Atheism is based on Faith

My aim in this debate is not to prove God doesn't exist, nor am I going to attempt to affirm the atheistic position. My aim in this debate is to refute the claim that atheism is based on Faith. As per Pro's request, I'll try to make each of my rounds in a timely manner. Since Pro has the BoP, my response will be two-fold: a refutation of my opponents claims, and then a refutation of the resolution.--------------------"There is no proof" To keep things organized, I'm going to section this off into several separate, but distinct, points. For reference, I'll outline Pro's argument in modus ponens form (P->Q, P, therefore Q):P1: If there is no proof for or against God, the atheistic position is based on faith.P2: There is no proof for or against God.C1: Therefore, the atheistic position is based on faith.1. The Conditionala. Black-and-White Fallacy/Burden ShiftingFor P1 to be true, we have to accept the condition that there is no proof for or against God. However, the term "proof" is misleading if it's intended to be argued as an absolute, rather than evidence that leans one direction or another. Not only is it a black-and-white fallacy to assume that there's a one-hit KO piece of evidence out there for either side and dismiss any evidence that only sways one way or another; it shifts the BoP away from the person making a claim to the person dismissing that same claim. 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).b. EquivocationThe conditional "P" in Pro's argument equivocates two statements, evident by Pro's claim, "Atheism, as defined by Con, is the 'lack of belief' in God, ie believing God doesn't exist." The latter statement is not the same as the former. The definition I provided in round one is a "lack of belief", which is drawn from the notion that insufficient evidence has been established to make the committing statement that God, or gods, exist(s). This does not mean atheism necessarily entails the assertion that God does not exist. I am simply saying, for the time being, we have not established enough evidence in support of God's, or gods', existence. Pro attempts to use his rewording as a justification for pinning atheism with some amount of BoP, which is entirely unfounded.2. The Link a. Non-SequiturEven if we were to accept the conditional "P" in P1, it doesn't logically follow that "Q" is necessarily true. As I noted above, there is a difference between making an assertion and responding to an assertion. A response to an assertion does not carry any inherent BoP, rather a burden to respond to the warrants of the initial claim. When a theist promotes the existence of God, or gods, an atheist only has to respond to what the theist has said. Anything beyond that is going a step further than is required to adequately defend the atheistic position, and is moving into the realm of attempting to disprove God or the gods.b. Unfounded ClaimAssuming Pro's statement that there is no evidence for or against God's existence is true, it actually favors the position that atheism, the lack of belief in God or gods, is not based on faith. When taking into account an assertion, such as the existence of God (or any positive claim), the most rational response is to seek out the credibility of the claim. Scientific advancements over the past 100 years or so are a testament to how the method of hypothesis testing works. If the claim from a theist that God, or gods, exist(s) is taken as a hypothesis, the next step is to follow through with an experiment. However, God is more often than not given vague attributes that are untestable, and most arguments can be dismissed as an unfounded claim. If we take into account that there is no evidence whatsoever, we are left with an unfounded assertion, which entails no burden to refute.3. P2I have covered some issues regarded the conditional as it stands, which necessarily negates the premise itself. If "P" is deemed fallacious, then it no longer holds any logical bearing and falls apart. However, even if we take the premise face value, it doesn't stand. If we define God as omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient, we fall into a paradox where God likely exists as a contradiction to himself. Commonly labeled as the "problem of evil" and spanning back to Epicurus, it often falls along the logical reductio as follows:1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.5. Evil exists.6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn't have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn't know when evil exists, or doesn't have the desire to eliminate evil.7. Therefore, God doesn't exist. [3] Rather than defending an absolute refutation of God's existence, I am merely going to argue the excess of evil apparent in the world significantly decreases the chances that a God with these attributes exists. As Pro said in round one, there is no absolute proof one way or the other, however it's clearly a cop out to then conclude that evidence for either position does not exist. If the PoE establishes any marginal loss of probability in the existence of God, then Pro's P2 is refuted as there is some proof, however minimal, that may be used as the basis to expand from for an atheistic position.4. The ConclusionSince the conditional, the link, and the premise, are refuted, the conclusion cannot be established and Pro hasn't been able to maintain his BoP.--------------------Now that I have responded to Pro's defense for the resolution, I'll provide my case against the resolution.1. Faith vs. faithAs atheism is a uniquely responsive position to the theistic position, it doesn't entail itself to any particular doctrine of beliefs outside the defining lack of belief in God or gods. With that in mind, it clearly doesn't follow that atheism is, or is based on, any form of Faith. For Pro to be able to defend that atheism is based on Faith, he must clearly show the link between being an atheist and necessarily prescribing to a doctrine or belief system. Until this has been done, the resolution hasn't been affirmed.2. "Based on"Being an atheist does not require him/her to base their lack of belief in God or gods on faith, let alone a Faith. The epistemological question is how atheists can justify their position. Theism is based on Faith, a particular doctrine divinely inspired, usually consisting of explicit rules/laws/morals/etc. Atheism, on the other hand, cannot be pinned down as a Faith. Far from being based on a particular Faith, the basis for atheism lies in evaluating (and dismissing) the arguments and evidence posed by theists, since this is the only way for atheism to exist. As theists propose differing definitions of God or gods, atheists have to morph their position to suit, since the atheistic position is entirely dependent on the theistic position in question. If the arguments pertaining to theism change, then the responses for an atheistic position change as well. If anything, atheism is based on its inherent contradiction to theism. Another question could be posed, asking what the contradiction with theism is based on. The answer is that there is no answer. Atheism, unlike theism, does not require any particular set of beliefs; which is precisely why it cannot be construed as a Faith, nor can it be considered based on faith. So, to answer the episemological question, atheists are able to justify their position by adequately responding to theistic arguments.---------------------And with that, I'll turn it over to Pro, where I eagerly await for his reply. [3] http://plato.stanford.edu...