Atheism is Stupidity and Based on Imaginings having no Basis in Facts.

All of the pointing to my previous debates is completely irrelevant from proving that I have never been a theist. I recently joined this site only 2 months ago, and have been an implicit atheist/agnostic for 2 years. So, of course my debates on here will be against religion since I've been an atheist for longer than I have been on here. I'm currently 21, and up until I was about 19, I was a practicing Mormon, I even served a Mormon mission for a couple of months(they're usually 2 years long, but I had to go home early due to medical reasons). My real name is Daniel Kirkham. I will provide a screenshot of me logged into my LDS.org account(which only Mormons can have those accounts) in the comments, hopefully tomorrow when I get my computer back. I'm not doing it now, because I am using another computer that isn't mine, as mine is still getting fixed. So, I would ask voters not to vote until I can post that in the comments. I'm answering now so that I don't forfeit the debate. Now, I suppose I'll address each of the attacks my opponent has made regardiny my debates: 2. You completely misread the debate, I took the con to the debate "Supporting Islam is terrorism". Actually, this itself, is a pro-religion debate since I was defending Islam here. Here is the link to the debate, to show that my opponent lied about it [2] 3. Again, this is all baseless, and clearly a strawman. I don't support child rapists(pedophiles are different from child rapists, as most pedophiles do not rape children, and some child rapists are not pedophiles), I support treating everyone as a human, even pedophiles. As a Christian, I thought you would believe in loving one another, no matter what, but apparently you don't. 4. See above 5. This is also a strawman, I didn't say I supported turning 5 year olds into sex objects. Being able to consent to sexual activity doesn't mean you're a sex object. So by your logic, everyone who can consent to sexual activity, is apparently a sex object, even you. 6. This is logical, innocent until proven guilty is a highly held belief in the court system. 7. Need I remind you that you believe in a book that had tons of incest in it? Also, try reading my debates for once. You'll see they are quite logical. 8. This one I didn't fully support, sometimes I do debates where I don't fully support the subject, such as when I argued against anthropogenic climate change. Sometimes I just debate for fun and to see responses from other people. Re: the next set of quote from me As for all the baseless insults that my opponent offers, I again, remind them of innocent until proven guilty. You have yet to prove that I am a fabricator, deceiver, that I bore false witness in these cases, etc. "You’ve no experiences, I suppose you tried Muslim, cause you denied them too …. When did you ever go to their mosque and study? Have you even been in a church at all? Other than when you were a child? You’ve been lying this whole debate!" You've not proven I've been lying, for one, and two, I am going to offer evidence that for majority of my life, I've been a Mormon just to prove to you that I wasn't lying when I claimed I was once a theist. It will be in the comments due to my circumstances, and I hope voters will understand why I'm not posting it here but in comments. I deny all religions which support a deity, as in my experience, I've not found a deity. Con- Either way, what you said is baseless, as you provided no evidence that atheists refuse to look for evidence – You don’t why would they? You've still not proven that I don't. You keep making these unsubstantiated claims about me, also it's illogical to conclude that an entire group acts the same way as one individual in that group. It's called a Hasty Generalization. [3] Con - There is no work involved. If you've already found evidence of a god, all you'd have to do is present it. Still wanting me to do the work for you huh? .... No I won't! I've done the work already, you've yet to prove I haven't. Neighborhoods with a high degree of religious practice are not high-crime neighborhoods. Even in high-crime inner-city neighborhoods, well over 90 percent of children from safe, stable homes do not become delinquents. Making claims without true evidence again. Notice that they offered a link that didn't make that claim, and it isn't a reputable scientific study on this matter. Also, correlation doesn't mean causation. If neighborhoods with high degree of religious practice have a low crime rate, it could be because they are rural. Rural areas tend to be more religious, and the fact it is rural could be why there is not much crime. The demographics of the city in general could also influence this. re: religious affiliation of prisoners That doesn't even prove that people convert after they've been in prison. The article you linked to only provides the religious affiliation of prisoners, and it doesn't compare their religious affiliation from first entering prison, to many years later or when they are released from prison. Now, since my opponent is claiming that Atheists are stupid, I would like to present a study done on intelligence and the religiousity of people. According to the findings, religiousity and intelligence are negatively correlated[4] in other words, as you look at people who are religious, the less intelligent you are. As you look at people who are less religious, the more intelligent the people are. My opponent did not offer any scientific evidence, or even evidence of any kind, that atheists are stupid except for ad hominem attacks for most of the debate. To sum up why voters should vote for me: I offered scientific data on the intelligence of religious people versus non-religious people, and pointed out the many flaws in my opponent's "arguments". My opponent offered no evidence of their claims that atheists are stupid, except ad hominem attacks. I would implore voters to at least vote for me for conduct, as I didn't resort to insulting my opponent whereas my opponent clearly insulted me during this debate and attacked me on a personal level. I would ask for them to also vote for me for sources, as I provided a scientific study, whereas my opponent did not, and relied on sources that didn't even prove their points, which I explained above how they didn't. Sources: [2] http://www.debate.org... [3] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com... [4] http://journals.sagepub.com...