Atheism is a Religion

My last response is going to be kind of rushed. But I hope this doesn't make a difference, we have been going over the same ground alot anyway.Some remarks by ProPro says..."The claim that there is no supernatural Creator means that they are saying that the universe and existence has a natural explanation, there is no other possibility."An atheist could leave the options open that there is no explanation at all, or a supernatural explanation (although not a personal creator one) or that asking about what caused the universe is an irrational question (time and causation issues). But in anycase Pros claim that the atheist has no other possibility is false.Court Case Now Pro presents a reasoning from the court. I would point out here Pro hasn't presented a sustained argument on the courts reasoning but only now uses a reasoned argument. Lets have a look at the reasoning of......"Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics" 1) It's not clear here what definition of atheism the court is using here.2) Atheism doesn't have a code of ethics, in the same way that "awitchsim" doesn't have a code of ethics.What is Religion & Criteria of religion Pro says I was joking to use the NBA, in once sense I was, but in a more fundamental argumentative way what I was showing is how flawed this criteria is cause it results in the NBA being declared a religion. Pro once again uses his old line of argument. Atheists do this, atheists do that, atheists believe this, atheists believe that, therefore all those things are atheism too. For the billionth time............No.What is atheism ?Pro says..."Con says that atheism is not the beliefs of individual atheists. That is ludicrous"And here it is again..............Pros definition included that atheism is the lack of belief in a deity.Pro presents a thread of mine, thanks for reading I guess, suffice to say I don't agree with his characterization here. I invite anyone to read it if they want. My precision of what atheism is or isn't wasn't a concern of mine since I had some points I wanted to address and what those points become obvious once the thing is read.What logical necessity follows from atheism ? not even the non existence of the supernatural follows with logical necessity from atheism.I refer back to what Hitchens has to say on this matter..."You ought to have the courage to answer the question which one is regularly asked, "Are you an atheist or not?" Yes, I will say, I am. You can't tell anything else about me. You can't tell anything else about what I think, about what I believe, about what my politics are or my other convictions""Unfalsifiable propositions, Dogma & Faith Pro says..."Con's alien analogy is not valid, he's making presuppositions and calling it a comparison."Oh cmon, I just addressed this last round. I made it quite clear that my argument here was about how it isn't dogmatic or an act of faith to deny a proposition that is unfalsifiable due to all the caveats and rationalizations thrown in. Gods/Aliens in your room/Fairy's/Living in the matrix take your pick. Presuppositions of the existence or non existence of the natural or supernatural or super super dupernatural don't even come into play.Atheism is a religion is unintelligiblePro says..."Con says that "Atheism is a religion is unintelligible". That should be changed to "Atheism is a religion is unpalatable", because that's his motivation for denial. It doesn't really matter what I say in this debate, he's going to call the idea nonsense because he doesn't like it. To that I can only say that if he could refute my reasons for believing it then I'll come over to his side. Hitchens, aliens, not playing tennis, and trying to hide his faith behind a definition just isn't cutting it."Utter rant plus throw in some ad hominem for good measure. I have given many reasons why I think its non sense, at least in regard to what Pro has argued for and their justification for it. What is atheism ? Shut up atheistsConsider where Pro talks about..."Essentially, awitchism is something that seemingly doesn't exist, it's nothing, but most of us are awitchists. That's an example of a lack of belief, and it isn't a religion. Atheism should mirror awitchism,"You had better not argue against a religious proposition otherwise that makes your denial of that proposition a religion ? No.Consider for example that there are awitchists that argue against the claims of witchcraft, which in some forms plays it part in children being tortured to death because of accusations of witch craft [1]. Does this mean that non witchcraft and awitchists are practicing a religion by arguing against such claims ? of course not, like wise so is the case for atheists.ConclusionIn the first round I pointed out two critical questions, when considering is atheism a religion, those being.....1) What is atheism ?2) What is religion ?I maintain that after some back and forth that Pros concept of atheism beyond the definition they gave is untenable, and Pros idea of what counts as a religion results in the NBA being declared a religion. So that's it for me.Vote Con, vote early, vote often.Sources [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk...