Resolved: Atheism is Not a Religion

"Given that the definition indirectly states that religion is organized. " 1. Nowhere in the entire definition my opponent gave does he state that religion has to be organized, or that organization is a prime requisite of religion. Opponent's definition of religion: Religion - a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith "This statement also does not illustrate what my first contention stated"" My opponent's first contention was "Atheism does not contain any elements of organized religion. " My acceptance of his first contention stated: "I would also like to accept my opponent's first contention that atheism is not an organized religion. " "My definition of belief has no relation to the definition of faith, the definition of faith references belief. " How can the word "belief" have no relation to faith, when you define faith to be: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof. "? There is absolutely a relation. The relation is that if there is no proof of atheism "one who believes (belief) that there is no deity" then atheism contains an element of faith. Or, phrased differently, Atheism is a belief of which there is no solid proof, thus to believe in atheism you must have faith (firm belief in something for which there is no proof). "There may not be conclusive proof that deities exist or not, but there is evidence that supports both sides. " If you were trying to prove that atheism does not utilize faith, then you have just lost the battle. Members of the audience, my opponent has just affirmed that there is evidence in favor of all religions that support a deity. My opponent has also confirmed that the same inconclusive evidence that is used by religion to support their belief in a deity is used by atheism to support their belief that there is no deity. Thus either both religion and atheism do not utilize faith, if inconclusive evidence fueling a belief is enough to establish that faith is not being used. However by this standard, most of the world's religions by my opponent's standards would not be called a religion which would invalidate his definition of religion and thus cause his resolution to be nulled. Or both religion and atheism use faith in addition to inconclusive evidence to establish their belief. If evidence isn't conclusive than it is certain. If a belief is not certain then it is not proven. Since it is not proven, you must use faith in conjunction with your inconclusive evidence to validate your belief. Essentially to beleive in anything one must have faith. If the belief was certain it would be a fact in which case you would know it, not believe it. Therefore atheism utilizes faith and is considered to be a religion by my opponents definition of religion (a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith) My opponent went onto state: "You do not need this evidence to have faith in a deity's existence and in some religions you are asked to ignore this evidence, but it is the evidence against that gives Atheists their belief. To Atheists this evidence is in fact proof that deities do not exist" Atheists also do not need any inconclusive evidence that a deity does not exists to establish their belief. Many atheists became atheist when a tragic event occurred in their life that they felt God would not have allowed to happen. Your entire argument that religion actively rejects the same inconclusive evidence that supports that a deity exists is completely opinionated and doesn't even make sense. Why would people of religion reject evidence that confirms their belief? To many the evidence validates and even causes a belief.