Atheism is based on Faith

To keep things organized, I'm going to stick with the structure I set up in round two, starting with Pro's case and ending with mine.1. The Conditionala. Black-and-White Fallacy/Burden ShiftingI'd first like to say that to the everyday definitions, proof and evidence are interchangeable. A quick Google search will show they're synonyms, and the term "evidence" is used within the definition of "proof". [4] [5] Proofs are not an end to themselves, rather --like evidence-- they establish certain facts that support a reasonable conclusion. If I say, for example, every shirt I own is blue, and find a red shirt in my house, the fact is there is a red shirt in my house. However, it doesn't necessarily establish any conclusion aside from the red shirt being in my house. The conclusion I could make, given my proof, is that the shirt is not mine. If he'd like to debate these definitions, he should probably warrant the distinction between the two words when the Oxford Dictionary uses them interchangeably. My argument is not that Pro believes there is absolute proof, my argument is that we shouldn't assume the only evidence that is acceptable is some "one-hit KO" fact. Pro is dismissing anything short of absolute certainty, which is why this conditional "If there is no proof..." is fallacious. I accept that Pro's arguing there's no absolute proof, and I'm admitting there is no absolute proof, however, my entire argument here is criticizing the concept of only accepting absolute proof.Pro's second answer to this is that atheism is "disbelief" in God and argues that this leads to the conclusion that we make assumption about God's non-existence. The conclusion is a complete non-sequitur. Disbelief, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is the "inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real," or in the case of faith, a "lack of faith in something." [6] No, a disbelief in God is not making assumptions pertaining to God's existence, nor is it a claim that God does not exist. The definition itself only means there is a lack of belief, which I believe I mentioned in my last round.I'd like to extend my argument that the premise commits burden shifting and should not be given serious consideration as a legitimate conditional. "The philosophical BoP lies in the affirmation of God's existence when debating between theism and atheism. The atheistic position is not a position, in and of itself, rather a responsive position provoked by the declaration that God, or gods, exist(s)." (R2, same section) This was conceded by Pro, which means he concedes atheism is solely a position based on response to theistic arguments, and does not maintain any inherent BoP. By failing to uphold his own BoP, Pro concedes the P1's conditional is fallacious. b. EquivocationThis debate isn't about the distinction between agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism, it's about what atheism is. The question at hand is whether or not atheism requires a foundation on Faith, not whether or not gnostic atheists have more faith than agnostic atheists. I'm not arguing for either, as Pro wants me to do. Pro claims I'm defending gnostic atheism, but as I mentioned in my last round, I'm not trying to defend atheism, merely explain its position and required assumptions. If anything, this section is defending agnostic atheism by making the distinction between Pro's equivocatation that "lack of belief" and "believing God doesn't exist" are the same thing. If the conditional premise relies on this equivocation (which I'm arguing it does) then the premise is flawed and Pro's argument does not stand.2. The Linka. Non-SequiturI don't think Pro could have chose a more incorrect analogy to work with. In a court of criminal law, the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosection doesn't say a word, the defendant could rightly ask for the case to be dismissed based on insufficient evidence. In the same way a defendant doesn't have BoP, being an atheist does not require any inherent BoP. If I can maintain that there is a non-sequitur between the P1 "P" and "Q", then the argument fails, and the resolution is negated.b. Unfounded ClaimI believe Pro dropped this... since all he claimed is there is a difference between agnostic and gnostic atheism. That's not what the point of this section was. The point I'm making is that, under the assumption that only absolute proof is acceptable, then the claim in support for theism is unfounded, and therefore dismissable. This, in turn, makes atheism not unfounded and based on faith, but based on the dismission of theistic claims.3. P2Pro has decided not to argue against the PoE, but to argue that defending it is somehow contradictory to my case. So, if I can show there is no contradiction with my case, then the PoE stands and P2 is negated. I have taken it upon myself to negate the second premise, which means the conclusion that atheism is based on faith is negated as well. I have, for the argument, conceded that the argument is logically tight, and moved into the second level of argumentation to refute the idea that there is no proof against God's existence. This is not contradictory to my case by any means. Atheists are not required to make any claims to disprove God, but that doesn't mean we aren't allowed to. I don't have to disprove the notion that there are flying pigs in the Congo; but I could attempt to disprove it empirically by arguing that the absence of documentation supporting the existence of such swines lends itself to conclude that flying pigs do not exist. It's not contradictory, it's just a different level of argumentation. I went beyond the framework of the argument and argued against the premise itself.4. The ConclusionMuch of my case was predicated on establishing that being an atheist does not necessarily entail being a gnostic atheist. I am not defending atheism (except for negating P2), I am not saying there aren't irrational atheists who adamantly deny the possibly of God --or gods-- existing, and I'm not saying atheism is the correct position. However, being an atheist does not require some leap of faith when its clearly founded in responding to theistic claims. That's why atheism is a "lack of belief," because we lack the ability to believe in God.--------------------1. Faith vs. faithIn round one, I gave definitions to both Faith and faith, one being the proper noun derived from the common noun. I also made sure to capitalize the word in the topic title as well as in the italicized resolution... also, I quoted the resolution and capitalized the word in my opening paragraph as well. So, I made it clear three times outside of providing definitions. Now, to respond to Pro's argument, I concede that there are atheists that are very strong in their beliefs, however there is no set of beliefs in the sense theists have with their Faiths. However, I'm going to just concede this and move on, since most of my case is against atheism being based on faith anyways.2. Based onI believe this is conceded. The opinion question Pro and I debated about used this term, so I deemed it fit for our formal debate. We also had sent PMs regarding this issue, and came to the conclusion that this resolution was acceptable. Pro, I sincerely hope you don't really think I set this up just to beat you on semantics, when I worded the resolution based on your opinion question. [7] I extend my arguments, since it looks like a concession on Pro's part.--------------------I tried to get this in as quick as possible, but I had been up for over 48 hours straight and basically passed out about 12 hours ago. I hope this response was quick enough for you, Pro.[4] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[5] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[6] http://oxforddictionaries.com...[7] http://www.debate.org...