Atheism is a religion founded on faith.

Thank you Roy for taking this debate. An examination of my opponents rebuttal will prove my point. My opponent suggest that someone who makes "[n]o claims or denials" regarding the existence of a diety, falls under the definition of Atheism. This is not true. To disbelieve in something leaves no room to grant the possibility. At least until convincing evidence surfaces which would change one's mind. Someone who neither believes or disbelieves leaves it as an open question. This does not fall under the definition of "2a; a disbelief in the existence of a diety". We call this Agnostic. Atheist groups do seek the enlistment of Agnostics to help further their cause without erasing the distinction between the two. Ironic that my opponent proclaims that "it[s] perfectly fair,...to allow Atheist to define Atheism" while falsely tring to define other peoples' beliefs as atheistic. If we were to try to explain the teachings of Buddism, I would say that it is more agnostic than atheistic. http://webspace.ship.edu... The Four Wisdoms of Budda; #2: Suffering is due to attachment The Eight Fold Path; #2: Right aspiration is the true desire to free oneself from attachment, ignorance, and hatefulness Buddist do not attach themselves to a belief in a diety nor to a belief that there is no diety. My opponent proclaims that "Buddhists who follow the teaching not to even consider the question of whether or not there are gods[,]....don't believe" in a god. This is not true. They only choose not to ask. In my opponents contrasting argument, he presents a distinction between what he calls a "weak" and "strong" Atheist. A weak atheist being one who leaves open the "theoretical possibility" that a god may exist. In my first round, I argued that the belief that a god doesn't exist is theoretical. Observing a theory while acknowledging that the theory may be wrong is to hold faith in something you acknowledge cannot be proven. Christians acknowledge that they cannot prove there is a god but they have faith that there is. Atheist cannot disprove that a "higher power" may be responsible for our existence, yet they choose to believe that we are products of chaos, notwithstanding any ackowledgement that they could be wrong. My opponent claims that because there is no "set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon," that Atheism cannot be a religion. Atheism does meet this criterion. Besides what is agreed upon,("Atheists have one thing in common, a disbelief in gods")there is not much distinction between various websites that pop up when Googling Atheism. They rest their faith in mondern science("concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe") and they are agreement with the idea of seperation of church and state. We could certainly find more distinctions between different sects of Christiananity than we would find in any teachings of Atheism, nothwithstanding political affiliation. Does a Catholic who believes in a right to abortion negate Catholicism as a religion? The crux of my point seems to have been missed by my opponent. It is a matter of faith to believe there is no diety. The subscribers to this religion now act as other classical religions have acted and continue to act today. Their desire to rid any public acknowledgment of an existence of God can be easily compared to the censorship by Old Europe Christianity or modern day Muslim of the thought that there is no god. They demand science be taught without the examination of possible interference by yet unknown forces, unless those forces do not involve a diety. A scientist may theorize that dark matter exist because without it, the universe would be unbalanced. He cannot theorize, in a public classroom, that because we are missing links in the evolution of man, it may be possible that something not fully understood may have contributed. Atheism falls under the definition of a religion and they are acting as many other religions have.