Atheism is a world view.

I would like to say to Con, I am sorry and that it is no problem, and that the voting should not depend on FF. Voters should vote on who had the best convincing argument. I will try and address Con’s arguments as best as I can.“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.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.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.”Con asserts Webster’s is not accurate, so I will use a credible Dictionary. According to the Oxford dictionary Atheism is by definition is:Noun “ A disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.” [1]Origin: late 16th century: from French athéisme, from Greek atheos, from a- 'without' + theos 'god' [1]Doctrine is irrelevant to this debate. Doctrine refers to a specific belief in a religious worldview. For the sake of this argument, I think we both can agree to leave it out.As a view there is no such thing as strong or weak atheism. Atheism is simply the worldview that1. There is no God.That claim is either true or false. There is no middle ground. If Con does not think (1) is true, then he is not, by definition, an atheist.What my opponent is confusing is the distinction between atheism as a worldview, and the justification of atheism[1]. Some atheists claim to have very powerful grounds for thinking (1) to be true. We might say that theirs is a strong atheism. Other atheists would say that they have adequate, but not decisive, grounds for thinking (1) to be true. Some might say that they have little or even no grounds for (1) but believe it anyway, perhaps for emotional reasons. All of these we might class as holding to a weak atheism. What is important to see here is that the strength or weakness has to do, not with the claim, but with the justification being offered on behalf of that claim.“My opponent claims to have identified this collection of atheistic beliefs as per his burden of proof. Let's consider them: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 Or"...of Americans in the 12 largest Christian denominations, 89.6% belong to churches that support evolution education"Or the following extensive endorsement of evolution by lifelong Christian Carl Drews:You can find statements from a huge number of churches and religious organizations endorsing evolution here:You can learn here 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):While I do agree that Theists can believe in evolution like Francis Collins, and many denominations of Christianity can as well. This is not what I am arguing about here. This is a 'straw man' fallacy that Con is using against me. My argument is not: Evolution is exclusive to Atheism. Rather, I am simply arguing that: Atheism is exclusive to Evolution. On the atheist worldview, If the commonly held belief is there is no God (No matter if your strong/weak atheist). Then your only option is to believe in evolution to explain your existence. Why? Because by definition evolution is naturalistic, so any other scientific proposition to explain how life originated would defeat the atheist’s view of origins. Atheists can’t believe in Intelligent Design, because it implies a Designer outside of our existence. This would then open up the possibility of God’s existence. The same thing with Creationism, Atheists can’t believe that God can create the universe, since it implies a Creator. “The false dichotomy fallacy again. Also, again, false attribution. 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.” Worldview: a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world. You do have commonly held beliefs, as mentioned above in my earlier paragraphs. As an atheist you see the world differently than someone who is a theist. You have a different idea of the world we live contrary to theism. I have addressed this in my above argument. Con assumes that, as an atheist, you can believe in Transcendence. He uses Immanuel Kant and Frederick Nietzsche as examples. Before I address the two beliefs of Kant and Nietzsche; I would like to first define the word transcendence. Transcendence- to exist above and independent from; to rise above, surpass, succeed. This is what Immanuel Kant believed about Transcendence: “Here can be no doubt that all our knowledge begins with experience...But though all our knowledge begins with experience it does not follow that it all arises out of experience” Frederick Nietzsche- Nietzsche for instance removed the things-in-themselves altogether and suggest they may not even exist at all. What followed was a strong empiricist idealism: we shouldn't even bother finding "truth" - all that matters is our phenomenon world and what we find aesthetically pleasing about it. Yes, Kant and Nietzsche both believed in transcendence. But, I think if you’re an atheist and you believe in transcendence, it really defeats the whole purpose of atheism. When you logically get into transcendence, you must imply a higher being that rises above you and me. I and think that is what Kant and Nietzsche were trying to do, but they take God out of the equation and they’re left searching for an objective reality apart from their existence. So I guess my point is once you really start diving into transcendence, then it becomes a more religious/spiritual issue, and is exclusive to theism rather than atheism. do not have enough room to copy what Con's other argument about Origin, Meaning, Morality, and Destiny. So, I will try and answer it best here. All atheists believe that Origin is through evolution. Evolution is an accident because it is naturalistic. All atheists do not have an objective purpose to life. Therfore they must find their own purpose to live. Morality, Atheists can differ on morality being subjective/objective. Destiny, all atheists do not believe in an afterlife, since death is the end of all things. Conclusion:Atheism is a worldview, since it has differnt ideas/beliefs about origins, meaning, morality, and destiny. Sources: [1] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [2} http://www.gotquestions.org... [3] http://atheism.about.com... [4] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com... [5] http://www.anus.com... [6] http://www.reasonablefaith.org...