Evolution is not part of atheism.

I would like to begin by pointing out that the Britannica definition of atheism begins with the words "in general" for one simple reason: it goes on to define and describe at some length atheism and its various forms and approaches. The article itself goes on for in excess of ten pages; by far the most comprehensive definition of the concept that I have seen. My opponent is, of course, at a liberty to out of hand dismiss that definition. Likewise, he is free to dismiss the wikipedia definition and countless other definitions, critiques, discussions, debates, arguments and propositions about atheism that can be found in contemporary philosophical literature both online and offline. Most those who have given the subject matter any thought will at least distinguish between weak atheism (lack of belief in god(s)) and strong atheism (a positive belief that there is no god). http://www.spiritus-temporis.com... http://www.strongatheism.net... It is this strong atheism that is related to the concept of theoretical (contemplative) atheism outlined in my argument in R1. A newborn is an atheist (weak atheist) as he does not believe in a god (although Ernest Nagel would disagree with that - see the top reference above) , having never heard of the concept. My opponent, by contrast, appears to be a strong atheist as he proposes in many debates various arguments countering those of theists and then concludes that such arguments are not based on scientific evidence such that would possibly convince him of the eixstence of one more more gods. This is an assumption only as I do not know the true beliefs my opponent subscribes to, other than the fact that he has claimed to be a believer in Santa. Be that as it may, my opponent simply chooses to reject Britannica's discourse on the matter. He simply asserts that atheism is "the lack of belief in a god [full stop]". Even the simplest dictionary definitions more often than not use the term "denial of the existence of a god". Quite often the term is "the disbelief OR denial of the existence of a god". http://dictionary.reference.com... Denial is more than a mere lack of belief. It is an active proposition that something does not exist. A proposition that, when confronted with theses to the contrary, is supported by evidence to discredit such theses. It is that concept that is termed "strong atheism" or "theoretical atheism". Wether my opponent likes it or not, the process of denying the existence of a god, the process of arguing against theist propositions cannot be divorced from lack of belief in a god. Both strong and weak atheism, practical and theoretical atheism, are concepts existing within the general scope of atheism. Yes, it is a question of definition and there are disagreements about it amongst contemporary thinkers. However, my opponent is in no position to exclude that definition. It exists, it is supported by many sources and it becomse part of the wider concept. The fact that some choose to use a wider definition, more basic one (such as that proposed by my opponent) does not invalidate the more specific and more carefully considered discourses on the matter. I suggest it would have been prudent for my opponent to make this debate conditional on an ASSUMPTION that atheism is no more than the lack of belief in a god. I again repeat my assertion (supported by evidence and citations in my first post) that atheism includes, in one of its forms, the concept of actively arguing against theses proposed by theists and that one (and a main one at that) counter argument against them is that of evolution. Evolution provides an explanation for how humans and animals have come to exist. An explanation which is frequently capable of confronting the theist argument that they were created by a god. It is frequently used in that context, even, I might add, by my opponent in his debates on this very website. It is true that many religious groups do not oppose the theory of evolution. The Catholic Church, for example, has accepted it as not contradictory to its dogmas. This does not, with respect, support my opponent's argument. Just as many theists do not believe in Christ, a belief which unquestionably is part of theism. See my first post for some other examples for the "overlap" issue. For A to be part of B it is NOT necessary that B's existence would have to be contingent on the existence of A. My opponent has said nothing to negate that. I will add that my opponent has in fact said nothing at all to negate my proposition. All he has managed to do in this round is express a complete lack of respect for a very credible and respected source, one often cited in many courts of law worldwide. He is asking the readers to disregard it along with citations from a wikipedia article which in turn was premised on the works of respectable contemporary thinkers on the subject. My opponent continues to maintain that the Raelinas are not theists. He does this in a circular fashion. I respectfully say that it doesn't matter whether the Raelians call their aliens "gods". To quote the duck test "if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it IS a duck." One may call it a cat or a dog but a duck is nevertheless a duck. This is in fact a legal test developed by the Courts in Contract Law cases in England many many years ago. Having said that, the Raelinas consideration was only a tangent to my argument, more of a curiousity, "something to think about". With all due respect, I am not trying to "win points" by pointing my opponent's attention to the fact that he ought to have used the words "gods" rather than "God". Rather, this was done to illustrate that he himself has not given very much thought to the very concept he wishes to debate about. Had he done so, he would have formulated his proposition much more carefully. I will add that it does not matter whether the majority of people using debate.org are Christians, Hindu or believers in ancient Greek gods. This debate is not about them, it is not an act of personal attack or of support for anyone. It is a debate about a concept. I will go further, however, and say that if saying "I believe XYZ are gods" were indeed what it took to make one a theist then Microsoft would by now be exempt from paying taxes by making itself into the Church of Microsoftology with God Gates the Almighty as its head. I am afraid the issue is not and cannot be that simple. With respect, I assert that my opponent will need to do more than merely repeat his own original assertion in a "I'm right and you're wrong because I'm right and you disagree with me" fashion. nb: Although for the present discussion I agree that lack of belief in a god is a species of atheism (and in fact the most commonly encountered one!), I personally am of the view that such a person would more properly be described as an agnostic. However, that is beyond the scope of this discussion, at least at the present time.