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

During this round, I shall be continuing to refute some statements from my opponent. ""I follow no religion" Yes, you do -- the religion you follow is the belief in atheist Dogma." I don't wish to be rude, but when did you get the right to tell me what my religion is? I follow no religion. I have no religion. End of story. ""Even if you can observe God, you can't objectively verify it." Yes, we can. Also, without God, nobody could objectively verify anything." Like I explained last round, there is no way to know with certainty if you have observed or communicated with a god. Even if you believe you have, there is no objective measure to determine if you are correct. Humans are physical creatures; we can determine and see things physically. However, we don't have the same spiritual sense. Also, like I have stated numerous times, your beliefs about the role of the deity you believe in are not relevant to this debate. "If you actually have no way of knowing whether or not what you observe is true, then you are personally unqualified to engage in any debate, including this one." I never stated that it is impossible to know whether or not you observe in any case is true, so this is a misrepresentation of my argument, also known as a straw man logical fallacy. I stated that it is not possible to determine if what you observe is true regarding deities and gods. This is because our minds mess with us. For example, even if I believe some higher power is communicating with me, I can't determine with certainty that my mind isn't simply playing tricks on me. Now, this doesn't mean I am unqualified to engage in debate. I can verify many things about the world. Some things, however, are simply out of the reach of us humans, at least for the time being. "If you actually lack spiritual vision, then any and all statements that you may personally produce about God, whether positive or negative, must necessarily be unreliable." That's more or less the point I was making. My argument was that our observations about higher powers are inherently unreliable. "There is only one God." That is your personal belief, and you are entitled to it. However, it means nothing in debate. Additionally, it is not relevant. "You are a polytheist, but your polytheistic belief system is false. (Polytheism is actually a subset of the belief in atheist Dogma)." No, I am not a polytheist. As I have stated before, I am an atheist. However, I am open-minded. I am open to the idea of any god or gods if sufficient evidence could be provided. As for polytheism being of subset of atheist dogma, that simply makes no sense. Atheism, and hence any dogma that could potentially go with it, is inherently a lack of belief in any gods. This does not just include the god you believe in; it includes all gods. Atheists are not polytheists. "Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between a valid definition and an invalid one." Statements like this, regardless of if they are true or not, are not relevant to this debate. ""He defines insanity as behavior out of the range of normalcy." I never made that statement, so that is yet another straw man logical fallacy on your part." Here is a quote from your OP: "In fact, most psychologists define "insanity" as displaying behaviors and beliefs that fall outside the standard range of normalcy." As you can see, I did paraphrase, hence why I didn't have quotation marks when I stated that. However, you definitely did say that, so it is not a straw man. "I won this debate handily: Thanks for your time! =)" Well, possible unfortunately for you, you do not determine who wins or loses this debate. Thank you for your time as well, though. I always enjoy a good debate.