The BELIEF in atheist DOGMA is a MENTAL DISORDER (AKA INSANITY):

During this round, I shall be refuting some statements from my opponent. ""I am an atheist" No you aren't: There is no such thing as an atheist." Quite frankly, there IS such a thing as an atheist. Like I stated in the previous round, I am an atheist. That in and of itself proves the existence of atheists. You cannot simply claim that atheists do not exist. That is an unfounded claim. There must be evidence or an explanation for your claim to hold up. "The subject of the debate is the belief in atheist Dogma." Yes, but what IS "atheist Dogma?" Up until a few sentences after that, you had not even attempted to define "atheist Dogma." "The phrase "the belief in atheist Dogma" refers to the religion that YOU follow. All of your statements in this debate are atheist Dogma -- the belief in atheist Dogma is your own personal faith-based and unsupported religious belief. The belief in atheist Dogma refers to the religion that YOU follow." I follow no religion. I don't believe in any god, gods, or higher powers. Therefore, your definition of "atheist Dogma" fails. It hinges upon something that doesn't exist; it hinges upon my religion, but I don't have a religion. Also, this debate is not the right place to discuss whether anyone's beliefs are "unsupported" or not. "Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between valid evidence and invalid evidence. Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the meaningful and the meaningless." This is, quite frankly, irrelevant. What you personally believe about the role of your deity in our intellectual process is not relevant to this debate. "Your entire paragraph, directly above, is atheist Dogma." This is a rather unfounded claim. Also, how exactly is that relevant? "Yes, I did, and it is a fact." Then why did you deny it? "Oops -- my mistake. I honestly meant to write "The believer in atheist Dogma may as well make the claim, without evidence, that the Statue of Liberty doesn't exist because of lack of evidence." Please forgive my minor semantic error in that one sentence, and please accept that I meant to write the corrected version." I can forgive an honest mistake. However, what point is this trying to make? What makes that claim any different? "I have no beliefs, actually." Well it's hardly relevant to this debate, but you clearly believe in God, judging from your statements. "I never claimed it was, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. I never claimed it could, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part." I never claimed that you did claim that. It was simply part of my refutation to something you said. "God can be objectively observed and verified." There is an inherent problem with this. Even if you can observe God, you can't objectively verify it. There is no way of knowing if you what you observe is true. After this, my opponent claims two straw men that are actually just parts of my refutation. I won't quote then simply to save space. "Even if you believe you have observed a Statue of Liberty, you cannot prove that it is a Statue of Liberty." This is not much of an issue with physical things because we humans have a good sense of physical vision. However, we don't have quite the same sense of spiritual vision. You could be observing God. You could also be observing a different god. You could also be observing a ghost. You just can't prove what it is. My opponent then goes on about his definition of insanity. I would say that it is an invalid definition, but I'll go with it for the sake of argument. He defines insanity as behavior out of the range of normalcy. However, things like being left handed are outside the range of normalcy. We don't consider that to be insanity, though. So, that definition fails.