Atheists who claim that there is no evidence of a God?

To be fair, there is a gross difference between flat earthers and theists. In case of flat earthers, they flat out (pun intended) deny science, because it has been proven over and over that the earth is indeed spherical. It doesn't just have to do with a few pictures that people managed to take from space, it's all about calculations that have been made with the math and physics backing up the theory.

But when it comes to God, science still has nothing in its hands. At this point, it still can't prove nor disprove the existence of God, so science literally has nothing to say about God. I've talked to some atheists here, and found out that although some mock God and the concept of God, they just don't have any reason to believe in God, which is fine and respectable in my opinion. But those atheists who flat out claim that science has proven that God doesn't exist are no better than the flat earthers, because they are DENYING the fact that science still has no say about God, at least not yet. Those atheists are the liars and the hypocrites in my opinion, because although they do follow science, they are also adding to it and crediting it with things that it still didn't even begin to do.

EDIT: Oh, forgot to answer the other two questions. Global warming (may it be a natural cycle or not) is real. There is a lot of evidence that suggests pollution being responsible for global warming, and given that the climate change is evident all around us, you'd have to wake up pretty early in the morning to deny completely that humans had anything to do with it. To be fair, I think it's just an excuse for humans to be sloppy and lazy when it comes to taking care of nature and our environment.

About creationism and evolution, let me tell you: I am a creationist, but it doesn't mean I deny evolution. I admit, I did before, but only because I hadn't realized the credibility of it to even be considered a scientific theory (which is as best as you can get in science). The thing is that when it comes to religion and science, I tend to separate both as much as possible whilst still believing in both. The reason? Well, let's be honest. Science has given us so many answers, yet we still have to answer many many MANY MORE questions. If we know less than 1% of the knowledge that the universe has to give us, how can we be so impatient as to answer questions that relate to what or who created the universe (for example)? Or how humans evolved? Yes, science has some answers about these things, which after numerous testing have proved to be theories. But with so many yet so few answers, would you dare to say that respective to what with know today, those answers that we have are definitive answers, even if they are scientific theories themselves?

There is no evidence for any god, why do you feel the need to lie.

But there is evidence the Earth is spherical, there is evidence that climate change is attributable to human activity, there is evidence for evolution.

And have not all of them been presented with overwhelming evidence that they refuse to acknowledge ?

Still waiting to see what you got.

you're an idiot - this question is evidence of that!

The burden of proof is on the people who claim that something is, not the people who claim it is not. Once that's proven successfully, proof burden moves to those who claim that the first proof is wrong and it actually is not.

For proving the existence of God scientifically, the burden is on theists to prove he exists. They haven't done that (mostly because the serious theists say it's a matter of faith, not science). So atheists are right that there's no proof of God, and they don't need to un-prove him.

The default earth-shape is flat because it looks that way when you're standing on it. Astronomers and explorers long ago proved it's spherical. That moves the burden to flat earthers to unprove the sphere, which they haven't done with laughably-bad pseudo-science.

Default for human-caused climate change is no. Scientists have successfully proven that's real, so the burden is now on deniers to unprove it. Which they're failing to do because they're relying on "fake! fake!" as their main argument.

Both creation and evolution needed to be proven, since the default is that we just exist and aren't capable of looking beyond our existence. Evolution through natural selection is well-proven and observed and experimentally demonstrated. Creationists have never seriously tried for scientific proof, the closest they've come is "creation science", which is biblical stories told in sciency-sounding language.

And Christians claim there is no evidence that there is no god...

Now, that is a double negative... making it into a single positive the question becomes: What is the evidence for the existence of a god?

And that question has yet to be answered beyond subjective nonsense.

I am so glad that you have accepted that leprechauns are real.

Evolution is fake, global warming is fake, and nasa is a fraud. What's your point?

Yes they do.

BUT...

There IS evidence for those other things.

There is reliably testable evidence that the Earth is an oblate spheroid.

There is reliably testable evidence that climate change is occurring.

There is reliably testable evidence that supports evolution.

However, there is no reliably testable evidence a god exists.

The moment ANY of you has enough

integrity to PROVE YOUR GOD is real,

atheism disappears forever.

So, go ahead, do it.

We'll wait.

By the way, CR -- we know that YOU don't

even have ONE OUNCE of integrity.

So you may need to find a friend...