im an atheist. debate me!

As a lifelong atheist who had his eyes opened, there's really nothing to debate. An atheist isn't going to "see" God no matter what I say, and I know because I was one for most of my life.

All I can say to atheists is that I hope God opens your eyes like he did mine. But be forewarned, at first, the power of God is TERRIFYING.

!!!!!!!!!!!!

There really isn't much of a debate when you are debating atheism and theism, and the existence of God doesn't even need to be part of the debate.

Look at human history and how civilizations developed. Every great ancient society was theist in nature. Didn't matter if they worshiped a Sun God or a Monkey God or several gods. Theism united people under a sytem of common beliefs and morals long enough for them to learn skills and pass them down to others and spread their knowledge across the earth. Astronomy architecture, mathematics, a system of writing, the sciences were all developed in theist societies.

The height of ancient atheist societies were spear chucking hunter and gatherer tribes. Some of them still exist to this day, still living their shitty existence living in grass and mud huts chucking spears at animals and foraging for food.

Ultimately, in this debate it doesn't even matter if God exists. Theism is clearly the superior model for civilizations. We have thousands and thousands of years of evidence and it isn't even close. Theist societies accomplished amazing things. Atheist societies didn't accomplish shit. It is a blowout win for THEISTS.

Your move, OP.

FIFY

I'm not sure why you assume that hunter gatherers are atheists. They're heavily superstitious.

Sweden is a majority atheist country. Higher life expectancy than america. lower crime. Less mental illness.

As the western world has become more secular, we stop burning witches and stoning women for showing their ankles. people are freer and happier.

But, at least you're admitting that you don't care what is true. Some of us do. Some of us prefer harsh truths over comforting lies.

I'm not sure why you assume that hunter gatherers are atheists. They're heavily superstitious.

Sweden is a majority atheist country. Higher life expectancy than america. lower crime. Less mental illness.

As the western world has become more secular, we stop burning witches and stoning women for showing their ankles. people are freer and happier.

But, at least you're admitting that you don't care what is true. Some of us do. Some of us prefer harsh truths over comforting lies.

I can Steelman anything .
I'm more of a spiritual agnostic for lack of a better term.

Do you want to start with ontology or epistemology ?

Also does this debate have to be within the context of monotheist apologists

Or would Jainism for instance count ?
So before we debate( I am not attached to a win or a loss here, but what can we stir up)
We should name the terms
I.e which religions are acceptable , because many impersonal ones may agree with you .....in many overlapping places
For either argument , ethics as utility versus moral law
Or origins ...

. as many impersonal religions view morality as relative not absolute


Of course we could land on something like Kalams cosmological argument as a startling place of an agreed upon argument from the Big Bang in atheism vs. monotheism

Atheism is specifically the lack of belief in a god. Not the lack of religion. Jainists could actually be said to be atheists.

You missed the point.
Monotheism
Or polytheism
Impersonal god
Or personal diety
Relative morality
Or absolute morality
Ontology
Or epistemology

It helps to know what we are debating ..otherwise is just turns into a shit show

I.E I would not make the same arguments for different categories

Maybe Inshould have typed that

I can't speak for the OP, but I assume the topic of the debate is: does a god (any god) exist? Yes or No?

I don't think it's about morality.

Morality is one of the foundational arguments for a Personal Diety .
This is philosophy 101

an example of an Ontological argument... would probabaly be the most famous I can think of
Aquinas ontological arguments
I.e. First cause
I.e oDesign argument etc.

And epistemological argument might follow the lines of justification from absolute morality .
The same argument won't work for impersonal religions. I would have to use a different one.
This is why I wanted to clarify which type of religion , at least in broad strokes

This isn't how people debate, they should first knowwhat they are debating

And then find a common point of agreement . At least one Axiom to start from.
otherwise it isn't a debate.
Just a random collection of thoughts with ni central theme

Again, it's not about religion. It's about the existence of a god.

If you use morality to argue for a god, the topic of the debate is still god. Not morality. Same for ontological arguments.

If you have ANY argument, that you believe supports the existence of ANY god, I'd say it's fair game.

Well you just redefined 2000 years of philosophy
Time to throw my books out

What? I've watched hundreds of debates about God over the last 15 years. I've heard the arguments from Aquinas, William lane Craig, and countless other theists.

I don't see how I've redefined anything. If we are debating whether bigfoot exists, you can use any argument you want. Moral, ontological or other.

God is no different.

Ok let's begin here then.
Is belief in any God rational ?

Possibly. I'm yet to hear a justification that I consider to be rational.

It exist in your mind at this moment , even if you do not believ in it
By demonstrating it is physically possible to conceive of it,
I am demonstrating it is rational to assume it's metaphysically possible

Okay... just like Darth Vader. Or Bigfoot. Or Bugs Bunny.

The fact we can conceive of something, doesn't demonstrate that it's metaphysically possible,

Okay... just like Darth Vader. Or Bigfoot. Or Bugs Bunny.

The fact we can conceive of something, doesn't demonstrate that it's metaphysically possible,

was the sketches of technology centuries in advance by davinci irational.
Also if this isn't one be your tone of debating .
Have fun without me

Da vinci made many sketches. I don't think I'd describe a sketch as rational or irrational. I'd say the underlying principles used to justify whether a piece of technology can function can be rational or irrational. Not a sketch itself.

Ok now we are getting somewhere.
Is it rational to believe raping helpless women before murdering their babies is inherently or morally wrong ?