Do atheists seriously think that when we have evidence for God, that there will be no more atheists?

This kind of thinking reminds me of something I did when I was very little. We went to a restaurant of sorts and I was offered a chance to try something called Chocolate Mousse. I declined immediately believing Chocolate mousse to be a moose's head covered in chocolate. Eventually they brought the dessert and I was asked once again if I'd like to eat some now that I was able to see what it was. I declined once more, declared what they had brought was not chocolate mousse because chocolate mousse was a moose's head covered in chocolate. I wasn't just presented evidence. I saw the real thing and declared that it wasn't the real thing because it didn't fit my personal perception. It doesn't matter how many times someone is presented with evidence of anything. All the atheist has to do is label everything "not evidence." Many of the ones here can't even tell me what WOULD be evidence.

I would say that atheists are more likely to accept "good" reasoning of the evidence, whereas theists are more reluctant to accept "better" reasoning than their own. The Cosmological Argument is very appealing to Christian apologists because they can insert their God as a cause while ignoring natural causes. The reason the argument fails is because it only gets you to anything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist, thus has a cause. While theists can speculate about Gods being a cause, we already have a natural solution to the first cause. Since energy cannot be created, nor destroyed, it is uncaused, has no beginning and no end. Furthermore since all energy can do is "convert" into other forms of energy, the Big Bang is nothing more than an energy conversion from the Cosmos (all that exists) that cannot have a cause since energy cannot have a cause. One could argue that the universe always existed in some form before the conversion (Big Bang). If all we are really looking at is energy in different forms, it would be like saying ice began to exist at 32 degrees F, where it is apparent the material/energy for ice was already there. This changes the Cosmological argument from began to exist to "converted" into a new form of existence. While there is certainly a "cause" for the conversion, we have plenty of evidence to support "natural" conversions and none for magical Being conversions. Another problem that the Cosmological argument cannot get around is the natural order of complexity. Energy goes through steps and conversions over time to turn simple blocks/forces into more complex blocks/forces. In other words, all complex existence can be traced back to simpler beginnings because the natural order is necessary and cannot be avoided. This makes starting with a complex cause (God) literally impossible. The simplest building block is energy itself that is found in "all" existence no matter how complex and more importantly to this discussion, how simple that existence may be. Matter is just one of many forms of energy, where all matter is energy but not all energy is matter, where light is just one example of mass-less energy. You will not be able to refute my better arguments and yet being a theist, you will not accept my better reasoning because it absolutely refutes the conclusion you desire. This is what happens when people operate irrationally and prefer emotional support answers rather than actual intellectual answers that would help with understanding the reality of things.

Some people are atheists and don’t know. If they don’t obey God they are anti- God.

New World Translation

1 John 5:3

3For this is what the love of God means, that we observe his commandments; and yet his commandments are not burdensome,

King James Version

1 John 5:3

3For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

Yes. I'm sure you've been fed all sorts of crap about atheists loving sin, or not wanting to take responsibility, or the usual excuses, but in reality atheism is due to the completely absence of objective evidence for any gods.

If you had evidence for god, then it would be a FACT and no one would be an Atheist unless you were retarded or something. In this scenario, Atheists would be regarded in similar vein to flat earthers and holocaust deniers.

You're just trying to make an excuse for not having to substantiate your fairy tale.

I am sorry, but you are an idiot.

The Cosmological Argument is not proof of anything. The premises are flawed, making the argument unsound. Furthermore, the conclusion says nothing about god., at best the Kalam version ends, the Universe had a cause. The other more problematic version simply assert a God which does not follow from the premises, making it invalid.

Cosmological arguments are not sound arguments and therefore not proof.

Obviously not, since there is abundant evidence of God, yet some still deny the evidence.

I don't think that would necessarily be the case. It would depend on the quality of the evidence. The Bible could be said to be some evidence for God, but it is extremely weak, no better than the scriptures of other religions. The Cosmological argument is a philosophical argument, not empirical evidence, and it is not even specific to any particular god.

Oh, and I suppose I should have said that atheists don't think that 'when we have evidence' will ever happen.

Are you a CR clone? If not, you have totally invalided yourself.

There is no "Cosmological Proof". There is only a completely flawed Cosmological argument.

Meanwhile, the Christian God is a totally ridiculous concept.

In a word: Yes.

Far more complex answer: Define 'evidence.'

The issue as I see it is that the two sides have vastly different standards for what constitutes evidence. Evidence should make something clearly evident.

Atheists ask for evidence that is empirical, independently verifiable, repeatable. On the other hand, I'm often pointed by Christians to bible verses such as Hebrews 11:1 (KJV): “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

But, someone having faith in something isn't evidence it is true. Muslims have faith that their religion is true. Christians have faith theirs is true. Hindus have faith theirs is true. There is no position that can be taken on faith.

I have seen that argument more than once. They say the very fact he had faith that God existed served as evidence that God existed. I don't doubt these people had faith. I just don't see that a god existing is required to believe one exists.

Theists point to trees or whatever other things as some sort of supposed creation. But, it doesn't serve as evidence as a sentient creator any more than a confluence of natural events. The things they point to may be observable, but the problem is they don't make their God unquestionably evident, and hence don't constitute evidence.

Cosmological argument as I understand it:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The Universe began to exist.

3.  Therefore, the Universe had a cause.

Nowhere in that argument is a god outlined as a cause any more than another universe or pixies.  So, it isn't evidence for a god any more than it is evidence for other universes and pixies.  

And, I'm not convinced Universe "began to exist" in the sense I think you mean.  I agree there was a big bang, but I don't think we currently know enough to rule out something like conformal cyclic cosmology where the universe iterates through infinite cycles, demarcated by big bangs.  I'll admit, this is not my field.  But, noted physicists like Roger Penrose don't seem ready to take it off the table yet.

Yes, they seriously do, because once evidence is provided, nobody's going to be able to deny it. That's how evidence works.

Your so-called cosmological proof is nothing more than a logical fallacy that you people have been repeating for centuries.