atheism.just because its fashionable does not mean it has any merit

To start out, however, I want to make an important observation. My opponent has worded his resolution/title quite awkwardly, and a quick read of his arguments represents a different idea he is focusing on. He says, in his last lines, that this debate "is chiefly about the underhand methods employed by todays Atheist posterboys. " THIS, is what I will be arguing against. I will attempt to show that the methods my opponent describes are either 1. not methods they use or 2. perfectly adequate (thus not underhand). I'm sure my opponent doesn't intend for me to argue that atheism has merit because it's "fashionable" - it's almost unanimous that something isn't true just because it's popular. So let's set aside semantics and petty restriction, and get a good debate on atheism going on! As a final note, do realize that when I say "atheists", I am referring to the atheists known in popular media. My opponent has listed some, such as Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher. ==================== Method #1: Attacks on organized religion by atheists ==================== While not all Christians believe in the three points my opponent pointed out, MANY do. For those who, then obviously the criticisms stated by the atheists apply. For example, 1/5 of Britons don't believe in evolution while half are confused by Darwins theory[1], while 48% of Americans believe in YEC[2]! And when did any of the atheists explicitly states that you can't be a scientist if you are anti-religious? And when did atheists ever say all Christians believe in a corporeal god? In fact, they say the OPPOSITE. Corporeal means physical -- not spiritual[3]. ==================== Method #2: Assumption that evolution disproves the existence of God ==================== While not every atheist believes that evolution disproves God, many do - including Richard Dawkins. A common argument is to ask the Christian why they say Genesis is in metaphor, when other parts of the Bible are supposedly literal. With what arbirtrary ground can we say "this part is literal, while this part is metaphorical"? This is the line of reasoning used by some atheists. Do realize that not all atheists have to agree on the same thing (except their disbelief in God). ==================== Method #3: Claim that evolution explains human consciousness ==================== Yes, they do claim this, and I agree with them. I argue for physicalism[4], which is the philosophical position that everything supervenes on the physical. Since everything is physical, then it must be so that our mind, better known as our brain, is purely physical. And because evolution is the best theory we have for the development of life, it's very likely that our brains -- thus our consciousness -- are a direct result of evolution. If my opponent claims otherwise, then it is his burden to show how evolution or physicalism, or the combination of both, are inadequate. ==================== Method #4: Attack religious extremists ==================== Of course atheists know that many religious extremists are not like moderate religious people. In fact, well over 90% of my friends are religious, and we get along fine. The point, however, of showing the discrepancies religious people can do in the name of a deity is to show the various poisonous versions of religion. They are telling us that religion CAN, and DOES, cause harm in the world. {quote}At the same time they ignore the crazy atheists of which we have seen plenty this last century. {endquote} ----> My opponent may refer to atheists such as Hitler (arguably) and Stalin as evidence of the "evils of atheism", but he is completely wrong here. To equate atheism with mass-murder is to equate apples and oranges. Stalin and Hitler had mustaches - so did they kill millions in the name of mustaches? Stalin didn't kill people IN THE NAME of atheism, instead he used religion to control the people. Not only that, but it was part of the Communist belief that religion gave solace for the working class - popularly known as the "opiate of the masses"[5], because of the hardships in life. And in it's doctrine, religion should be removed since it's a drug that does not do away with the problems (thus reference to opiate). ==================== Method(? ) #5: Dawkins is a jackass who doesn't get laid ==================== I'm not even sure how I'm supposed to respond to this. To start off, it isn't even a "method", so really nothing needs to be said further on this subject. However, let's refute his two-pronged point anyway: 1. Whether or not Dawkins is a jackass is purely subjective. That said, there is no way to objectively find the truth of his "jack-assness". Therefore, my opponent's claim that Dawkins is a jackass can't be held as a valid argument. Even if it was true, who cares? Definitely has nothing to do with the merit of his arguments and claims. 2. In fact, I suspect Dawkins has had sex a couple time in the past 23 years. In 1992, Dawkins married the actress Lalla Ward[6]. Do the math - that's only 17 years at best. So the claim that Dawkins hasn't had sex in the past 23 years is very unlikely, unless Lalla or Dawkins has some weird superstition against sex. Knowing Dawkin's beliefs, I highly doubt that. ==================== Conclusion ==================== I have refuted all of my opponent's points quite successfully, I think. The atheists in popular media aren't using underhand methods, but showing the large flaws in religion these days. Not only so, but not all of their beliefs have to be shared by other atheists, so they aren't forced to follow a certain way of thinking as religion would have them. Some atheists believe evolution isn't compatible with religion, others believe it is. In the end, it doesn't matter which one they believe in, as long as they fulfill one requirement - lack of a belief in deities. ---References--- 1. . http://www.guardian.co.uk... 2. . http://hubpages.com... 3. . http://www.merriam-webster.com... 4. . http://atheism.about.com... 5. . http://plato.stanford.edu... 6. . http://www.guardian.co.uk...