Atheism is a world view.

Strong AtheismCon says my quote from Anthony Flew was a misquote and false. He never defended that position and left it as a bare-assertion, so we have no reason to believe him. Either way, it is an outrageous charge because that it was Strong Atheism is; he position, view, or belief that God does not exist. I can provide more explanations of Strong Atheism (which I already did in my last round):"A 'strong' atheist is one who asserts that 'there is no god.'"[1]"Strong atheism is the belief that there is no god." [2]"Believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as 'strong atheism.'" [3]All the definitions of Strong Atheism are roughly the same, so attacking one definition like my whole argument hinges on that one definition is a red herring. Strong Atheism is self-evidently a worldview (it is a view of the world without God), and I am shocked that my opponent would even start a debate like this. Con then presents Anthony Flew's description of Weak Atheism. This is irrelevant This debate is about Strong Atheism, not Weak Atheism. My opponent also says that Atheism doesn't deny that all God's don't exist, just particular Gods. However, my definitions clearly state that Strong Atheism is the position that there is no God. Either way, I'm not sure how this effects the resolution because either interpretation of Strong Atheism is still a world view (my opponent is correct that some definitions of Strong Atheism are with regards to particular Gods). One is a view of the world without all Gods, and one is a view of the world against particular Gods. Here is yet, another definition of Strong Atheism:"Strong atheism, also sometimes referred to asexplicit atheism, goes one step further and involves denying the existence of at least one god, usually multiple gods, and sometimes the possible existence of any gods at all."[4]Thus, Strong Atheism isn't committed to the notion that only particular God's don't exist.Straw-Man FallacyCon says:"My opponent misunderstands this concept, he demonstrates the fallacy (usually promoted by apologists) that atheism in any sense is the denial of the possibility of all deities." - ConThe above is clearly false. I never said that Atheism in any sense is the denial of the possibilities of all deities. When someone misrepresents and argument in this fashion, it is called the Straw-Man fallacy. Presumption Of AtheismEven if one presumes Atheism, that is still a view of the world without God. Regardless, we are debating Strong Atheism, not any other types of Atheism that my opponent can conjure up. Also, he said that without a proposition, a negation doesn't exist. What does this have to do with the resolution? Absolutely nothing. He then presents another definition of Weak Atheism, but we are not debating Weak Atheism! I accepted this debate based on the view of Atheism Con implied in his introduction round (Strong Atheism). I have provided countless definitions which all show that Strong Atheism is indeed a world view. It is a view of the world without God, or Gods. Atheism Is A PropositionCon seems to think that Atheism is just a negation of a proposition, but not a proposition itself. This is false. Atheism is the proposition that there is no God, or that God does not exist. It is the view of the world without God, or Gods. Therefore, it is clearly a worldview. Why My Opponent's Definitions?My opponent started this debate and has the burden of proof. My opponent must demonstrate why we must go with his definitions of "world view" under another. My opponent has clearly tried picking out the most complicated definitions of the word to try and trap me. However, this is not necessary. Unless my opponent shows that we have to accept his definitions of world view over mine; he has not case. I presented the definition from Oxford in my last round:"A particular philosophy of life or conception of the world."[5] Here is another definition from Webster:"The way someone thinks about the world"[6]Strong Atheism is a conception of the world without God, or Gods. It is the way someone thinks about the world (a world without God). Therefore, Strong Atheism is indeed a world view. Lets say we accept my opponent's stretched out requirements. Atheism still meets all of them: Epistemology of Strong Atheism: The knowledge of God's non-existence Metaphysics of Strong Atheism: The belief that the ultimate nature of reality is Godless Cosmology of Strong Atheism: The belief that God did not cause the origin of man or the universe Teleology of Strong Atheism: The belief that there is no purpose, as there is no God to give us purpose Theology of Strong Atheism: The belief that God does not exist Anthropology of Strong Atheism: The belief that the nature of man is Godless Axiology of Strong Atheism: The belief that God is not the source of value Clearly, Atheism is a world view. Either way, until my opponent gives us a reason as to why his definitions of world view are necessary over mine; he has no case. ConclusionMy opponent is a Weak Atheist, and I agree that Weak Atheism is not a world view, The problem is that Strong Atheism is a world view. Since Strong Atheism is the definition of "Atheism" that I accepted this debate under; the resolution has been affirmed. Con hasn't even given us a reason to reject my definitions in favor or his. Even if we assume that his requirements of a world view hold; I proved that Strong Atheism meets those requirements. Strong Atheism is a world view. It is a view of the world without God, or Gods. The resolution has been affirmed. Sources[1] http://wiki.ironchariots.org...[2] http://www.update.uu.se...[3] http://www.infidels.org...[4] http://atheism.about.com...[5] http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...[6] http://www.merriam-webster.com...