Circumstantial, tangential evidence. The same can be said of an intelligent creator.
The big bang theory predicts many observable things about the universe - its expansion, the nature of cosmic microwave background, the quantities of primordial hydrogen, deuterium, helium, and lithium
so the implied evidence supporting the theory of a "big bang" also support equally those theories of an intelligent designer.
No, because the intelligent designer claims have the added burden of explaining the designer's origin and the designer's motive for creation. Which leads to my next point...
Yes, it then begs the question of the creator's creator, composition, etc. But, that doesn't mean it's not true. It doesn't imply it can't be, just because it causes more questions.
Those additional questions reduce the
likelihood of the creator explanation being true.
That depends entirely on what he believes will please his God.
True, and that's the whole problem - anyone can believe anything about what would please gods. And anyone can make any sort of claim to others about what pleases gods.
Virtually all religions expect someone to focus on the greater good for all, above themselves.
And virtually all have some version of what Christianity inadvisedly calls the Golden Rule. The point is that we cannot assume that what pleases gods constitutes a "greater good." That's not even getting into the whole problem of assuming the existence of gods themselves or assuming anything about their natures.
Some would say that the basis is "human nature", not something taught through a religion. I would say that "human nature" is inherent because that's how we're designed.
We cannot assume that design would be the only explanation.
I would also say that society, especially American society being Christian in the vast majority, is based upon Christian values - so even the non-religious are influenced by Christian values through constant exposure.
I am deeply skeptical of the "Christian values" buzz phrase, because it's thrown around by talking heads and politicians as though it's self-evident. Many religions' histories include atrocities grounded in the religions' doctrines, and Christianity is not alone in this. I'm not saying that Christianity's history is worse or even better than other religions. I'm saying that we cannot assume that "Christian values" always means "love your neighbor" - Christianity does not have an exclusive title to that laudable concept. I'm also saying that when a religion's scripture appears to endorse atrocities, we cannot treat the claim of "values" as always being laudable.
To obliterate ourselves and innocent others in the name of religion seems counter to the basic understanding of virtually all religions.
How does that square with such things as the genocide at Jericho, where Joshua and his troops were allegedly acting on divine orders?
The average atheist judges the average person of faith as being a bit ignorant, or at least easily mislead.
While I strongly condemn that behavior, I also emphasize that most of the atheists I've encountered do not do this. It may seem otherwise only because the most extreme members of any movement or social group tend also to be the most vocal ones.
The average person of faith feels compelled to tell that average atheist how they'll "burn in hell", or some other such judgement.
Again, that is much worse than an atheist calling a religious person ignorant, because the person of faith is essentially saying that it's acceptable for someone to suffer for eternity.
If someone is an atheist, then they have no worries of God, because He doesn't exist.
The issue isn't about "God or no god," because different religions make different claims about supernatural entities. There's no reason to treat the idea of a single god as having a greater likelihood than any other idea of the supernatural.
If someone is a person of faith, they need not worry about there being no after-life, because it's as clear to me as my hand before my face that there is one.
Clear how? What evidence do you have?
Each side has a belief of what will happen, and they're both equally abhorant to the other.
I stress that the two sides are not atheism versus theism, but skepticism on one side and all the supernatural claims by all religions on the other. Christianity is merely in the same boat as all the other religions.
What would be so abhorrent about no supernatural existence? What is so abhorrent or offensive about skepticism regarding the claims of all religions?
Regardless of whether I believe in God or not, if the truth is that He's out there, He's out there. If the truth is that I'm wrong and He's not, I'm wrong and He's not. Truth is not swayed by people's beliefs.
That's actually an argument for skepticism.
I only see there being no real consequence for actions if the truth is that we're just amino acid mutations infesting a small rock in a yo-yo of a universe that continually expands and contracts.
I'm talking about natural consequences, action and reaction. I'm talking about the idea that our actions can have positive or negative effects, on ourselves and/or on others. True morality means that one cares about how one's actions affect others. I'm not talking about "consequences" as a synonym for punishment. Acting based on fear of punishment is not true morality, because it's merely self-protection without regard for others. Any absolutist ideology would inherently conflict with true morality, because one either values the ideology more or one values other people more.