A Person Can Not decide to Be an Atheist, They Already Know their True Religion

CaseC1: Every individual has the right to believe whatever they want to believe regardless of its validity. The resolution questions whether a person CAN be an atheist, not whether the belief is correct. Indeed it is very possible for a person to be an atheist. As I stated earlier some of the best philosophers were atheists and some of the best scientists are also atheists. To assert that it is impossible would be to suppress individualism. Every individual has the right to believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of whether you think they have to "feel" god. To say I can not believe what I want to would be to violate the First Amendment of the Constitution and enforce authoritarianism, like the book 1984. We do not need a "thought police" to control every thought we have. An atheist can decide to be an atheist very easily and they CAN be one regardless of whether it is correct or not. C2: Atheism is a logical position. There are numerous arguments that work towards the atheistic side. The first and to me the most pertinent is simply lack of evidence. Because there is no empirical evidence or way to prove that a god exists one often resorts to atheistic view due to lack of proof. Consider this: My friend tells me a six-headed monster is behind me. I am not likely to believe this is true because when I turn around I do not see it and there is no evidence. It is indeed a logical position. Micheal Shermer, author of the Skeptic Magazine writes: "I don’t think there is a God, or any sort of anthropomorphic being who needs to be worshipped, who listens to prayers, who keeps a moral scoreboard that will be settled in the end, or who cares one iota about who wins the Super Bowl. There is no afterlife. We just die, and that’s it. " [1]Take this commonly used argument that discusses omnipotence and the PoE (Problem of Evil):1. If God wants to prevent all evil, but does not prevent all evil, then God cannot prevent all evil. 2. God wants to prevent all evil, but does not prevent all evil. 3. God cannot prevent all evil (from 1 and 2). 4. If God cannot prevent all evil, then God is not omnipotent. 5. God is not omnipotent (from 3 and 4). So if god is omnipotent (Christian belief) and evil exists, then god is not perfectly good. Or consider the Ontological Argument reversed:1. It is possible that a "no maximality" exists.2. If it is possible that "no maximality exists", then a "no Maximality" exists in some possible world.3. If a "no maximality" exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.4. If a "no maximality" exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.5. If a "no maximality" exists in the actual world, then no maximality exists.6. Therefore, a "no maximality" exists. I could go on presenting more arguments but the point is due to lack of evidence and inherent problems that come with the existence of god, it is a logical position and a person CAN resort to atheism. Rebuttal"A person can not just walk out on their own religious beliefs and become something they are not. The person already knows that they believe or not believe in something and can not switch. "Here is a very presumptuous statement. All the time people walk out on their religious beliefs, regardless of whether they believe in god or not. This is almost to assert that our minds can not change. People all the time go from believing in god to not believing in one simply because they put their emotions aside and analyze whether it is really logical or not. "The invisible man in the sky has to be felt, it is not something you can just see. If you never saw a real palace before, it's not like they don't exist. They just haven't been seen by you yet. "Pro has no evidence that this has to be "felt". Many people such as I have never felt this being before. People claim to feel it, but many people feel other things too. "Feeling" does not prove anything. Take this quote from Carl Sagan for example: "But I try not to think with my gut. If I'm serious about understanding the world, thinking with anything besides my brain, as tempting as that might be, is likely to get me into trouble. " [2]Think with your brain, do not "feel" because you never know how accurate your "feeling" could be. To determine his existence "feeling" does not work. I can "feel" anything my mind tricks me into feeling, but that doesn't mean that he exists. Pro just later discusses famous theists and such but I can provide just as intelligent atheists as well. This does not get any side anywhere and this is not an argument. Perhaps if he was proving that someone CAN be a theist that would work but he has not proved that someone CAN NOT be an atheist, thus so far I have won the debate. I apologize if these arguments were not the best however the resolution does not question the validity of atheism, but CAN you be an atheist which is obviously true. Vote CON. Sources:. http://www.michaelshermer.com...http://www.goodreads.com...