The BELIEF in atheist DOGMA is a MENTAL DISORDER (AKA INSANITY):

""I intend to show beyond any reasonable doubt that atheism is not a mental disorder." I never claimed it was." If you're not claiming that atheism is a mental disorder, then what exactly are you claiming? The topic for the debate is that the "belief in atheist dogma is a mental disorder." What exactly is meant by "atheist dogma" if not being an atheist? You should have defined "atheist dogma." "" To begin, I will define all terms to be used in the debate. I will then examine characteristics of atheism and atheists" There is no such thing as an atheist, actually." Well, this is just blatantly false. All I need to do to disprove this statement is prove that there is at least one atheist in existence. I am an atheist. Ergo, your statement is false; there is such a thing as an atheist. ""reason and logic" Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between reason and logic on the one hand, and irrationality and illogic on the other." This is hardly relevant to the debate. We're not talking about religion here; we're talking about atheism. Your personal beliefs about the role of a deity in our understanding of knowledge, intelligence, and logic don't impact whether or not "the belief in atheist dogma is a mental disorder." ""that atheism is not," I never made any claims about "atheism."" Once more, what ARE you making claims about, then? What exactly do you mean when you refer to "atheist dogma?" ""in fact, a mental disorder" Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between mental health and mental disorders." Regardless of if this statement is true or not, that's not relevant. Your personal beliefs about the role of a deity in our thought process is not relevant to the debate. ""a disruption in normal thinking, feeling, mood, behavior, interpersonal interactions, or daily functioning" That is exactly what the belief in atheist Dogma entails." This is an unfounded claim. You can claim that "atheist Dogma" entails that. However, without an good explanation or good evidence to back it, your claim means nothing. "The definitions of atheism and atheist that you posted were incorrect." I used definitions from a very credible and well-known dictionary. I even provided links to the source. The definitions are valid because they have the backing of many professional linguists were have been involved in the making of the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. "I never made any claims about being an atheist, and in fact, there is no such thing as an atheist." I'm repeating myself, but what exactly ARE you making claims about then? And also, I showed earlier that there is, in fact, such a thing as an atheist. ""an atheist is effectively someone who does not believe in any god or gods" That definition is incorrect." You can claim the definition to be incorrect, but that does not make it incorrect. We, as speakers of a language, collectively give meaning to words. One cannot simply redefine a word to one's liking. Words have set definitions set by major dictionaries. " "So, the argument being made is that a lack of belief in any god or gods is a mental disorder." That is definitely not my argument -- that is your straw man logical fallacy." Well, your argument was never made clear. If "the belief in atheist dogma" doesn't mean being an atheist, what does it mean, then? " "So, the argument being made is that a lack of belief in any god or gods is a mental disorder." That is definitely not my argument -- that is your straw man logical fallacy. "atheism doesn't inherently have anything to do with medicine, physicians, or the practice of medicine." I never claimed it did, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. "nothing about belief in a god or gods relates to medicine." I never claimed that either -- straw man." I never claimed that you directly claimed any of these things. I worked from standard definitions to the words you used. By using those words, you associated your argument with the definitions of the words. If you did not intend for your argument to be associated with those words, you should have chosen different words to express your argument or you should have defined exactly what you meant when you used those words in your argument. This applies to most of your other claims of straw men. I won't address them specifically, though, in order to keep my character count low. ""Therefore, atheism fails to have the first basic characteristic of a mental disorder." I never made a claim about atheism, so that's another straw man on your part." As I've stated previously during this round, you never clearly defined what you meant by "atheist dogma." The simplest meaning, and thus the one most likely true as per Occam's Razor, was atheism. If you meant something so specific, you should have defined what exactly you meant by "atheist dogma." "The next characteristic of mental disorders to be extracted from the above definition is that it they are "marked primarily by sufficient disorganization of personality, mind, or emotions."" That is exactly what the belief in atheist Dogma entails." That is an unfounded claim. You can claim that "atheist Dogma" entails something, but unless there is a good explanation or some valid evidence, the claim is meaningless. ""Additionally, nothing about a lack of belief" The belief in atheist Dogma is a belief system, not a "lack of belief."" Atheism is actually inherently a lack of belief. Atheism is defined as "a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods." The reason atheism is a lack of belief is because it isn't any sort of coherent religious belief system. It is, by definition, a lack of belief in a deity. Now as for "the belief in atheist Dogma," it's not very clear what exactly you're referring to. It would be clearer if you defined that term. "The final characteristic of mental disorders to be found in the above definition is that they are "typically associated with a disruption in normal thinking, feeling, mood, behavior, interpersonal interactions, or daily functioning."" That is exactly what the belief in atheist Dogma entails." Again, you never defined "atheist Dogma." ""calling atheists "demonic."" I never made that statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. Also, there is no such thing as an atheist. "As per the definition of atheist, nothing is inherently demonic about all atheists." I never made that statement either, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. Also, there is no such thing as an atheist." Take a look at this quote from your OP: "a believer in atheist Dogma would be so demonic." You definitely did claim that. "" that no god or gods exist to claiming that the Statue of Liberty doesn't exist." I never made that statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. "This is an inaccurate analogy." The analogy in your straw man may or may not be accurate, but it was not my analogy. My actual analogy, however, is 100% accurate." You claimed that "The atheist may as well make the claim, without evidence, that the Statue of Liberty doesn't exist because of lack of evidence.." Clearly the disagreement comes from definitions. You appear to have some other definition regarding atheism. I used the standard definition of atheist. By that definition, your analogy fails. If you intended some other definition to be used, you should have specified that. Also, if atheists don't exist, as you claimed later, why write about what the atheist would claim? ""The existence of a deity isn't falsifiable; it can't be proved or disproved." Yes it can." You may believe it possible to prove this to yourself. However, it is not possible to objectively prove such a thing. The debate regarding the existence of a deity has quite literally been going for centuries. It's possible to believe in a deity. However, the existence of a deity cannot be objectively proven. "" The existence of the Statue of Liberty, on the other hand, can be proved or disproved by simply going to New York and observing if it is there or not." God can also be proved by observation. In fact, millions of people have done this very thing before. Therefore, this analogy does indeed hold up." The difference here is in the observation. The Statue of Liberty can be physically and objectively observed and verified. A deity cannot be objectively observed. Even if you believe that you have observed a deity, you cannot prove that it is a deity. ""My opponent then states that because atheists don't have any objective basis for morality, they end up committing "horrible activities." " I never made that statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. Also, there is no such thing as an atheist. " There is no evidence that being an atheist leads to such behaviors." I never made that statement, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. Also, there is no such thing as an atheist." Here is a quote from your OP: "Because it fails as a worldview to provide the basis for objective moral values, the belief in atheist Dogma inevitably leads to corruption of moral character, which naturally leads to such horrible activities as..." You do make that claim. ""in my research, I was unable to find such a definition for insanity." That statement of yours falls under the logical fallacy of argument from ignorance." Call it ignorance if you want. I used standard definitions, but you appear to have made one up. "The definitions that you provided were almost all invalid (except one), but all the definitions that I provided are valid." I used definitions from a standard dictionary. You cannot simply declare standard definitions invalid. "You lost this debate: Thanks for your time! =)" That is quite a large, unfounded claim to make when the debate isn't even halfway over.