Atheism is a religion founded on faith.

1. Disbelief is Not a Belief "If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby." Pro failed to define atheism explicitly, and his implicit definition is wrong. From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com... : 1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness 2 a: a disbelief in the existence of deity b: the doctrine that there is no deity The primary non-archaic definition is "disbelief." Pro's argument rests upon using the secondary definition, "the doctrine that there is no deity." But there is much beyond either of those definitions. Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org... elaborates: "Most recently, there has been a push in certain philosophical circles to redefine atheism as the "absence of belief in deities", rather than as a belief in its own right; this definition has become popular in atheist communities, though its mainstream usage has been limited." So what is the likely definition used by a person who calls himself an atheist? "The more common understanding of atheism among atheists is "not believing in any gods." No claims or denials are made — an atheist is a person who is not a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called "weak" or "implicit" atheism. There is also a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called "strong" or "explicit" atheism. Here, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point." http://atheism.about.com... I think it perfectly fair, in a serious discussion, to allow atheists to define what atheism is, just as it is fair to allow Christians to define what Christianity is. The atheist definition is "not believing in any gods." this includes Buddhists who follow the teaching not to even consider the question of whether or not there are gods. They don't believe, so they are atheists. What is Pro's position on the existence of leprechauns? Is he a believer, an agnostic, a weak atheist, or a strong atheist. An agnostic would say that leprechauns are neither proved nor disproved, so he holds neither belief or disbelief; it is an open question. A weak atheist would say he does not believe leprechauns exist, but acknowledges the theoretical possibility that they might. His lack of belief might stem from a perceived lack of reliable sightings. A strong atheism argues along the lines of "leprechauns perform magic; the laws of nature do not permit magic, therefore there are no leprechauns." So where does Pro come down on the leprechaun issue? If he has any position other than belief, has he joined a religion of leprechaun non-belief? There are at least 2500 gods cataloged by students of religions, and no doubt many more. Christians are usually strong atheists with respect to 2499 of the alternative gods. Atheists tend to be more generous. Allowing, for example, that the Deist god of Jefferson cannot be disproved. The Deist God created the world and will one day return in judgment, but in between does nothing, Since Christians are generally stronger in their non-belief than atheists, have Christians therefore subscribed to the most powerful form of atheist religion at the same time as being Christians? What is comes down to is that disbelief is not a backhanded form of belief. Disbelief is no more than disbelief. Not collecting stamps is not a hobby. 2. A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe Pro has looked to the fourth definition of religion in his dictionary to try to find one that suits his purposes. That's the definition that applies to statements like, "Pittsburgh fans have made a religion out of football." That's not the definition that applies to a discussion of atheism is comparison to traditional religion. Dictionary.comhttp://dictionary.reference.com... provides "1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions." Note that not all religions involve deities. Buddhism is a religion because it concerned with "the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" However, there is no belief in gods involved. http://www.religionfacts.com... Atheists have one thing in common, a disbelief in gods. However, there is no "set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe," nor is there a "set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon," nor is there any "the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices." Atheists as a group cannot be counted upon to have any beliefs or practices in common. As demonstrated above, disbelief is not a belief for the same reason not collecting stamps is not a hobby. Moreover, even if one supposes disbelief is a belief, it is only one, and not the set of beliefs required to meet a reasonable definition of religion. Thus the Dahlia Lama and Christopher Hitchens have atheism in common, but they are not part of a common religion. Even on this site there are Conservative atheists (me) as well as Libertarian and Liberal atheists. There is no set of binding beliefs and practices. The resolution is negated.