question, but it is bad form to not accept the strongest demonstrated theories in science.

There is a difference between, for example, the evidence of evolutionary theory and the evidence of the Higgs boson as predicted in the standard model. The other day, my particle professor was showing the data he took at the LHC which helped to discover the Higgs. There is a slight "bump" on the voltage reading at colliding energies around 125 GeV. But it is only slight. I was skeptical, wondering how his team knew it was not noise, and he went on to explain more of its predicted properties from the 1970s etc.

But as for evolutionary theory, well the evidence is just overwhelming, leaking over from many other fields of science outside of biology. The only people who deny theories as obvious and well-backed as this do so out of an emotional need to hang onto their favorite fables. I used to be like that until I started being open-minded!

Your idea that people who accept scientific findings do so uncritically is flawed. Science is testable. If you don't accept what is well-demonstrated by all standards you would accept for any other thing in life, then you are inconsistent and in denial. Sometimes, the counterintuitive concepts like relativity are hard for the average person to believe, but educated people have no excuse really if they have the brainpower to critically examine it.

Buddy, I pretty much got turned atheist because of questions like this, I was agnostic, but people kept asking me why I didn't choose their side, and theirs was definitely right. I just decided that I don't give a damn, and I'm sure many other atheists truly don't give a **** what other people believe in. (or at least I don't) freedom of opinion and religion.

"Theists don't deny science"

- I never said they did.

"they just remain unconvinced of certain claims because of insufficient convincing evidence"

- And quite right too, only a fool would believe in something for which they didn't have sufficient convincing evidence.

"Atheists are predisposed to accept those claims"

- I don't think I'm predisposed to anything, but since you don't bother to specify what claims you are talking about I have no further comment.

Because there is plenty of evidence if they could look at it without bias.

"Atheists are predisposed to accept those claims and so fail to subject those claims to the same critical examination the would claims that challenge their position."

What claims? Science bases its claims on the evidence. If atheism were the reason why people accept evolution then why are there so many theists who do so? You would be hard pressed to find an atheist who does not accept it.

I find it interesting that both sides do not find sufficient evidence that justifies the other sides claim.

As an atheist I don't think that the simplest answer is the correct one. In this case "God did it"

How can you judge scientific evidence when you're a scientific ignoramus?

Science isn't a big conspiracy... the gaps in our knowledge are recognised and understood and openly admitted.

Yes, I get it, but it is why they are "unconvinced of certain claims". I don't think it is " because of insufficient convincing evidence.." I think it is because of wishful, biased thinking. The criteria on which scientific work and the Bible are examined are not even close when it comes to believers.

Science is about discovery, change, learning, growth, wisdom and open-mindedness.

Religion is about stagnation and close-mindedness and fabrications and lies and hypocrisy.

How can the choice be difficult? It's not for me.