Atheism is more a product of indoctrination than Theism

Thanks to Ajab for his careful response. First I would like to spend a moment considering my opponents first and last statements." I should however note that the Latin rule goes: 'Onus probandi incumbet ei qui deciet, non ei qui negat'. So the Burden of Proof rests on my opponent.", "In essence the voters should ask themselves, as the proposition who holds the BoP, did Andymcstab win you over. Did he actually show, beyong doubt, with his faulty statistics, that atheism is a produce of indoctrination."I am sorry that my opponent failed to properly read the debate rules: "BOP is shared. Con must argue that theism is more a product of indoctrination." My opponent cannot shift BOP, in attempting to do so he is flagrantly breaking debate rules which stipulate shared BOP, and that no argument may be made which does not concern the resolution.With that said, on to his rebuttal of my first argument:1."My opponent actually concedes something very important. Andy concedes that the world before the 20th century was predominantly theistic, which means that people converted to atheism, they were not indoctrinated into turning atheists. "This is a misleading statement; I assert that world history shows a universal predilection towards theism. Some people converting to atheism does not imply they did so without indoctrination."The first point of Pro does not show much that atheism is the product of indoctrination than he blames all evil people for being atheists. He quotes Mao's China, or Stalin's Russia. I would just as easily point out Hitler's Germany where he brutally enforced Christianity. "This is nonsense. My first source shows that the majority of the world are theistic, and the only majority which is atheist had atheism forced upon them. Hitlers Germany did not enforce Christianity, it utilised the existing Christianity to coerce the population. It was Christian before Nazi Germany.http://www.britannica.com...I will also point out that atheism in Germany after ww2 was also a product of indoctrination."In eastern Germany both religious observance and affiliation are much lower than in the rest of the country after forty years of Communist rule. The government of the German Democratic Republic encouraged an atheist worldview through institutions such as Jugendweihen (youth consecrations), secular coming-of-age ceremonies akin to Christian confirmation which all young people were strongly encouraged to attend (and disadvantaged socially if they did not). The number of christenings, religious weddings and funerals is also lower than in the West." http://en.wikipedia.org...In summary then my first argument still stands, and my opponent has acheived nothing to show that religion is more a product of indoctrination than atheism.2.He only has a problem with my source which demonstrates the growth of theism in China since the days of Chairman Mao. My source quotes the work of Fenggang Yang, a sociology professor at Purdue University. More information can be found here http://www.oxfordscholarship.com...My opponents source only argues that atheism is on the rise internationally, but does not assess whether the rise would be natural or a product of indoctrination. Nor is it the kind of atheism which we are concerned with in this debate, defined as "the position that there are no deities.", not merely just "lack of religious affiliation". Hence my opponents argument is irrelevant. I should also point out that I am taking the word of my opponent here regarding his statistics, as he has linked to an 80 page document and essentially told us "trust me, its in there somewhere". 3.My opponent has the same issue with #3, he is trying to argue that atheism is on the rise internationally, but doesn't even attempt to analyse the relationship with indoctrination. I accept that atheism is rising in the west, the question is, why? My sources on the other hand show a rejection of atheism which we know was a product of indoctrination in Russia and China. Again my opponent is not arguing for the definition of atheism given in this debate, his stats only concern the "religiously unaffiliated".4.This was my argument that belief in God is human nature.I sourced a major study headed by one of the most respected universities in the world.http://www.ox.ac.uk...My opponent is trying to make something out of my use of the word "hypothesized", again this is spurious as the actual source is clear: "A three-year international research project, directed by two academics at the University of Oxford, finds that humans have natural tendencies to believe in gods and an afterlife.", "The studies (both analytical and empirical) conclude that humans are predisposed to believe in gods and an afterlife"There is no room for uncertainty in the language used.My opponent tries to source the claim that belief in God is not innate; he supplies a 322 page book written by an unqualified atheist author, for which he doesn't even give us a page number to assess the claim. The author considers atheism to be a "lack of belief", which is not the definition used in this debate. Again, I have fulfilled my BOP, my opponent has neither refuted me nor fulfilled his own BOP.5. "I think that 78% of schools teach Creationism over Evolution.", is completely unfounded. He seems to have plucked this number from thin air. His source doesn't refer to any such thing. The pledge of allegience was introduced in 1954, Christianity was the majority belief in the USA long before then, so the pledge has not been shown to be indoctrinating anyone. Rather, I can argue that the very existence of such a pledge denotes the freely found theistic belief of the majority.In summary then; my opponent has not refuted a single one of my arguments, nor has he even began to fulfill his burden of proof!