Evolution is not part of atheism.

Ladies and Gentlemen, We have come to the final round of this debate. I now wish to thank you for your attention. I also thank my opponent for a fun and interesting debate. My task was to show that evolution is part of atheism. Please think about this very carefully. I was not asked to prove that evolution is an "essential element", "defining element", "constituent element" or "necessary element" of atheism. It was merely to show that is a part of it. I have presented you with a number of links to definitions and discussions of the topic. These sources discussed the various forms of atheism. On the one hand we have the weak form and on the other the strong form. The strong form in fact involves a positive belief that there is not a god. The concept of Theoretical Atheism goes even further as it in itself entails arguing against the existence of a god. It involves confronting the many various religious arguments and dogmas, including that of Creation. Creation is most often confronted with the concept of evolution. This proposition is so obvious that it does not even need sourcing. Secondly, I have offered to source it if requested to and was never so requested. Thus, it is to be taken as accepted. EXCLUSIVE/INCLUSIVE DEFINITIONS (OVERLAP) Does the fact that some theists believe in evolution mean that evolution can't be a part of atheism? I contend it does not. My opponent's argument that A is a part of B only if B wouldn't exist BUT FOR A is incorrect. As I have pointed out, cars are part of transportation. That is so even though each concept exists without the other. A belief in Jesus is part of religion. That is so even though there are religions that do not believe in Jesus. Many of Plato's writings are part of philosophy even though they would exist without philosophy (as mathematical or scientific writings). And philosophy would certainly exist without Plato. I am part of staff working in my office. Staff at my office would do just fine without me (some might argue they would in fact do better). Conversely, if I had enough money not to have to work, I would surely continue to exist without being part of staff at my office. These are just some examples of things that can be part of other things even though they are not a NECESSARY part or a DEFINING part. The fact that some theists believe in evolution does not mean that evolution cannot be part of atheism. Equally, the fact that no all atheists believe in evolution does not mean that it is not a part of atheism (same argument as in the preceding paragraph). Opposing concepts can (and often do) have common aspects. Some people may use the Bible to argue for the existence of a particular god. Others may use it to disprove that existence (by pointing out inconsistencies within the Bible or how it may contradict common sense). Is the Bible part of both arguments? Of course. The arguments for and against celibacy of priests can equally be based on the Bible and hits interpretations. There are countless other examples of this and I will not list more as I am confident you understand what I am seeking to illustrate. Is there an overlap between evolution and atheism? Of course there is. One does not subsume the other; that much is true. However, an overlap exists. Atheism includes in its forms Theoretical Atheism. Theoretical Atheism is the process of presenting arguments against gods and religious dogma. Evolution is one of those arguments. MY OPPONENT'S FAILURE TO REBUTT SOURCED ARGUMENTS With respect, all that my opponent has done is re-iterate his preferred definition of atheism. He has not even so much as cited a single source for that definition. I am not saying that there are no such sources. However, as the judges of this debate, you are to rely on the information and argument as presented by the parties. You are NOT to resort to your own independent research. On this basis, I contend that you should accept my definition and reject my opponent's. But I will take it further. I will say that even if both definitions were to be supported, this in effect gives rise to a broader definition, one which includes both concepts. Atheism is everything that atheism is reasonably defined to be, by credible sources. Britannica, I contend, is a very reliable source. It consistently receives awards for being world's best encyclopedia in various areas. Wikipedia, while easily editable, has in its discussion of the topic relied on sources from well recognised contemporary thinkers. Numerous other definitions also support my argument. Strong atheism, the belief that gods do not exist, necessarily involves some degree of giving the matter some consideration. In effect, it is the process of rejecting religious dogma, including that of Creation. This is opposed to weak atheism where a person does not believe without a real reason (eg infants or those never exposed to the notion of a god). My opponent in his last paragraph claims that if my contention holds then a lot of science would become a part of atheism. To an extent, he may well be right. However, that matter is outside the scope of this debate. MY CONCLUSION Ladies and Gentlemen, I agree that on its face, at a first glance, a person would probably think that evolution is not part of atheism. I must say I thought so too until I looked a little deeper into the issues for this debate. However, I have presented a well sourced and logically sound argument for the proposition that evolution is in fact a part of atheism. My opponent's argument relies on two propositions. Firstly, he insists on a limited definition of atheism (while failing to source any other definitions). Secondly, he insists on an incorrect view of what it means for one thing to be a part of another. I respectfully submit that I have rebutted both of his propositions. In light of the above I ask that you vote Pro. Nb: As far as the Raelians go, my opponent has again basically repeated his previous contention. Unless one calls something a god it is not a god. I have said a lot on the subject in a previous round and will not continue with it. It is not relevant in any case.