Atheism is a religion founded on faith.

1. Disbelief is Not a Belief Pro agrees, "A hobby requires an action, so no, not collecting stamps is not a hobby." A religion requires action, "ardor and faith," but disbelief does not require action. We all disbelieve gods that we do not know others have postulated, and we disbelieve without ardor or faith. Therefore atheism is not a religion. I challenged Pro to come down hard on the leprechaun issue. I challenged him to say whether he was a leprechaun believer, or a leprechaun atheist, or a leprechaun agnostic, or what? He would not say if he thought he had conclusive proof of the non-existence of leprechauns or if he held it to be an open question upon which he was undecided. I suggest that the reasonable answer to the leprechaun issue is that there is no conclusive proof that leprechauns do not exist, but nonetheless neither Pro nor I nor most people believe in them. We are all leprechaun disbelievers. That's because with respect to leprechauns we all accept that disbelief is the default position; that we disbelieve for no reason beyond lack of a reason to believe. That is exactly the position of most atheists. I asked Pro if disbelief in leprechauns meant if he had joined a religion of leprechaun disbelievers. He said only that leprechaun disbelievers had not banded together, so the non-believers were not a religion. In other words, disbelief alone does not make a religion, it takes something else. That's what I've been saying. Suppose I discover, somewhere in the Emerald Isle, a small band of leprechaun-atheist advocates wishing to promote disbelief. Would that make Pro part of the anti-leprechaun religion? The answer, of course, is "no." Joining the cause is completely optional. There is nothing inherent in atheism that bonds one to a cause. Pro repeats his contention that Buddhists are not atheists. He relies solely upon his definition, and apparently cannot find any scholar who agrees with him. I gave references to atheists who say quite clearly what they believe, and that most certainly atheism includes mere disbelief, known as weak atheism. Pro contradicts atheists themselves in stating what atheists believe, and claims that all atheists are strong atheists. I asked Pro if it would be fair for atheists to be allowed to define what Christianity is. Pro ignored the question. Pro challenges "Show me an American Atheist who does not "explicitly rule out the existence of a God or gods", and I'll show you an Agnostic." Nonsense. I am an atheist, and I have said in previous debates that I did not see any way to disprove the Deist God (of Jefferson, et al). Do I believe in the Deist God? No. I pointed out that Christians disbelieve many Gods; that doesn't mean they claim to have disproved each one. They nonetheless disbelieve. "2. A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe" Pro acknowledges that Buddhist atheists are not part of what he characterizes as the cause of "American atheists." Pro separately acknowledges that Japanese atheists are not part of what he characterizes as the cause of "American atheists." I gave Pro a list of noted atheists and asked what common cause characterized their beliefs. Pro came up empty. With these concessions, Pro has conceded the debate. He explicitly limits his case only to the certain atheists who fit his stereotype. The resolution was not whether the atheists who fit Pro's stereotype fit his stereotype. The resolution was whether atheism, meaning all of atheism, is a religion. Pro has acknowledged it is not. Suppose I proposed a debate on the resolution, "Christians want to kill infidels." I could cite some Christians who do, ranging from the Inquisition to abortion clinic bombers. Would Pro, or any reasonable person then favor the resolution? No, because the resolution implies that there is something in the definition of Christianity that requires every Christian kill infidels. It would suffice to show a significant number of counter-examples to disprove the contention. Similarly, I have shown hundreds of millions of atheist Buddhists, tens of millions of atheist Japanese, and many noted Western atheists who clearly do not hold a common belief system. Pro supposes that American atheists hold a common belief system, and he cites belief in strict separation of church and state and belief that science teaching should be restricted to science. If it were true that all American atheists believed these things, then it would still not define atheism as a religion, because neither belief deals with "the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." This is amply demonstrated by the large numbers of theists who believe exactly the same things. Belief in science means no more than that the scientific method is a valid procedure for advancing knowledge. Pro attempts to rebut by claiming that it is necessary to find a person who has standing for the ACLU to bring a lawsuit. "Standing" means that the plaintiff must be affected by the action, e.g., as a taxpayer, parent of a child in the school, or in some other category in which the person whose rights might be infringed by the action that is the subject of the complaint. It has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the person is an atheist or not. Sometimes the ACLU finds an atheist, but more often they find someone who bows to the god of political correctness. Incidentally, "American Atheist" is an organization that represents only a tiny percentage of the atheists in America. They have a right to their views, but they are atypical in many respects. Most atheists are not involved in any organized activity. They are couch potatoes like most Christians. Even though the scientific consensus on the Theory of Evolution is 99.86%, Pro is correct that does not prove it true. There is no law or theory that is beyond all doubt. However, what is taught to students is reasonably restricted to the 99+% consensus, no matter that it might be wrong. There are thousands of religious creation stories. It would be ridiculous to offer them all as potentially viable. The point is that teaching the 99+% scientific consensus is scarcely a faith-based belief of atheists; it is common sense. For the record, dark matter and dark energy are heavily supported by experimental evidence, perhaps at the 90+% level of certainty. String theory, for example, is not. To my knowledge, neither theories are taught in public K-12 schools. If they are, they shouldn't be. One cannot make a religion out of atheism, because disbelief alone cannot assert "the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe." It is possible for atheists to step over the line and attribute too many of the world's ills to religious belief. That's a mistaken cause that involves a non-religious faith that all ills derive from religious belief. It's akin to racism, wrong but not religious of itself. Such overstepping is certainly not necessitated by disbelief in gods. Pro is defining atheism according to his personal stereotype, and then denying all evidence contrary to what he has assumed. He even grants that his stereotype does not apply to millions of atheists, but insists that fact should be ignored in favor of his limited stereotype. Scholars and atheists themselves do not accept his definition of atheism, but he claims that he alone has the power to make the definition. Even within his stereotype he insists that belief in separation of church and state and belief that science classes be restricted to science are derive from atheism. Neither is so derived, as most of the people who believe those things are theists, and moreover they say nothing about the the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby. Atheism isn't a religion. The resolution is negated.