Atheism is a world view.

I can only apologise for my forfeiture in the last round. It was not intentional, personal circumstances prevented me from posting the round. If my opponent wishes to replay the debate I will happily do so. I hope that voters can please respect that "FF" where any arguments are presented is not an adequate basis for casting a vote on a debate. On to my opponents arguments for atheism as a world view. Pro: "According to the websters dictionary, atheism is a disbelief in God, or the doctorine that their is no God." Websters dictionary is hardly an authority on words, let alone the intricasies of this enourmous subject.As any other dictionaries, even by far more credible ones, it provides only a quick reference guide to common usages of words. In this case, it certainly has it wrong. "Doctrine" refers to a collection of beliefs, atheism is a single point of contention regarding the proposition of a god. My opponent claims to have identified this collection of atheistic beliefs as per his burden of proof. Let's consider them: "They all believe they are an accident through evolution." Evolution is not exclusive to theists or atheists, therefore can not be attributed favourably to one over the other. For example how about... Francis Collins, leader of the international human genome project and Christian evangelist (http://www.nih.gov... /http://www.beliefnet.com...) Or "...of Americans in the 12 largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education" (http://ncse.com...) Or the following extensive endorsement of evolution by lifelong Christian Carl Drews: (http://www.theistic-evolution.com... ) You can find statements from a huge number of churches and religious organizations endorsing evolution here: (http://ncse.com...) You can learn here (http://evolution.berkeley.edu...) that evolution is NOT the theory that we are 'an accident' Also, here is Christian explaining why evolution is irrelevent to the issue of a deity creating the universe (evolution is not abiogenesis): http://www.thinkingthroughchristianity.com... Evolution is a subject of science, not (a)theism. "They don't believe there is an ultimate purpose or meaning for human beings" "They don't believe in an afterlife or destiny" Not believing something is not the same has having a belief or believing the opposite. The atheist does not believe that purpose or meaning has anything to do with your god, that does not mean that there are no alternative sources for purpose and meaning. Similarly, afterlife is not exclusively a theistic belief. It is not necessary for me to believe that there is a god in order for me to believe that there is an afterlife. I happen to believe that there is an afterlife, I just don't define it in the terms that you might, and I don't relate it to a god. Destiny also does not require god, it is irrelevant to (a)theism. It is my belief for example that I am destined to die within the next century, I don't relate this to a god, I relate this to predetermined factors within my biology. Fallacy of false dichotomy: (http://www.philosophy-index.com...) "Every Worldview has four questions that are commonly proposed and held to: Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny." My opponent must give sufficient proof that atheists have collective and unified propositions for each of the catagories he offered, as he himself proposed. Not agreeing or disagreeing with the proposition that existence originates with a god is not an alternative proposition. Once god is denied as the originator the origins are still left to be discovered. I might argue that life originated with an orange, my fellow atheist may argue that it has no origin, another might argue that the nature of time dictates that our destiny has past and our origins are yet to originate. I stick with my orange theory, Orangism and the goddess Orangina...she didn't create the world but she knows what did and it's fizzy and retro, in fact, I don't even say 'origins' I say 'orangins'. There is no agreement on the origins of life among atheists other than "it wasn't your god" this leaves a vaccum, not an alternative. This applies to meaning, morality and destiny also. Myself: "Theism as it has come to generally be known, is not used to describe those that reason for the positive necessity or possibility of a prime mover alone. In fact, the possibility of a god or a supreme being is something I, an atheist, accept very comfortably. "What I do not accept, or am yet to accept are claims regarding the nature of such a thing, the 'revelation' with such a thing, morality, politics, 'science' base on such a thing, or claims of human/god relationships. This, is theism, I do not have this and am far from accepting it as a world view. As such, I am an atheist." Con:"It sounds like Con could be moving towards Agnosticsm or at Best Deism. Again Con is showing that even though he calls himself an "atheist", he tends to differ on atheists in terms of God's existence being possible. I think his second paragraph is also again another commonly held belief in atheism. All atheists don't believe in Transcendence.I don't see how Con has refuted my position that Atheism is a worldview; in fact I think Con has refuted his own position, since he shows how he has differences of opinion as an Atheist." Read it again: "...another commonly held belief in atheism. All atheists don't believe in Transcendence" The false dichotomy fallacy again. Also, again, false attribution. A world view can not be based on what you don't believe to be the case. I do not believe superman, batman or spiderman to be real, this is can not be a world view. Now, to the claim itself: "All atheists don't believe in Transcendence" What of Kant's transcendental idealism? What about Nietzsche's transcendence of man? Transcendance i'm afraid is not a necessary element of either theism or atheism, and neither theist or atheist must exclusively deny transcendance by default. "It sounds like Con could be moving towards Agnosticsm or at Best Deism." I am an agnostic atheist. I am not a deist, a deist is not one who allows that a god is possible, a deist is someone who makes the positive claim that a deist exists/existed. I have not yet found an argument for 'no possibility of a non-specific deity' If you can offer one, be my guest. What I do say as an atheist, is that I do not believe in any claims regarding god that I have been presented with. Which is as atheistic as humanly possible. Name me one credible source that offers an argument for "no gods perceivable or otherwise are possible" and I will gladly dismiss it. Atheism, is not and can not be a world view. Thanks again to my opponent, and again, my apologies for the forfeiture of the last round. I look forward to reading your final statements.