The Instigator
Pro (for)
0 Points
The Contender
Con (against)
10 Points

Is modern atheism just dressed up bigotry? Yes.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 4/23/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,609 times Debate No: 53199
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (33)
Votes (3)




Whatever atheism once was, for most of its adherents these days it not longer even has the pretense of rationality. As authors such as Hitchens and Dawkins have taken over the message of atheism, spreading a clear and clarion message of anger and intolerance, atheism as a simple conclusion of facts has long since receded. With nihilistic groups such as rational-wiki and others, we see an educational message that is misleading and increasingly inaccurate about the religion it basis its conclusions upon. Increasingly, the adherents of atheism advocate positions that are often ignorant of the religions they criticize, often leaving out critical points of the message to present straw men which they they then present to be mocked an derided with great fanfare.

And that message, born form this educated ignorance, is increasingly on of hate. Religious people are irrational, they support slavery, they reject science, they poison everything, they should be classified as mental health cases, and it rapidly becomes clear that at some point, this hurling of invective is no different than klansman talking about black person or a Jew.

Tat not all atheists are like this belies the reality that an increasing portion of atheists have abandoned all pretenses that there position is based on reasoning, and have instead adapted a mentality of superiority through false accusation, castigation, and deliberate dehumanization based solely on a faith choice - a choice that is protected by the US Constitution, but which the increasing prejudices of atheism sees only as a threat of poison to everything.


Firstly, I'd like thank my opponent for issuing me this challenge.

My opponent didn't define any of the terms used in the title in the first round. I told my opponent that 'I need agreed upon definitions of "modern atheism", "dressed up" and "bigotry". I also need to know if we're arguing about the title of the debate.'

My opponent replied to "Just accept the debate albino."

So then I suggested the option 'So I get to define the terms to my liking with your blessing and argue that "modern atheism is not just (or at all) dressed up bigotry" while you argue that "modern atheism is just dressed up bigotry"?'

My opponents reponse to that was "I don;t [sic] really care what definitions you use nazi. He [sic] can use any definition of bigotry you wants [sic]. He can pick which ever definitions he feels he is best able to defend. It matters not to me.'

So, without further ado, I will define the terms used in the title.

"Modern atheism" - Atheism in the modern age.

Atheism " "The absence of belief that any deities exist" [1].

To clarify, atheism in the modern age is the same as atheism in any age, just atheism. So we can replace "modern atheism" with "atheism" here.

"Dressed up" - "To make something look better than it really is" [2].

"Bigotry" - "One who regards or treats [all] the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance" [3].

Clarification of the argument
I am arguing that "modern atheism is not just (or at all) dressed up bigotry" while my opponent will argue that "modern atheism is just dressed up bigotry".

A simplification of the argument in the title by using the definitions is as follows; The absence of belief that any deities exist, is just a way to make the action of treating all members of a group with hate and intolerance look better than is really is.

This means that not having a belief of the existence of deities is simply a way (according to the argument of pro) of hating and being intolerant of a group of people, while appearing better than if there was just hate and intolerance of the group.

My argument
The lack of absence of belief that any deities is simply that, and nothing more. That absence of belief doesn't mention anything about hating or being intolerant of groups of people. It is a position on the existence of deities, and nothing else. Even if we were going to apply that belief to its adherents (atheists), we couldn't derive the fact that they are all just using is as a way to make their bigotry appear better. To do this my opponent would need to show that all atheists are bigots, and then show that they are all using "atheism" to make this bigotry appear better than it actually is. Even if he showed that all atheists are bigots, that would not confirm the truth of his argument. And honestly, even if he showed that all atheists are using their atheism to "dress up" their bigotry, he wouldn't have confirmed the truth of his argument.

To do that, he would have to show that the absence of belief itself (in the existence of deities), is just "dressed up bigotry". Even if he showed that all atheists used their atheism to "dress up" their bigotry, he wouldn't have shown that atheism (modern) itself, is just "dressed up bigotry". All he would have shown is that people use atheism in that fashion, and nothing about atheism itself. Lets ignore the "dressed up" part for my final refutation of this argument. The "dressed up" part is simply about appearances. My opponent would first have to show that atheism is bigotry before he could move on to claiming that is is "dressed up" bigotry. I do not believe that my opponent would be successful in first showing this.

So let's ask this question again, in a clarified form; is atheism bigotry? My answer is no, atheism is not bigotry. My opponent will have to show that my answer is incorrect if he wants to defend his position. Atheism is quite simply the absence of belief in the existence of deities, mentioning nothing about hatred or intolerance of groups of people.

If my opponent is to have any chance of supporting his proposition, he will have to show that not believing in the existence of deities is the hatred and intolerance of a group or groups of people.

The ball is now in my opponents court, and I don't believe that he will be able to hit it back my way. I'd like to thank my opponent again for this opportunity to debate him on this topic and I wish him luck in his future arguments. To the readers, all that I ask is that you vote with your true thoughts and feelings on the arguments presented in this debate, and to not let any personal biases change this in any way.

Over to you Pro.



Debate Round No. 1


Apologies on delay ... got caught up in a bomb threat ... true story.

As I have already told my opponent, the definitions used here are irrelevant to the realities of modern atheism. We have come a long way from the days of Nietzsche, whose reasoned arguments were undeniably true even if they hurt. These days, the pretense that modern atheistic arguments have any bearing in reality is becoming increasingly dissociative, and what we are left with when we strip away the pretense of rationality is an intense misinformation campaign and increasingly a form of diatribe and invective in which the goal appears to be demonization rather than reasoned disagreement. Just as Joe McCarthy or Nathan Bedford Forrest once discovered, bile and tawdry blame can be powerful attractors of men. Charisma, however, is no excuse for what is clear as we examine what atheists produce these days: bigotry.

The genesis of this new atheism can be found, in the mass marketing efforts of what has undoubtedly become the intellectual mouth piece for the rage sweeping modern atheism. Yet as I have debated thousands of atheists I have discovered that these men are treated far more like great Prophets than anything else. The force that turned them into best sellers appears to be reverence, where the book sits on shelf as testimony to the veracity of their adherence and, in many cases never bother to read the books. Time and again in my discussions with atheists, I have pulled contentions out of the works from the admirers of these prophets and simply been branded a liar.

Atheists really should examine the works that serve as the intellectual basis of the New Atheist movement. The first would be Richard Dawkins, whose advocacy of atheism is synonymous with New Atheism. His comments routinely stir up controversy in the wider human community, and seem to define the acerbic and irrational finger pointing that has come to dominate the voice of modern atheism.

His conduct is so bad, that even South Park chose to make Dawkins the focus of its satire of atheism.

How exactly did he become famous as an atheist? He wrote a book called the God Delusion. The vast majority of his polemic is little more than one criticism of religion after another. He presents arguments from religion that anyone familiar with religion would know instantly as inaccurate. Indeed, this has been pointed out repeatedly by Dawkins critics.

We have an argument against religion that begins with a straw man, and then barely taps into anything scientific. Few religious people these days actively reject evolution, with the largest denominations all accepting the basic claims of evolution. Yet Dawkins claims that the explanation of complexity, already accepted by everyone who accepts evolution (and still believes in God), and simply states that this somehow proves there is no God. Completely ignored is the oft heard religious claim that God desires us to be more like himself, and would thus leave processes that are discernable, testable, and teachable. That Evolution exists causes no problems for religious people, a point that even Darwin conceded as he published his work a century before Dawkins decided to disagree with him by pointed failing to actually prove that Evolution leads to no God. Evolution rest on a process of universe creating itself from nothing, creating Quasars and super massive stars that explode and spread elements in minerals in perfect balance into stars and planetoids that perfectly balance and heat the results in four separate processes to create the elements of DNA, which then must be combined in conditions of perfection to even get to the point of life. The idea that explaining the life can become more complex after its creation (it can also become less complex) somehow proves that the entire chain from creation is invalid is ludicrous. For such an argument to even hold the pretense of validity, it would require not just biology, but chemistry and physics to give the claim credibility. Dawkins doesn"t even try.

That would be scientific error #1.

Dawkins only other claim is that morality must have a genetic basis. A claim that he supports not with genetic evidence (as science would require) but by cherry picking animal behavior as "altruistic" and pointedly ignoring unaltruistic animal behavior and obvious genetic evidence that morality rests upon far more than our genes. Sociopaths, for example have strong genetic predispositions toward violence, yet they can choose not to be violent their entire lives. They can choose to identify and modify their behavior. We all can.

That would be scientific error #2.

And what is the conclusion of this parade of fallacy and misdirection? Its to call people delusional, and later to clarify this position that religion should be classified as a mental health disorder. Such a contention should in and of itself remove the pretense that this is rooted in science. The idea that sciences explanative processes are insults rather than explanations should give anyone pause. Would anyone accept, no matter how charismatic, a scientific study that claimed that all polar bears were mentally retarded? Yet branding the vast majority of humanity as mentally deranged seems to be just fine.

Even Dawkins must realize these scientific short comings. He has published within the academic community, and knows the rigorous standards. He knows that his religious claims would never get through either philosophy department, a history department, or a theology department. He knows that his scientific claims would never get through a biology department. His decision to publish his claims as literature, held to the same standard as Harry Potter, is telling.

Atheists should take pause as they put stock in a man who is viewed much like Nathan Bedford Forrest was outside his community. Nathan Bedford Forrest was greatly respected within his community, and, like Dawkins, clearly achieved some measure of success in his chosen profession. He was nevertheless a raging bigot. The steady drum beat of acerbic, ill supported claims of dubious intent at best, and obvious intent to insult, simply entrenches that perception. The more Dawkins insults religious people, the more atheists love him. As this circle of animosity leading to adulation continues, the pretense of Dawkins and his claims being rational rather than Romanesque pandering to the crowd becomes increasingly untenable.

Christopher Hitchens fares no better. An examination of his claims produces yet another series of intellectual shortcomings in which no religion anywhere is spared the viciousness of Hitchens wrath. Some of the claims are almost laughable. The claim that Hitchens begins with is that he would be uncomfortable standing outside a Church in Belfast as it let out of Sunday mass. To date, there have been zero actual calls to police that have resulted from this weekly and widespread occurrence, and even Hitchens himself, who posits the important of the claim by his personal experience, apparently didn"t feel threatened enough to call in the Bobbies. It absurd to take common every Sunday events and somehow make them life threatening. The idea that paranoia serves a rational choice rather than irrational one should give anyone pause.

If they need any further encouragement, Hitchen"s treatise of the New Testament one would easily note what is not in the acerbic parade of invective: Jesus. That points to a larger pattern in which historical issues are presented in an over simplified manner, cherry picked data points (like Dawkins animal behavior), and eth deliberate exclusion of factors and evidence that clearly contr


From my first round - "So let's ask this question again, in a clarified form; is atheism bigotry? My answer is no, atheism is not bigotry. My opponent will have to show that my answer is incorrect if he wants to defend his position. Atheism is quite simply the absence of belief in the existence of deities, mentioning nothing about hatred or intolerance of groups of people.

If my opponent is to have any chance of supporting his proposition, he will have to show that not believing in the existence of deities is the hatred and intolerance of a group or groups of people."

I don't believe that my opponent has shown this, or even attempted to show this.
So I'll just forward my arguments.
Debate Round No. 2


I think my opponent needs to realize that a response is already in the comments section - it got cut off from a cut and paste while dodging potential UXO explosions.

So, brief summation to lead up the point:

A. Dawkins and Hitchens are bigots (Dawkins is at the very center of the genesis of agnostic atheism's sillier claims).

B. There are atheist websites that educate atheists about the results of 'New Atheism', and these facilitate both the education of bigotry and serve as the 'source' so often provided by atheists on these forums to justify their positions.

C. The results of bigotry are easily seen in this forum.

For the record, Albino appears to be conceding each and every one of those points.

And only then do I turn to Albino's contention:

Even Albino here displays the effects of organized bigotry. You see, he uses the concept of agnostic atheism in justifying his belief.

As you read through that explanation, do not be at all surprised by the confusion it generates. It begins with, "Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." --- as if this is a point of legitimate contention, and ends after meandering all over the place with, "The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings." Which appears to be the exact same thing does it not? The entire thing hangs on the pretense that there is no God matters whether you state I believe that or simply disbelieve there is no God.

Well, fortunately, we have little standards of logic and reasoning with to test this claim with. In order for a position of have any kind of validation, it must be a claim that is supportable. Just because you use the word "dis" in front of belief doesn"t mean you haven"t made up your mind, particularly in light of the way that atheists act. Atheists do not believe there is a God " period. Certainly, just like religious people, there can be good and bad reasoning in support of that claim " but the idea that no claim is being made and thus needs to support whatsoever fundamentally violates the tenets of logic.

Indeed, the entire premise exists to provide excuse to atheists for one simple thing: their burden of support for their position. Instead of having to lay down their line of reasoning, they are handed an excuse " a reason to avoid having to lay out the support for their claims.

Do you think groups like the KKK are envious that all they had to do to avoid the scruples of their position was to claim they merely "dis"believed that black men were their equals and it would fine? What my esteemed challenger fails to realize is that even he has been swept up in the maelstrom of New Atheism"s bigotry, that he himself has bought into many of the premises of New Atheism, and has bough the excuse to avoid really examining the claims hook, line, and sinker.

It really doesn"t matter where an atheist sits in this mess. If we start from the intellectual roots, we can follow it down through the various communities of atheists all the way to the individuals. And we don"t need particularly egregious examples to find its effects. There is a perniciousness of modern atheism that has taken even the pretense of reasonable disagreement and changed it into what appears to be open disrespect of religious people. The pretense that this derision is born of a rational process is simple false.

As my opponent picked the definition: "One who regards or treats [all] the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

Its pretty clear that we all poison everything, that we should all be classified as mental health cases, or that we should ALL accept "disbelief" as an excuse to abandon logic " so we can get back to claiming all religious people are irrational, and sociopathic is something very clearly something meant to knock down people in hatred and intolerance " simply because they hold a different position about God than you do (which oddly, you can"t even clearly state what is obvious, that you do not believe in God.)

It is the specific claim that Albino makes here that is preventing him questioning his own actions and intense dislike of religion - that he cannot explain, because he does not have to. As Albino attempts to prove that basis of this contention with sources, you will quickly see the veracity of claim B.


I did realise that there was a response in the comments section, and I didn't believe that my opponent in any way showed that “not believing in the existence of deities is the hatred and intolerance of a group or groups of people.” This is quoted from my first and second round. Keep in mind that this would be his first step on his way to supporting his contention that “modern atheist is just dressed up bigotry”. He will also have to build upon that first step – as I showed earlier – if he is to support and defend his contention. Since this is his first debate, I will allow his arguments in the comments to stand in the debate, and voters may either include them or disregard them at their discretion. Since my opponent seems to believe that his arguments in the debate actually support his proposition, I will offer rebuttals to his arguments in the debate and comments section. I will ask that my opponent refrains from posting further arguments in the comments section, however, and that if he does, that we all disregard them.


Pro, round 2, paragraph 1 - “As I have already told my opponent, the definitions used here are irrelevant to the realities of modern atheism.” I define modern atheism, and my opponent claims that definitions are irrelevant. This doesn't make sense to me. Unless Pro is just trying to subvert the definitions, which is bad conduct and isn't allowed. We agreed on the definitions, so you have to stick to them, Pro.

Pro, round 2, paragraphs 3-8 (rough numbers, how do you define paragraph here?) – Pro continues to ignore the definitions and starts talking about how he sees some modern atheists acting and what their beliefs are. Pro starts talking about how silly their arguments against religion are, which is absolutely irrelevant to the debate at hand.

Pro, round 2, paragraph 8? - “ like Dawkins, clearly achieved some measure of success in his chosen profession. He was nevertheless a raging bigot” Claims that one atheist is a bigot, but doesn't provide evidence for that atheist's hate and intolerance for a whole group of people. Doesn't actually try to support his argument against atheism, but a single atheist.

Pro, round 2 >> first comment – Continues to talk about atheists and atheism, side stepping the actual debate.

Pro, round 2, first comment – Claims that confusion over definitions of agnostic and atheist (not difficult since most people seem to have different definitions) is indicative of a persons “intellectual weight”. This person is a respected scientist. This also doesn't address the argument against atheism

Pro, round 2, second comment – Talks about whether atheism is true, and the beliefs of certain atheists, which is irrelevant to the debate.

Pro, round 2, third comment – Makes the bizzare statement “Even Albino here displays the effects of organized bigotry. You see, he uses the concept of agnostic atheism in justifying his belief.” How saying you don't believe something because you see no evidence supporting it is unequivocally attributed to “organised bigotry” is beyond me. Alas, it doesn't support his actual contention.

Pro, round 2, end of third and start of fourth comment – Talks about his confusion with people saying the atheistic equivalent of “I don't have the belief that it will rain tomorrow” and “I believe that it won't rain tomorrow” and states that the two phrases are obviously equivalent. Claims this gives them an “excuse” for their [atheists] “burden of support for their position”. Starts taking about the KKK. Irrelevant to the debate.

Pro, round 2, end of forth comment and fifth comment – Starts talking about “intellectual roots”. Mentions my definition of bigotry (cheers Pro) and the appears to describe claims made my certain atheists, but I am unsure of this.

Pro, round 3, sort of first paragraph – Summarises what he believes to be his arguments, firstly that he classes two atheists as bigots (where's your evidence? Also irrelevant to the debate), secondly that some atheist websites seem to educate bigotry (irrelevant to the debate) and thirdly that he sees bigotry on this forum (yes, this is irrelevant too...). He claims I concede these points. I sort of agree with a bit of what he's saying, so I'll “concede” these points. Not that this matters, since these points don't actually support his proposition.

Pro, round 3, secondish paragraph – Rehashes what he's said from the end of the third comment to the fifth comment.

Pro, round 3, last paragraph – He's done this in the forum, but I didn't expect him to actually do this in a debate; “It is the specific claim that Albino makes here that is preventing him questioning his own actions and intense dislike of religion - that he cannot explain, because he does not have to. As Albino attempts to prove that basis of this contention with sources, you will quickly see the veracity of claim B.” Makes the claim that I don't (and can't due to a “specific claim”) question my “own actions” and “intense dislike” of religion, that I “cannot explain”, because I “don't have to”. Doesn't back up his claim about me. The claim is also irrelevant to the debate.


I'd like to remind everyone (including Pro) again. For Pro to have any chance to support and defend his argument, he needs to show that “not believing in the existence of deities is the hatred and intolerance of a group or groups of people.” He needs to show that due to the debate and definitions we agreed to, which I've outlines above. Pro doesn't even attempt this, and so hasn't supported or even defended his claim.
Debate Round No. 3


And heer we get to the root of the problem.

#1 - He is not denying any of the contentions that I made.

a. Dawkins and Hitchens are indeed bigots. So are many of the other prominent atheists who views of religion have no actual bearing in religious doctrine or practice.

b. The clearing houses of atheism are littered with inaccuracies of religion and are often used to justify atheistic positions.

c. The forum, with five examples provided, leanly finds evidence of nihilistic bigotry and even the pretense of discussion is avoided.

He denies not a single one of those claims.

he then, for the third time now, posits agnostic atheism claim that its merely disbelief somehow magically absolves an atheist from having to either explain his position or acknowledge what is clearly happening all him - a powerful magic that disbelief is?

The criticism that his flows from the very top of the atheist though pyramid is ignored.

The criticism that this concept is not supported by logic is ignored. Indeed, he has failed to provide a single academic source of logic to support his contention.

He has avoided the criticism of what he is clearly avoiding, the conduct of atheists of a massive scale.

Instead, as we see, he continues to do just that. Somehow, by taking the claims of bigotry, and then shoring them of their context and support, there is no bigotry. There is no bigotry merely because the claim of bigotry is made? The actions of atheist on a massive scale are reduced to personal note where the conduct of a single poster is apparently the real issue.

Indeed, my distinguished adversary presents not a single source to back up even a single claim, and has steadily ignored the presentation of evidence, even from atheistic sources. If he is attempting to prove that I have called atheists bigoted, that would be a contention that is self evident in this debate's title. One has to wonder why he would waste his time attempting to 'prove' a point that is conceded.

A case that atheist is NOT bigoted? It hangs merely upon what appears to be a desperate adherence to the claim that disbelief means ... you don;t have to address anything at all that is happening in atheism these days? Even the pretense that this is valid is demonstrated by the absolute refusal to lay a foundation for this claims prudence. It is little more than a statement of faith and one that, as I state repeatedly, is meant to avoid the discussion of what atheists are claiming in droves. It does JUST that.

Perhaps we should remove even the pretense that this is personal observation against atheism of me alone? Remove any possibility of an appeal to spite rather than logical reasoning? We should remove the pretense entirely that atheism is about my view or it, or even albinos view of it. Atheism is not one person. Indeed, what albino does in studiously avoiding discussion of the antics of atheism by listing disbelief is not something that he alone does is it? It too happens on a massive scale with atheists - and always at the point of debate when they should be forced to examine the claims of atheists. Its intent is clear and clarion - its nothing but an excuse to avoid discussing behavior that is wide spread within the atheist community. As we can see, atheism suffers for these antics:

As you can see, atheists as a community are not well respected. Over time, that problem is actually getting worse for atheism. The idea that atheism coming out of the proverbial closet should be viewed even worse is counter-intuitive. Clearly we can see that atheists have no devil horns as they stand in the light correct? So why the continued slide?

Because just like other hate groups, people can very clearly and very cleanly hear what atheists are saying.

When you stand there screaming:

"You guys poison everything!"

"You guys should be declared mental heath cases!"

"You guys are a threat to liberty!"

"You guys are the source of all evil!"

"You guys reject science, and are basely irrational!"

"You guys reject science, and only have opinions!"

"You guys are sociopaths!"

"You guys all hate women, despite half of you being women!"

"You guys, despite not owning slaves, support slavery!"

Isn't this exactly what Nazis said about Jews? Does disbelief in any way justify or explain these constant flow of these comments?

Additionally, we listen to our prayers be interrupted, we find ourselves served by law suits of often dubious nature, some seeking specifically to exclude us, based solely on a faith choice, from things like competition for federal funds - as if our choice to be religious alone somehow sans we cannot properly steward funds - despite running businesses and churches, etc. These claims are ridiculous.

And yet the first time the hackles of the atheist are raised is when someone expounds to the steady drum beat of irrational nihilism that doesn't even have the pretense of listening to us by calling these actions what they obviously are: bigotry.

If atheists don;t like being called bigots, they should perhaps take a closer look at what hey exclaim, of no atheist worth his salt would accept my claim that I think atheists are bigots ... merely because I disbelieve the claims of atheists that there is no God. Such a pretense is absurd..

Yet albino advocates just this standard in reverse. Somehow, merely disbelieving in God means what exactly? That the steady drumbeat of bigotry is not occurring? That the constant barbs and insults are not happening? That New Atheists are no involved in this travesty?

Clearly its been noticed.

And in case you atheists have missed it, its having an effect on your community. The utter failure, indeed the embrace of bigots, has left it to the outside world to condemn and expose the antics of Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris et al. And as we are left with the cheering section that openly advocates their positions thousands of times over in forums just like this one and in public, and then retreats to the excuses of 'just disbelief' to fail to back up those claims when confronted. At some point, its simpler just to call a spade spade.

When someone runs around constantly denigrating people based solely on a faith choice, pretends is rational, and then totally ducks the behavior by referring to a pretense that he cannot logically support? Its simple bashing born of intense dislike and prejudice. Its just bigotry.

The world is unimpressed. Like the Klan, theses excuses are meant merely to prevent the discussion of such irrational positions like all religion everywhere somehow poison everything - a contention that my opponent isn't even bothering to acknowledge wis being said by a great many atheists.

Indeed, my opponent isn't even trying to pretend that the behavior of atheists isn't often scandalous. His entire argument is that disbelief means its OK. And yet, he doesn't like being a bigot ... while that excuse prevents him from addressing the very actions that have lead to atheism being perceived as bigoted. Atheism cannot be held accountable because of a single magic word: disbelief.

That is wantonly illogical, and what that irrationality is excusing is obvious: bigotry, on a massive scale.


I'll state this clearly for the viewers, since I don't think Pro would be able to acknowledge this; Pro needed to show that "modern atheism is just dressed up bigotry" and his first step towards doing that would be to show that "not believing in the existence of deities is the hatred and intolerance of a group or groups of people." Pro didn't even attempt to do this. Since this is the final round, I won't post any new arguments. I don't think this is a problem though, because I don't think that I've needed any new arguments since the first round. The statement I'm against is "not believing in the existence of deities is the hatred and intolerance of a group or groups of people." This seems to me to be plainly incorrect; not believing in deities simply isn't hatred or intolerance of a group of people. I will go through what Pro did for his forth and final round below, and how it didn't support or even defend his proposition.

Pro starts of by presenting his irrelevant to his proposition claims, he says that the root of the problem is that I'm not denying those contentions. The fact is, is that I don't need to. They don't support his proposition. He talks about atheists and bigotry, but not about atheism and bigotry. It's similar to claiming that someone of a particular religion is a terrorist, and extrapolating that claim to cover everyone from that religion, claiming that they are all terrorists. This is obviously a silly and incorrect thing to do, it almost seems like bigotry itself.

He then says something about agnostic atheism and I, but I'm not sure what he's saying exactly. He says something about an "atheist though pyramid" which I don't understand either. Then he seems to think that it's important for me to defend my own atheism, as if it has any relevance to this debate (note: it doesn't). He then claims that I've claimed "there is no bigotry", which I haven't. There is bigotry among atheists and theists, and I won't deny that, but I don't need to. This debate is about whether atheism is (just dressed up) bigotry, not about whether some atheists are bigots. I will leave the readers to decide whether the atheists he mentioned are truly "bigots", but I will also remind them that this itself doesn't really affect the debate.

Pro then says I haven't provided a single source, which is patently untrue. He says that I've ignored the "evidence", which is incorrect. I've replied to most " if not all " of his "evidence", it's just that this "evidence" doesn't actually support his proposition. He then says something silly about bigotry and disbelief, where I think he's trying to make a strawman, but I'm not 100% sure. I've never said that if you have a disbelief (hint: we all do) that you don't have to address that disbelief. Pro then conflates the "antics" of atheists with the "antics of atheism". Please not that atheists aren't identical to atheism, atheists are people and atheism describes a position of those people. Pro then posts two links showing what appears to be bigotry against atheists; one states that the participants in the study thought that atheists were as likely to do dishonourable things. This in my opinion is bigotry, and also kind of ironic.

He then makes many unsubstantiated claims that atheism is a hate group and about what "atheists are saying". He compares atheists to Nazis and their victims to Jews. He goes on a tangent and starts talking about funding and how religious people are discriminated against in this area, which he doesn't substantiate. He then says something unintelligible about nihilism and bigotry. He then says that atheists don't accept his claim that they are all bigots simply because he doesn't agree with atheism, and not because they actually disagree with him.

Pro then says that I advocate something about "disbelief" which I don't. He then posts a few web-pages which talk about certain atheists and claim that "atheism is trendy " again". A few of these seem slightly bias against atheism. He then says that the "outside world" has "condemned" certain atheists and goes on to disagree with the position of atheism. He says that I'm "not even trying to pretend that the behaviour of atheists isn't often scandalous", which I'm not. I agree that both atheists and theists often act scandalously, taking into account how many people live on this planet. He claims that my entire argument is that "disbelief means it's ok". I have never argued this. My argument is that atheism isn't bigotry, for reasons I've outlined above. He then claims that I don't like being a bigot, in some sort of loaded question which isn't even a question " a loaded statement. I am not a bigot, and if you read through the forum, you'll see him refuse to provide evidence of my "bigotry", let alone provide such evidence in this debate.

He portrays that my claim is that "atheism cannot be held accountable because of a single magic word: disbelief." I have outlined above why atheism isn't bigotry, it can't be "held accountable" simply because it isn't bigotry. Pro hasn't provided a single argument showing that "atheism is bigotry", although has has claimed that some atheists are bigots and that certain people don't trust atheists. I have shown that atheism isn't bigotry. This means that Pro hasn't supported his proposition that "atheism is just dressed up bigotry" and I have show that to not be the case.

I will now address voting directly.

Conduct: Pro has created several strawmen as you can see above, saying that I've made claims and arguments which I haven't.

S&G: Pro's grammar has confused me on many occasions, and quite possibly you too.

Convincing arguments: Pro didn't actually provide any arguments for his proposition, and I provided on (crucial) argument against it.

Reliable sources: This one's a toss up. Were his sources reliable? If his sources needed to actually provide evidence for his proposition for them to be counted, then I believe that I've provided more reliable sources.

So it's now over to you, the readers and voters, to make your decisions.
Debate Round No. 4
33 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Amoranemix 2 years ago
Since I don't have voting privileges (which I was only told after I tried to vote), I'll just give my explanation (shortened to about 1000 characters) here.

Pro displayed slightly worse conduct in debate : voicing seem. unwarr. negative opinions on Con and his argument resembled too much a diatribe. Also his behaviour in the comment
section seemed inappropriate.

Spelling and grammar
I didn't pay much attention, but I found Pro's lecture harder to follow, possibly among other
things due to some typos.

Given what the contention was, Pro's case was a lost cause. He was supposed to show that there are
a lot of bigots that became atheists to make their bigotry look better. Given how much research he
did, Pro could have had success with defending the claim that most outspoken atheists are bigots and that seems to be what he was arguing for.

I didn't check all the references and Pro seemed to be committing the proof by verbosity fallacy.
Nonetheless, he did provide more references and to compensate for my bias (as atheist/agnostic),
for Pro being new to this and Con having the advantage of the last word, I'll grant him this point.
Posted by neutral 2 years ago
Long running issue with that particular poster ...
Posted by ArcTImes 2 years ago
holy sheet pro...
Posted by neutral 2 years ago
And I believe I was quite clear in asking you to apply the standard equally or not at all.

Please do not ignore poor behavior simply because the person doing it happens to share the same religious views as you.
Posted by AlbinoBunny 2 years ago
I'm just telling you to stop acting like a nob in the comments section.
Posted by neutral 2 years ago
Kindly shake your bias and direct your apparent reverence to standards to your fellow atheist.

Do not mistake my disdain for Snow as disdain for atheists. Snow earned what he got. Until any of your atheists can hold your own accountable, kindly abandon any pretense tat you are in a position to lecture me.

It take a great deal for me to get he point where I will openly treat someone with disrespect, and Snow has given plenty of reasons to do so.

The idea that having to withdraw a poorly thought out proof of Occam's Razor should result in a temper tantrum, and a week long harassment campaign is ludicrous.

You have had your say in the matter. I refuse to pretend that Snow did not behave the way he did, and will again at the drop of a hat. He is neither apologetic, nor reptant, and continues to display all the hall marks of abuser covering his tracks.

You have had you say on the matter, I have once again explained mine.

Snow insists n sticking himself into these things - I refuse to pretend that his refusal to simply move on is logical.

Stop defending known abusers simply because you have the same faith as them.
Posted by AlbinoBunny 2 years ago
Please stop acting like a nob in the comments section Neutral.
Posted by Sswdwm 2 years ago
I love how I can get you to write diatribe responses with the utmost minimal effort on my part. I don't even need to cast out insults, you just cant help yourself, its like an innate drive you have. Need to find a way to harness your mouth... it's full of energy
Posted by neutral 2 years ago
Your point that you are think skinned and do not like being treated the way you serially treat others?

Agh, glad you advertise the hypocrisy.

You were again, engaged in full civility twice and resorted on two occasions to open temper tantrums and following me around like puppy nipping on my heels.

Why should you be able to constantly insult someone and then demand that person treat you with respect? Treat you any differently than you treat them?

So yes, every time I insult you, and it bothers you, the intent is fully to get you to realize how your often abusive actions effect others. And I have yet to follow you around the forum and in a deliberate harassment campaign now have I?

So I am glad that treating you better than you treat me somehow still manages to bother you. Like an angry cat, I simply don;t care that you are angry.
Posted by neutral 2 years ago
No crap, which I discovered immediately after cutting and pasting into the little box while on the move because I was dodging a UXO evacuation - it happens in Europe. There was kind of a big war here.

Why do you think I immediately posted the comments to get the rest of the argument out there? Because 24 hours later I am still apparently unaware of the character limit?

And you think telling someone something they already acknowledged, to a mistake they already admitted, with an attempted work around already in place makes you intelligent rather than AT LEAST 24 hours behind the problem set.

Well, your proof about Occam's Razor still sucked so badly you had to withdraw it and resort to a temper tantrum defense.

I think I am OK sans the preachy arrogance Snow.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by Romanii 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro never defined exactly what "modern atheism" is. I assume he was referring to the anti-theism promoted by writers such as Dawkins and Hitchens, in which case I somewhat agree with him. However, Pro did not define what he meant by that term, so Con went with the technical definition of atheism (i.e. lack of belief in God/gods), and he showed why that is not bigotry in way, shape, or form.
Vote Placed by TheWarrior 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro seemed to completely disregard the topic of the debate. He referenced two modern atheist and used them to genralize all atheism. That would be like taking Joel Osteen and using him to generalize all christians. Some atheist can be bigots but to generalize and say all are is poor argumentation at best.
Vote Placed by philochristos 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: This was a clear and unambiguous win for Con. It was painful having to read through Pro's posts trying to find just one thing that is relevant to the resolution. If the resolution had been, "Modern atheists are bigots" or "The modern atheist movement is pretentious and bigoted," then maybe his posts would've been relevant. Perhaps it would've been helpful if Pro had defined his terms in the first round, but I think Con is right. And it doesn't matter whether atheism is a lack of belief in God or a belief that God doesn't exist. Either way, it's not bigotry, much less dressed up bigotry. The fact that people who hold to atheism might be bigots is irrelevant to the resolution. I judged this debate entirely on the rounds. I consider the comment section to be outside of the debate, and we shouldn't be asked to consider it.