Is modern atheism just dressed up bigotry? Yes.

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.Rebuttals 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 atheismPro, 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.ConclusionI'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.