Does religion need a solid foundation or does faith alone work? (Con means faith alone acceptable)

Although I do believe atheism is a religion because it fulfills the 'seven dimensions' of religion set forth by Ninian Smart and the 'Dimensions of Conversion' (which can be based on the principles of atheism), I will drop this argument for the sake of brevity and for narrowing down our objections and discrepancies of 'faith'. In this round, I believe that we both need to clarify a few terms:1. Foundation 2. Faith3. Evidence (This will be going in the faith category) 4. Belief What is a Foundation:I believe my friend must first provide the burden of proof. Usually, in a debate, the first contender offers definitions and rules that must be followed in the following rounds. However, as anyone can see, my opponent keeps changing his definition of what foundation means. In the second round, my friend offered his definition of a foundation. Let's take a look: "When I said a "foundation" is needed for faith I didn't mean physical evidence like God speaking, I meant something to back it up, for example Christ or science. "This is the definition we are going to follow. If my friend has any objections towards this definition he can offer an alternative that we can discuss in the comments. If he brings it up in next debate round, it will be ignored. Argument One: A Foundation requires Evidence Pro states, "We may be thinking of different meanings for foundation, but we can use that as a foundation saying God delivered these people, even though there is no proof. Yes Christianity is based on faith in God, but we have the foundation set by prophets and the Christ. We may have different ideas on what the foundation on a religion is, and therefore the argument may be slightly skewed, not enough for a major effect most likely though. When I say foundation, I mean something to base it off of. The Jews in the time of Abraham had the story of creation passed on orally giving them a "stone" to believe in. Yes people would have believed in God without the creation story being passed on, but without any basis, what gives the people a reason to believe in it? Yes religion is built on faith, but all major religions have a physical person or event that gives people a reason to believe. " I believe that this whole paragraph highlights my entire point. I honestly feel that my friend hasn't grasped the fact that all evidence for God is subjective. If we go back to my initial premise, I stated that a foundation requires evidence. That foundation is faith, and the evidence is the prophets and Christ. The prophets are known as the "reinforcers" that God exists. However, since all evidence towards God's existence is subjective it comes down to faith - which is the foundation. For example, let's take the question of God's existence: Initial premise: God exists (faith)Backup evidence #1: Kalam Cosmological Argument Backup evidence #2: The Moral Argument Backup evidence #3: The Fine-Tuning of the Universe Backup evidence #4: The Ontological ArgumentI really don't like repeating myself, but until you provide a proper definition of foundation or you realize that your evidence is subjective (which goes back to faith), your argument is pointless. I'm sorry. What is Faith:In round two I described two different types of faith. 1. Natural Faith 2. Spiritual Faith This whole argument comes down to the latter since we both believe in natural faith. Which, again, begs the question of God's existence. Since we don't actually know if God exists, it goes back to my initial premise: Christianity is based on faith. What is Belief:A "belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. " [1] References: 1. . https://en.wikipedia.org...;