Atheism is based on Faith

Since this is my final round, I'm not going to introduce anything new to the debate either, merely summarize the arguments that have been presented and defend why they negate the resolution either through presumption or refutation. In this debate it seems the main issues were semantically based, which is fine. I don't have any problem with that, however it creates two levels of argumentation that need to be addressed; and while I tried to structure the debate to accommodate for that, Pro seems to have ignored the substance of his premises, as I'll expand on below. Each of my arguments that are sectioned in bold are independent reasons why either Pro's case is unsound or the resolution is negated. With that said, if I have won any of those sections, arguments should go to Con, since I believe I've done my job in this debate at either refuting Pro's case or winning my own. --------------------1. The Conditionala. Black-and-White Fallacy/Burden ShiftingIn my last round, I asked if Pro would be able to substantiate a warrant as to why there should be a distinction between evidence and proof when the Oxford Dictionary uses them interchangeably. Inserting his own definitions for the words is not a warranted claim to justify the difference. If I call a dog a cat, and define it as a cat, it's not magically now a cat. Now, my intention here was to show the fallacy in saying only absolute evidence is acceptable, when that's clearly not how it works (black/white fallacy). By undermining the conditional here, I'm able to establish a flaw in Pro's case by attacking the link in P1. If "P" cannot be accepted, the "Q" cannot follow from it. To be clear, I'm not saying "Not P, therefore not Q", all I'm arguing is that Pro's BoP hasn't been upheld. Pro's last argument is that if evidence and proof are interchangeable, then atheists have no evidence either, which clearly doesn't follow. Again, he keeps trying to defend this black or white paradigm, which I've shown repeatedly is fallacious. On the lack of belief being an assertive claim, I don't know what else to say. I've shown there's a difference between making a claim, and dismissing that same claim. As with a court of law, like I mentioned in my last round, the defendant does not have to prove s/he's innocent, the prosecution has to prove s/he's guilty. Just because atheism implies a lack of belief in God or gods, does not mean it is making the assertion "there are no gods. "Disbelief doesn't equate to a positive statement that "X is un/true". Pro's analogy with ghosts doesn't hold up. If someone is lacking a belief in ghosts that doesn't mean they're saying "no ghosts exist;" all they're saying is they don't have enough reason to believe they do. Pro misses the point about BoP. If atheism has no inherent BoP, then the conditional doesn't work. Atheism doesn't argue for something, it's arguing against something. Atheism couldn't exist without theism. The conditional that there is no evidence against God's existence (implying that therefore it's a possibility) relies on burden shifting, that merely conjuring up an idea gives it any credibility. Since the first premise relies on burden shifting, the construct isn't logically sound, which negates Pro's case. b. EquivocationPro argues I conceded the point, however that's because the point he made about gnostic atheism and agnostic atheism is non-responsive to my contention. My intention here is to show that atheism doesn't require gnosticism, so this equivocation blocks the link from "P" to "Q". Since this went conceded, P1 fails and Pro has no case, which warrants a negation of the resolution on presumption.2. The Linka. Non-SequiturI'll let the voters decide if I conceded this. As I see it, the non sequitur stands and hasn't been sufficiently responded to. b. Unfounded ClaimPro asks if, since there's no absolute proof, if the belief in God is false. My answer is that it is an unsupported assertion. Now, my contention here was to show that, although no absolute certainty may intuitively lend itself to conclude that atheism is based on faith, but it's quite the opposite on the assumption that absolute proof is necessary. If absolute proof is necessary, then the assertion that God exists is unfounded and justified as dismissible. If we are able to dismiss assertions that do not have absolute proof, then atheism is not grounded on faith, but a dismissive response to theism. If this is true, then Pro's BoP has not been upheld.3. P2As with the "Non-Sequitur" section, I'll let the voters decide this since I believe I answered how I'm not being hypocritical. I extend the PoE since it goes uncontested and P2 falls because of it.4. The ConclusionI don't really know where Pro thinks I'm equivocating between gnostic and agnostic atheists. Since this is a debate about atheism, in general, not gnosticism and agnosticism (which don't have to be necessarily tagged onto atheism), I'm simply defending the definition of atheism I provided in round one. I think I've clearly shown Pro's case is flawed on both a substantive (the PoE) and theoretical (the formal fallacies) level. Since Pro doesn't have a case anymore, the resolution hasn't been upheld because Pro hasn't been able to maintain his BoP to affirm it. --------------------My case went largely uncontested, which I find particularly unfortunate since it means we weren't able to engage in a debate over my counter-case. My case was an attempt to refute the resolution with arguments that weren't brought up in Pro's case. One of my two points I decided was not worth going for, and the other was just outright conceded.1. Faith vs. faithI wasn't misleading. .. and I really find this criticism undeserved. I didn't admit I was being misleading either, but thanks for quote-mining me Pro. I'll run out of text if I copy/paste my paragraph from last round here. If the voters would, please go up to my last round and reread this section, "Faith vs. faith". I clearly did not intend to mislead Pro in any way. .. the case I was referring to was my rebuttal of Pro's case, since that's where the majority of my arguments in this debate lied. I put up six arguments against Pro's case and two of my own. .. so, no, most of my case wasn't here in these two sections; it was above, in response to Pro's. Most of my case was against atheism being based on faith. .. however, that's what Pro was advocating for that in his case. That's not really my fault. The only reason I moved away from the resolution was because Pro did. I can't really respond to a case that's off topic without straying off topic. I even agreed to drop this contention because I didn't feel like arguing for a cheap win with Pro dissatisfied for misrepresenting the resolution. No, I'm not going for this contention, but I think this criticism by Pro was entirely unwarranted. ..2. "Based on"Since this was conceded, I believe the resolution is refuted. If the resolution is "Atheism is based on Faith" (or "faith") and I showed that atheism isn't "based on" faith or derived from a Faith, I guess I just don't see how the resolution can be upheld. I already showed that even if there is an element of faith in being an atheist, that doesn't mean it's based primarily on faith. I provided a counter-base for atheism, which is its inherent contradiction to theism. I then anticipated the question of what the contradiction is based on. My answer to that was that there is no answer, or in other words, it's entirely predicated (and justified) off of answering theistic arguments. --------------------Well, I'd like to thank Pro for the debate, and anyone who takes their time to read this debate and vote on it. Like Pro said, he's going to forfeit his "final" round. Please don't count this against him. I believe i was able to both show Pro's case was unsound and refute the resolution.