Atheism is a Religion

My opponent begins by saying that he has raised points I have not addressed. I would like to remind both him and the observers that he has set a limit on the number of characters within a given post, so he is at fault for the things he criticizes me for. Logicians such as Aquinas are famous for noting that logically, proving a negative is infinitely more difficult than a positive, so I will try to prove his points groundless in the very limited frame of characters and opportunity he has allotted me. •On politics: "Some Atheists, for their own political reasons, assert that Atheism is not a religion but instead is the total absence of religion. This allows them to spread their Atheistic beliefs freely in societies which insist on ‘separation of church and state.'" My opponent states here that atheists have an agenda of some sort in the political realm, and that atheists assert that atheism is not a religion in order to get the upper hand politically. This is a question of motive and not of fact, so this point is completely and utterly irrelevant to this debate, but I will address it regardless because I did not like the smugness with which he asserted that I conceded this. Atheists do, indeed, have a political agenda. That agenda is critical thinking, truth, and skepticism. So if you acknowledge that these points have no place in a given state, I suggest you move to Iran or North Korea and preach conventional obedience there, where it will be rewarded and appreciated by the ruling powers. Again, there are no "atheistic beliefs". There is only one ‘belief' that is required of atheists, the recognition of its members that a God(s) does not exist. If you'd like to attempt to establish a theocracy that disregards the constitutionality of the SOCAS and ignores the freedoms of the minority of it's citizenry, I implore you to fail trying. •7 Dimensions: as far as I can tell, you have put forth absolutely no evidence in favor of atheism fulfilling all 7 of these characteristics. Had you not been afraid to fully debate this topic, and had you not limited the word count, I could completely discredit all 7 of them. But I cannot because you have imposed the character count on me. oNarrative (where everything came from) – You say that atheists claim that evolution is "where everything came from", everything I'm assuming to be organic organisms. This is false. Atheists only claim that evolution was the mechanism by which organic entities were able to come to be, a framework if you will. Atheists do not claim that evolution is the starting point of life because evolution is a principle and not a physical entity. This means evolution is the HOW, and not the WHERE. This point is therefore completely wrong/ void. Also, please stop calling these ‘my [your]' point(s). You copied and pasted them word for word from the aforementioned websites. They are not your points, no more than a purse stolen by a robber is ‘his purse'. •Faith: my opponent goes on to say he could apply the same principles of evidence to belief in a God. I do not have faith that the universe came to be somehow because I can see that it is in being presently. Our point of contention is that you say, and therefore need to prove, a God brought it into being, and I say that one did not. I am not arguing against the existence of the universe, I am arguing the point that a) I do not know how it came to be, but b) that a God is most certainly not how it came to be. I do not need faith to say a God didn't do it or that I don't know. These are based on the premise of justified belief. Refer to last post. •On my ‘non-sequitur': The point my opponent attempts to make is both logically and verbally incoherent. A non-sequitur is a point that does not logically follow a premise. He is using verbose terminology in an attempt to confuse the reader. He says: "the con tray to such a thing [the sun] is made obvious…" Yes, the contrary to the lack of a sun is obvious… No sun. How does this disprove my point on rationally justified belief? Also, how does this not logically follow from the idea that without a sun, our solar system would not exist? "…the contrary to something as abstract as faith is not." Umm… The contrary to faith is no faith. The contrary to envy is satisfaction. These are abstract principles that have opposites. Still unaware of your point. He goes on to say that because evidence points to the lack of the existence of a cosmic being, I am relying on faith to assert that one does not exist. I have adequately addressed this position in my last post in "justified belief". I am justified in claiming there isn't a God in the same why I am justified in claiming there isn't a unicorn in Alpha Centauri. This conversation is still irrelevant to the matter at hand. I refer you to it. If you are insulted by my example, I suggest you do not bring your beliefs into the open criticism of such a website as this. You have made a conscious decision to debate this topic and will meet the full force of my humorous capacity. You don't like it? I'm sorry, leave. I will not rescind the statement. My opponent proceeds to back pedal in his claim to his definition of a religion. Since he is being rather shady regarding the language he's used, I will narrow the definition to the following prerequisites: "Religion-a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency." Every major religion fulfills all 4 of these. Atheism makes no claim to the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe, whereas Islam, Judaism, and Christianity do. It only addresses "superhuman agency(ies)". Atheism is therefore not a religion. Yes, my quote does express the lack of. Justified belief, when concerned with proving negatives, is grounds enough for claims to the contrary. I am also unsure as to how "atheism is arguing for -,…" Please elaborate. He says: "not collecting stamps and bald are not negatives, whereas atheism is." A negative is: "characterized by the absence of distinguishing or marked qualities or features; lacking positive attributes." (dictionary.com) Baldness addresses the absence, or negative, of hair. Not collecting stamps does the same with the collecting of stamps. Atheism does the same with God. The point stands.