Evolution is not part of atheism.

My opponent has made no compelling case that evolution is a part of atheism. There are plenty of religious people who believe in evolution (in fact if you look at the US statistics there are more people religious people who believe in evolution than there are atheists in general), and there are atheists who don't believe in evolution. Evolution isn't a part of atheism. Evolution can't be a part of atheism because atheism doesn't have any parts. It's a lack of belief in god or gods, no more, no less. ------ Strong Atheism is a position that there is no God. It isn't atheism, it's atheistic. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god or gods whereas strong atheists take it one step further and profess an actual belief in the non-existence of god, rather than simply the lack of position that there is a god. While it is true that all strong atheists are atheists it is not true that all atheists are strong atheists. Atheism doesn't include any affirmative beliefs. And while atheists are often critical of religion and can and do advocate for particular philosophies, those philosophies are not part of atheism. Just as if an atheist were to believe in the compelling scientific evidence of the theory which comprises the cornerstone of biology that theory would not become a part of atheism. ----- As an atheist, I'd love to plant that flag in one of the greatest scientific theories of all time and claim it for atheism. Richard Dawkins once argued that the religious equating evolution with atheism was absurd but if he felt inclined to "preach atheism" (as he has be accused of doing), the religious would be making his job dreadfully easy. While there's certainly critiques of religion and dry treatises on the every facet of arcane minutia concerning obscure theological dribbling, those are hardly a compelling case for anything. Those religionists who, unlike most religious people, equate evolution directly with atheism are suggesting that that simply pointing to the world of evidence for evolution would wrought unspeakable damage to their fragile gods are doing both a disservice to science and religion. Atheism is far more empty than you suppose. There's no virtues or vices, great truths or unquestionable dogmas, there is simply the admission that on the subject of deities, one is not compelled. If evolution provides a contradictory explanation to the life on this planet than a religion supposed then why must theists look at such and declare that life is far to complex and far to splendid and impressive to have anything behind it? "This universe is far to beautiful for God to exist, those atheist evolutionists must be right!" Attempting to include evolution into atheism, which again doesn't even contain any beliefs, is nothing less than trying to concede reality to atheism. How much power you must ascribe a lack of belief in God? "In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, 'This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed'? Instead they say, 'No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way.'" - Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot. ---- >>"Just as many theists do not believe in Christ, a belief which unquestionably is part of theism." No. Belief in god(s) is the core of theism. While belief in Jesus as God is unquestionably a theistic belief, it isn't a part of theism. Theism is simply a description. It's a belief without any specificity at all. Your supposed "overlap" issue is sophistry. If evolution were a part of atheism shouldn't atheists believe in evolution? There is no middle ground between atheism and theism. You either believe there is a god(s) or you don't. If you don't, you're an atheist. If theists can believe in evolution then how could it be a part of atheism? If it's a part of both then it certainly cannot be described as limited to either in any reasonable way. Thus evolution is not a part of atheism. Your given example to point out this logic suggests that Christianity is a not a part of theism, but theism is not just limited to Christians. You then, with a wave of your hands suppose this is the same as the example I gave. However, you actually flipped the groupings and tried to hide the clear mistake. All evolutionists are atheists. -- False. All atheists are evolutionists. -- False. All theists are Christians. -- False. All Christians are theists. -- True. So there is actually an overlap between Christians and theism. This would allow us to conclude that theism is part of Christianity and a belief in God is a part of that religion while that religion is not necessarily a part of a generic belief in God. Theism has a single requirement, a belief in God. Christianity necessarily meets that definition and so *EVERY* Christian is a theist. However, it is not the case that every evolutionists is an atheist or that every atheist is an evolutionist. In part 1 you said "my opponent is of the view that A can be part of B if and only if B could not exist BUT FOR A." This is a straw man. I am making the suggestion that A is not a part of B if the conditional if A then B fails. ----- The Raelians aren't theists because they don't believe in a God. If you believed in Jesus but thought he was just a really powerful guy, that wouldn't suffice to make you a theist. While if you believed a coffee stain was a God, then you would be a theists. This isn't circular reasoning or semantics, it's simply the definition. Theism is the belief in a god, whereas atheism is the lack of such a belief. ----- If a scientific theory can become a part of atheism simply by factually establishing some bits of religion wrong then there is a lot of science which suddenly becomes a part of atheism. In fact, Sufi Islam argued that even the very basics of science weren't real but rather the will of Allah. Al Ghazali argued that if some wool is placed into a fire and turns black and shrivels it isn't because of some independent chemical reaction but rather because Allah wills it so. Thus, all science would be a part of atheism. I'm sure with a few more religions and a few more claims about God we could work the entire portfolio of human accomplishments into this little non-belief.