Is modern atheism just dressed up bigotry? Yes.

I'll state this clearly for the viewers, since I don't think Pro would be able to acknowledge this; Pro needed to show that "modern atheism is just dressed up bigotry" and his first step towards doing that would be to show that "not believing in the existence of deities is the hatred and intolerance of a group or groups of people." Pro didn't even attempt to do this. Since this is the final round, I won't post any new arguments. I don't think this is a problem though, because I don't think that I've needed any new arguments since the first round. The statement I'm against is "not believing in the existence of deities is the hatred and intolerance of a group or groups of people." This seems to me to be plainly incorrect; not believing in deities simply isn't hatred or intolerance of a group of people. I will go through what Pro did for his forth and final round below, and how it didn't support or even defend his proposition. Pro starts of by presenting his irrelevant to his proposition claims, he says that the root of the problem is that I'm not denying those contentions. The fact is, is that I don't need to. They don't support his proposition. He talks about atheists and bigotry, but not about atheism and bigotry. It's similar to claiming that someone of a particular religion is a terrorist, and extrapolating that claim to cover everyone from that religion, claiming that they are all terrorists. This is obviously a silly and incorrect thing to do, it almost seems like bigotry itself. He then says something about agnostic atheism and I, but I'm not sure what he's saying exactly. He says something about an "atheist though pyramid" which I don't understand either. Then he seems to think that it's important for me to defend my own atheism, as if it has any relevance to this debate (note: it doesn't). He then claims that I've claimed "there is no bigotry", which I haven't. There is bigotry among atheists and theists, and I won't deny that, but I don't need to. This debate is about whether atheism is (just dressed up) bigotry, not about whether some atheists are bigots. I will leave the readers to decide whether the atheists he mentioned are truly "bigots", but I will also remind them that this itself doesn't really affect the debate. Pro then says I haven't provided a single source, which is patently untrue. He says that I've ignored the "evidence", which is incorrect. I've replied to most " if not all " of his "evidence", it's just that this "evidence" doesn't actually support his proposition. He then says something silly about bigotry and disbelief, where I think he's trying to make a strawman, but I'm not 100% sure. I've never said that if you have a disbelief (hint: we all do) that you don't have to address that disbelief. Pro then conflates the "antics" of atheists with the "antics of atheism". Please not that atheists aren't identical to atheism, atheists are people and atheism describes a position of those people. Pro then posts two links showing what appears to be bigotry against atheists; one states that the participants in the study thought that atheists were as likely to do dishonourable things. This in my opinion is bigotry, and also kind of ironic. He then makes many unsubstantiated claims that atheism is a hate group and about what "atheists are saying". He compares atheists to Nazis and their victims to Jews. He goes on a tangent and starts talking about funding and how religious people are discriminated against in this area, which he doesn't substantiate. He then says something unintelligible about nihilism and bigotry. He then says that atheists don't accept his claim that they are all bigots simply because he doesn't agree with atheism, and not because they actually disagree with him. Pro then says that I advocate something about "disbelief" which I don't. He then posts a few web-pages which talk about certain atheists and claim that "atheism is trendy " again". A few of these seem slightly bias against atheism. He then says that the "outside world" has "condemned" certain atheists and goes on to disagree with the position of atheism. He says that I'm "not even trying to pretend that the behaviour of atheists isn't often scandalous", which I'm not. I agree that both atheists and theists often act scandalously, taking into account how many people live on this planet. He claims that my entire argument is that "disbelief means it's ok". I have never argued this. My argument is that atheism isn't bigotry, for reasons I've outlined above. He then claims that I don't like being a bigot, in some sort of loaded question which isn't even a question " a loaded statement. I am not a bigot, and if you read through the forum, you'll see him refuse to provide evidence of my "bigotry", let alone provide such evidence in this debate. He portrays that my claim is that "atheism cannot be held accountable because of a single magic word: disbelief." I have outlined above why atheism isn't bigotry, it can't be "held accountable" simply because it isn't bigotry. Pro hasn't provided a single argument showing that "atheism is bigotry", although has has claimed that some atheists are bigots and that certain people don't trust atheists. I have shown that atheism isn't bigotry. This means that Pro hasn't supported his proposition that "atheism is just dressed up bigotry" and I have show that to not be the case. I will now address voting directly. Conduct: Pro has created several strawmen as you can see above, saying that I've made claims and arguments which I haven't. S&G: Pro's grammar has confused me on many occasions, and quite possibly you too. Convincing arguments: Pro didn't actually provide any arguments for his proposition, and I provided on (crucial) argument against it. Reliable sources: This one's a toss up. Were his sources reliable? If his sources needed to actually provide evidence for his proposition for them to be counted, then I believe that I've provided more reliable sources. So it's now over to you, the readers and voters, to make your decisions.