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

My opponent wrote: "I am an atheist" No you aren't: There is no such 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." ""that atheism is not," I never made any claims about "atheism."" Once more, what ARE you making claims about, then?" The subject of the debate is the belief in atheist Dogma. ""in fact, a mental disorder" Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between mental health and mental disorders. ""a disruption in normal thinking, feeling, mood, behavior, interpersonal interactions, or daily functioning" That is exactly what the belief in atheist Dogma entails." The definitions of atheism and atheist that you posted were incorrect. "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?" The subject of this debate is the belief in atheist Dogma (your religion) "Well, your argument was never made clear." Yes it was -- my actual argument (which you have utterly failed to address thus far, BTW) is clearly enunciated in my OP. If "the belief in atheist dogma" doesn't mean being an atheist, what does it mean, then?" The phrase "the belief in atheist Dogma" refers to the religion that YOU follow. " "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." ""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." All of your statements in this debate are atheist Dogma -- the belief in atheist Dogma is your own personal faith-based and unsupported religious belief. "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 belief in atheist Dogma refers to the religion that YOU follow. "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." "... some valid evidence, the claim is meaningless." Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between valid evidence and invalid evidence. Without God, nobody could make an objective distinction between the meaningful and the 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." Your entire paragraph, directly above, is atheist Dogma. "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." ""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." Yes, I did, and it is a fact. "" 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.."" Oops -- my mistake. I honestly meant to write "The believer in atheist Dogma may as well make the claim, without evidence, that the Statue of Liberty doesn't exist because of lack of evidence." Please forgive my minor semantic error in that one sentence, and please accept that I meant to write the corrected version. In fact, there is no such thing as an atheist, so yes, I admit that was my mistake. =) "Also, if atheists don't exist, as you claimed later, why write about what the atheist would claim?" Because of a minor semantic error on my part. My main point stands, however, and I have already corrected the error in that one single sentence, directly above. ""The existence of a deity isn't falsifiable; it can't be proved or disproved." Yes it can." "You may believe" I have no beliefs, actually. " it is not possible to objectively prove such a thing." I never claimed it was, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. " the existence of a deity cannot be objectively proven." I never claimed it could, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. "" 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." God can be objectively observed and verified. "A deity cannot be objectively observed." I never claimed that one could, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. " Even if you believe that you have observed a deity, you cannot prove that it is a deity." I never made either claim, so that is another straw man logical fallacy on your part. Also, it is a patently incorrect and illogical statement, just as much as the following statement would also be patently incorrect and illogical: "Even if you believe that you have observed a Statue of Liberty, you cannot prove that it is a Statue of Liberty." (Please note that the above statement is not my actual stance in this debate -- I am only using it as an example to demonstrate how ridiculous and unfounded your above statement about God was). ""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. Yes, I did, and it is true. ""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." It is ignorance: Your personal inability to either find or understand what "insanity" means is neither valid evidence for your side nor a valid refutation of my side -- it is merely your logical fallacy of "argument from ignorance." The definitions that you provided were almost all invalid (except one), but all the definitions that I provided are valid. You lost this debate: Thanks for your time! =)