Unless @AJ777 puts forward an argument for his assertion, there is no debate.

Sapporo, a definition of a worldview is a comprehensive conception or image of the universe and of humanity's relation to it. The belief that God does or does not exist fundamentally affects how one relates to the universe. On atheism if God does not exist humans are merely one species of animals among many with no objective purpose for living. On Christianity humans were created in the image of God for the purpose of enjoying and glorifying Him forever. These differences shape two ways to view the world.

Oh dear. so many errors in one small paragraph.

Let's take a look at this shall we?

Sapporo, a definition of a worldview is a comprehensive conception or image of the universe and of humanity's relation to it.

For once, a start without error. But unfortunately, it goes downhill from here ...

The belief that God does or does not exist fundamentally affects how one relates to the universe.

Except that, oops, you're already into the fatuous (not to mention, duplicitous) supernaturalist fabrication that atheism is a "belief". It isn't.

Atheism, in its rigorous formulation, consists of nothing more than a suspicion of unsupported supernaturalist assertions. That is IT. Being suspicious of your assertions, does not mean affirming the contrary assertions, because, wait for it, it's possible to be equally suspicious of both assertions. Furthermore, one central principle of discourse that is recognised here by many others, though not apparently by you, is that assertions, when presented, possess the status "truth value unknown". It will be necessary, in the interests of rigour, to state explicitly that an assertion possesses a truth value by dint of the fact that every assertion constitutes a proposition, but when first presented and in the absence of test, the precise truth value in question remains unknown. Applying this central principle to supernaturalist assertions isn't "belief", but the very antithesis of "belief", particularly as practised by supernaturalists.

Just because some assertions are contained within a mythology that, for reasons best known to yourself, you have decided somehow dictates how the universe and its contents operate, regardless of how frequently real world data disagrees with this, doesn't mean that those assertions are in any way deserving of special, privileged treatment exempting them from the above central principle of discourse. I know that supernaturalists like to pretend that their favourite mythologies arise from a fantastic special source, and that as a corollary, they think the assertions in question are "sacred", and therefore to be protected from even the most elementary levels of scrutiny, but this pretence merely makes those of us who paid attention in the relevant classes point and laugh.

But, and here's an essential difference which is telling here, the moment genuine data eliminating the epistemological deficit I've expounded above becomes available, I and others, upon learning of the validity of the conclusions arising from said data, modify our views in accordance with the analysis in question. Unlike a good few supernaturalists, who are on public record as stating that no amount of evidence will lead them to reject their favourite mythologies, if said evidence leads to a robust conclusion that the assertions of their mythologies are wrong. Perhaps the most embarrassing example of this in action, was when Bill Nye engaged with creationist Ken Ham, and both were asked "what would make you change your mind?" Bill Nye replied immediately "Evidence". Ken Ham said "Nothing".

On atheism if God does not exist humans are merely one species of animals among many with no objective purpose for living.

This is disingenuous nonsense on several grounds. First of all, the view of humans as being united with the rest of the biosphere didn't come from "atheism", it came from biological research, including biological research that was conducted in some cases, by individuals who openly and publicly stated that they were adherents of your mythology. Indeed, one early instance of that biological research came from none other than Linnaeus, whose family included numerous generations of Lutheran ministers. On the basis of comparative anatomy, a discipline he did much to advance alongside his much more famous taxonomic work, Linnaeus wanted to place humans and chimpanzees in the same taxonomic Genus, because he regarded the two species as sufficiently close, on an anatomical basis, to warrant such a placement. Unfortunately, his wish to follow the data was subject to much negative impact by interfering theologians. This is documented in a letter he wrote to a fellow naturalist, Johann Georg Gmelin, on 25th February 1747. The original Latin text of the letter reads as follows:

Non placet, quod Hominem inter ant[h]ropomorpha collocaverim, sed homo noscit se ipsum. Removeamus vocabula. Mihi perinde erit, quo nomine utamur. Sed quaero a Te et Toto orbe differentiam genericam inter hominem et Simiam, quae ex principiis Historiae naturalis. Ego certissime nullam novi. Utinam aliquis mihi unicam diceret! Si vocassem hominem simiam vel vice versa omnes in me conjecissem theologos. Debuissem forte ex lege artis.

The English translation reads as follows:

It does not please (you) that I've placed Man among the Anthropomorpha, but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply. But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline.

Full text of the letter available at the University of Uppsala's website, devoted to the Linnaean Correspondence, here.

That lament came from a man whose family background included several generations of Lutheran ministers.

Also, I note with interest that prior to his work on hominid fossils, Louis Leakey, father of Richard Leakey, initially intended upon graduation from Cambridge, to set out to East Africa as a missionary. This was the individual who added Paranthropus to the list of hominid taxa.

So the idea that acceptance of the scientifc data pointing to humans being an integral part of the biosphere, somehow involves "atheism", is flushed down the toilet once again by the data.

Second, your assertion is disingenuous, because it relies yet again on repeatedly destroyed supernaturalist canards, such as "atheism is a belief" (wrong - see above), and that atheism purportedly involves treating certain ideas as "axioms" about the world (it doesn't).

Meanwhile, on the matter of "objective purpose for living", I've yet to see one demonstrated that applies universally to all members of the human species. There are plenty of assertions in this vein, but doubtless you would disagree in the strongest terms possible with, for example, Muslim assertions that the purpose for living is to be a servant of Allah.

On Christianity humans were created in the image of God for the purpose of enjoying and glorifying Him forever.

How dreadful. To be eternal sycophants to a cosmic Donald Trump. Blech.

These differences shape two ways to view the world.

Except that once again, "atheism" doesn't generate scientific conclusions about the universe and its contents, as derived from relevant empirical data. That's what we pay scientists to provide. Do learn this elementary lesson once and for all.