Thanks for creating a forum with real debate!

[Lion IRC]

Naturalism. (Belief in supernatural events would be heretical. In fact, the acceptance of souls, angels, miracles, for example, would mean you were NOT an atheist.)

Not all atheists are naturalists

Well in that case, such atheists wont have any difficulty accepting the supernatural claim that a person saw a ghost. (Or a dead person come out of their grave. Or water turned into wine.)

Empirical evidence-based scientism. (Myopia. Only tool you own is a hammer. All problems resemble a nail. We ''ought'' to rely on the scientific method but science doesnt do "ought". Science only does "IS".)

Not all atheists are empiricists

Great ! Such atheists wouldnt therefore demand empirical evidence for God's existence because they would understand that we dont possess the empirical tools to measure
how much a Supreme, transcendent Being weighs or how tall He is or where He lives. (Parallel universe? Multiverse?)
I would like to hear from such an atheist so that we can talk about the witness of the Holy Spirit.

Presuppositionalism. (An unverified past-eternal, perpetual motion universe/multiverse can and must exist without a cause. This is necessary to avoid the Kalam cosmology.)

Not all atheists are presuppositionalists

Yes. Logically they must be by necessity. (Presuppositional atheology) The absence of a creator God forces an atheist to adopt an alternative metaphysical atheistic cosmology. And if you dont have that, on what basis then do you reject theistic cosmology?

There are only two prevailing non-theist cosmologies.

1. Spontaneous flickering universe
(Randomly appearing for no reason, popping into existence out of nothing, uncaused, undesigned. Such spontaneous singularities might also happen in reverse.)
2. Uncaused, past eternal universe.
(Inhabited by sentient beings who mistakenly think there is fine tuning and ''laws'' when in fact what actually exists is something chaotic that can never be defined in terms of a permanent unified theory of everything.)

Both of these are contenders against the KCA. And you cant be atheist if you accept the KCA. Therefore you MUST adopt (presuppose) an alternative atheistic cosmology. And the atheist has no source of information for cosmology events prior to 13.7 billion years ago. All they have is speculative theory. (eg. Multiverse, unstable quantum vacuum, cyclic big bang/crunch...)

You might say, well atheists dont 'presuppose' such theories, we are open-minded agnostics. But that is NOT atheism. If it were, then atheists would accept intelligent design and fine tuning and teleology as plausible explanations and not mock them as faith-based God-of-the-Gaps wishful thinking.

The fallacy of the default position / burden of disproof. (It is a logical fallacy to claim that your own metaphysical position is automatically the default truth against which all others must carry the burden of disproof. Especially when theism is the prevailing, long-standing, majority worldview.)

Not a fallacy: the burden of proof lies on those making a claim not on those who don't accept the claim on face-value.

OK. In that case. I'm not making a claim. And neither are any of the billions of theists. We are happy with theism as the best explanation for how we got here.
End of discussion.

...what''s that? Sorry, I didnt hear you. (Perhaps because atheists are such a small minority.) Can you speak up a little?

*I dont believe God is real*

Pardon me?

*I dont think religious people should have so much influence*

...Why not?

*God isnt real. Its a figment of your imagination*

Thats an extraordinary claim. Care to back that up?