Alright, my fellow Damned: I am currently taking a Christian World View class (it’s mandatory, private Christian university) and I am the glaring lightning rod for nonsense since I am the only totally out and proud Atheist most of these kids have ever met or interacted with. I’m 46, and I’ve been around the block 6 or 8 million times. These children are still being spoon fed by grown ups, and what they are being fed is indoctrination. So this is a long-ish read, but this is in response to a post of mine about morality existing without the benefit of a supernatural being, along with a bunch of this person trying to sound erudite. Where to even begin schooling this interlocutor?!

Hello Patrick,
I wanted to touch on the last point of your post because I think it is an important topic that you are highly mistaken on. Atheists cannot actually be good people in a moral sense. In order for something to be good, it must adhere to that things final causality and be worked toward this end. Human beings final causality and purpose is of course to serve, worship and glorify God. Because you deny this, it is not possible for you to ever do Good in any real sense. You can always do good in such a way that it is a utility such as building shelters for people or donating time and money, but it can never be a moral Good in any actual sense. You lack the understanding of the end and you are without Grace for it to truly be Good.
Also, I wanted to inform you, if you have not read already, of the works by ancient philosophers such as Plato and contemporary ones such as Dr. Alvin Plantinga that suggests atheism could be a defect or some sort of disease. Dr. Plantinga argues that because of the Fall, some people may be born inherently defective and thus unable to actually reach God. It is an interesting point made from different types of theists and philosophers spanning both the ancient and modern world and one I would suggest you read up on.
Also, the existence of God has been pretty much solidified for centuries now by many philosophers such as St. Thomas Aquinas. One argument he gives, which is still defended by serious Thomists to this day like Edward Feser, is the argument known as the First Way. The argument can be summed up as follows:
I magine, if you will, a cup of water resting on a table. This cup of water exists here and now as an actual entity in the world. The cup of water, however, has many different types of potential that are not currently actual, this is to say that they do not exist in the here and now. For example, water has the potential to be ice, but the potential of water being ice cannot actualize itself; something that is currently actual must actualize this potential, as potency is not a real form of being, only a possibility. In order for the water in the cup to exist in the hear and now, which it does, it requires other potentials that are actual in the here and now. It requires a certain arrangement of molecules, for example. All of this exists, not in the past but in the actual present. This forms a series of hierarchal causes as they are known in philosophy; and hierarchal causes cannot have an infinite regress as they require a prime mover. To give an example of this, imagine holding a staff in one hand and using your wrist to make the end of the staff move. All of this is in a continuous and sustain matter and if your wrist were to stop, the entire process itself stops. This is separate than a lineal series of causes like throwing a ball into a window and the window shattering. Once you throw the ball, you are out of the causal series and are no longer relevant. You can leave or stick around, but the ball is going to hit the window regardless of your presence at this point. Because the present here and now is a hierarchal series of causes of going from potential to actual, some being that is already actual must be actualizing all the potential. This being, in order for the series to stop, there must be a being that is fully actualized. This is to say that is has no potential that requires actualization at all. There is simply no potential in this being that is not fully actual; it is the fully actualized actualizer. This being is what we call God.
Aristotle made a form of this argument, and St. Thomas Aquinas brought it up into form for Christianity in his Summa Theologica. He gives robust reasons for pretty much every counter point possible through his work, and Edward Feser writes on this and other arguments constantly and has his own website with tons of free information on this subject if you wish to learn more.