Resolved: Atheism is Not a Religion

I applaud my opponent for his well thought out rebuttals. Now on to my defense. "Nowhere in the entire definition my opponent gave does he state that religion has to be organized, or that organization is a prime requisite of religion. " [If organization is not a prerequisite of religion then I ask why are there any religions? Organization is required because without it an idea carries no importance. Let's say that I invent a religion and give guidelines for that religion, and the last guideline is that you don't need to follow the guidelines as long as you think this one thing. In effect what I've just created and would like to call a religion is not truly a religion. This is what Atheism is. ] "There is absolutely a relation. The relation is that if there is no proof of atheism "one who believes (belief) that there is no deity" then atheism contains an element of faith. Or, phrased differently, Atheism is a belief of which there is no solid proof, thus to believe in atheism you must have faith (firm belief in something for which there is no proof). " [First I would like to state that there is a relation between the two, I was wrong in saying that there was no relation. With that said Con's original argument against this contention did nothing to refute it. He made the argument that because Atheism revolves around a single common belief that it involves faith. This is untrue because one of the accepted definitions of 'belief' is: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence. The key phrase there being "examination of evidence. "] "Or both religion and atheism use faith in addition to inconclusive evidence to establish their belief. If evidence isn't conclusive than it is certain. If a belief is not certain then it is not proven. Since it is not proven, you must use faith in conjunction with your inconclusive evidence to validate your belief. Essentially to beleive in anything one must have faith. If the belief was certain it would be a fact in which case you would know it, not believe it. " [Beliefs do not need proof. I will clarify this. To believe in something you must examine the evidence of a thing and decide that this evidence proof. For instance, I believe in the theory of gravity, there is no absolute proof that gravity exists but the evidence in favor of gravity proves to me that it does exist. This is why belief does not equal faith. ] "Atheists also do not need any inconclusive evidence that a deity does not exists to establish their belief. Many atheists became atheist when a tragic event occurred in their life that they felt God would not have allowed to happen. Your entire argument that religion actively rejects the same inconclusive evidence that supports that a deity exists is completely opinionated and doesn't even make sense. Why would people of religion reject evidence that confirms their belief? To many the evidence validates and even causes a belief. " [The tragic events in these specific people's lives is the evidence that affirms their belief. And what I was referring to is a verse in "The Bible" where God has a conversation with a prophet where the prophet asks why God doesn't just show himself to the world. God responds by saying that he will never do this because he wants those who follow Him to follow Him because they have faith that He exists. Not because there is evidence that supports His existence. I wish I could remember what verse this is but I can't find it anywhere. ]