Atheism is a religion founded on faith.

1. Disbelief is Not a Belief Pro did not offer any logical rebuttal to my claim that disbelief is not a belief. He merely asserted that it is. Does he really believe that not collecting stamps is a hobby? Not doing X does not imply that one is doing not-X as an activity of the same type as X. In order to pin down Pro's logic I asked him a series of questions, asking if he believed in leprechauns, and ultimately asking if he did not believe in leprechauns, did that mean he had joined a religion of non-leprechaun believers. Pro did not answer any question posed. We are left to suppose that he knew that he had no answers logically consistent with his support for the resolution. I challenge Pro to answer every question I have asked, and to attempt to rationalize his answers with his support for the resolution. I gave references to Buddhists being an atheist religion, with the Wikipedia article in turn providing more references. See also, http://www.religionfacts.com...: "As seen in the Basic Points of Buddhism, one doctrine agreed upon by all branches of modern Buddhism is that 'this world is not created and ruled by a God.' .." Pro provided a reference to a site defining Buddhism. That site makes no reference to any deity as being a basis for Buddhist beliefs. It confirms my contention that there is none. That leaves Pro asserting that Buddhism is not an atheist religion without any support from scholars or from Buddhists. The virtually universal scholarly verdict is that the Buddhist disbelief is atheism. This means that scholars adopt the definition that weak atheism is atheism. Con's opinion relies upon the false assumption that "disbelief" means that a negative conclusion has been reached. If I ask the average person if they believe the Higgs Boson or the Ivory Billed Woodpecker exist, most people would say they haven't considered the question. That status does not bond them to a tribe of non-believers. Nonetheless, they disbelieve; they definitely do not believe. Pro states, "My opponent proclaims that 'Buddhists who follow the teaching not to even consider the question of whether or not there are gods[,]....don't believe' in a god. This is not true. They only choose not to ask." I challenge Pro to clarify how "not considering the question" differs from "choosing not to ask." "In my first round, I argued that the belief that a god doesn't exist is theoretical. Observing a theory while acknowledging that the theory may be wrong is to hold faith in something you acknowledge cannot be proven." Does Pro have a theory about the properties of the Higgs Boson? I will assume not. So does that imply that Pro has made a leap of faith in particle theory? I say, not at all. "The crux of my point seems to have been missed by my opponent. It is a matter of faith to believe there is no deity." I understand Pro's point completely. His point is wrong, because the does not understand that "disbelief" is a fundamentally different animal from "belief." It is exactly like "not collecting stamps" is not a hobby, because it is in a fundamentally different class of things. "Not a hobby" is not in the class "hobby." "Not believing" is not in the class of "believing." I challenge Pro to use the stamp collecting analogy to explain why he thinks they are in the same class. 2. A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe There are, for example, certain beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe in order to meet the definition of the Catholic religion. It is not the cause that a majority of Catholics believe in the divinity of Christ; it is a requirement inherent in the religion. It's true that not every Catholic believes in every tenet of the religion, but nonetheless there is a substantial body of belief to which Catholic must subscribe. To find out what is required to be a member of the faith, one can access the church canons. So what are the body of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe that Pro claims that are common to all atheists? He implies, "Their desire to rid any public acknowledgment of an existence of God ..." and "They demand science be taught without the examination of possible interference by yet unknown forces, unless those forces do not involve a deity." Those two things are unrelated to "the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" nor are they common to all atheists. I don't know of any atheists who object to "public acknowledgment of an existence of God." None to my knowledge would in any way restrict any public acknowledgment done in churches or on private property. The controversy arises with respect to separation of church and state in state-sponsored activities. In those cases it is most-often ACLU types who actually are believers, but who also have adopted a code of political correctness. I took an informal poll at an atheist forum on the web and found that about 90% had no objection to saying "Merry Christmas." Similarly, few had objections to public Christmas Trees and such. Pro is further making the mistake of narrowing his perspective to American culture, even at that an inaccurate stereotype. A recent poll in Japan showed over 60% to be atheists, yet virtually no one objects to official state-sponsorship of Buddhist temples or Shinto shrines. (Shinto has many deities.) They value tradition more highly than belief or non-belief. Most of the old-style Soviets were atheists who believed in authoritarian Communism. Many contemporary American atheists (I wouldn't say most, but many.) are Libertarians. These are radically different world views. With respect to science being restricted to science, that has little to do with atheism. Most scientists are not atheists, yet virtually all scientists insist that science be restricted to science. The scientific consensus on Evolution is 99.86% affirming it, so it is established science. So there is an educational consensus as well; it is the same reason that flat-earth and an earth-centered universe are not offered as alternatives to round earth and heliocentrism. Neither the restriction of science to science nor the decision to teach according to 99+% consensus are religious beliefs of atheists; they are common to believers as well. Note that Buddhism has a different theory of earth's origins, one of endless cycles of reincarnation, that is both atheist and not evolution-based. It is not true that all atheists have the beliefs ascribed by Pro. Pro notes "A scientist may theorize that dark matter exist because without it, the universe would be unbalanced." However, dark matter is subject to experimental verification, so it is science. Religion is not subject to verification, so it is not science. I challenged Pro to make a list of the body of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe that Pro claims that are common to Christopher Hitchens and the Dahlia Lama, two prominent atheists. He did not reply, of course. I'll now add Stalin, Mao, Einstein, Mark Twain, and Bill Gates to the list. Remember, it is a "body of beliefs" and the beliefs must relate to the "cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." Belief in gravity doesn't count, for example, because does not meet the second criteria. My point is that Pro needs to get beyond the first page of Google hits and understand the larger perspective. It would be unfair to generalize about Christianity from the first page of Google hits either. Non-belief is not a belief and atheists have no body of common beliefs that define a religion. The resolution is negated.