All Humans Have Faith In Something (Atheists, Theists and Everyone Else)

I'll address my opponent's relevant arguements as they appear in the argument, but my cases will like be much, much smaller simply because my opponent will be working to actively prove something while I will simply be working to negate it. I'd just like to state in advance that smaller arguments are not made due to rudeness. Once again, I'll remind the audience that my opponent will have to actively prove that I, as an atheist, place faith in a greater power because the failure to do so results in the disproving of the fact that "all" humans place faith in a greater power. Origin of everything: As I'm an atheist, I will move straight to the section pertaining to me. Althought it is true that the gravitational singularity theory is a theory that is accepted by many atheists, but unfortunately my opponent commits a hasty generalization fallacy[1]. He does this by showing a theory beleived in by some atheists, and then assumed that this proves his resolution correct because all atheists believe in it. This is false. I do not believe in gravitational singularity theory for the same reason that I don't believe in God, because I can't find sufficient proof for its existence. The same goes for the Big Bang or Infinate Universe or other universal creation theories. I simply realize that I can't prove it, will likely never know the answer in my lifetime, and I move on. Because the origin of everything argument does not apply to me, this does not prove the resolution true. The Munchausen Trilemma:That's an interesting theory, and one that I hadn't researched before, but there is one fundamental flaw in how it connects to the resolution: the definition of faith. I hate to use a semantical argument, but the Munchausen Trilemma is not an argument that proves the definition states that faith is "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence". Just because the Munchausen Trilemma argument states that you cannot be 100% certain that anything is proven, this proof is still based on logical proof and evidence. So simply stating the blanket statement that "You can't prove anythiing" does not mean "you have faith in everything". In order for this argument to work, my opponent must first use a specific instance that I believe in and prove that I use faith to believe in it. Otherwise, this argument does not pertain to the resolution. Other things Atheists have faith in:God's existence: The fallacy my opponent commits here is not that we beleive god exists, is that we lack belief that he exists. An Atheist does not actively believe that God doesn't exist, he simply does not believe that he does exist. Therefor, this is not an issue of holding faith, but rather an issue of not holding faith, and so it is not a valid argument. Logic Reveals Truth: My opponent seems to be grasping at straws at this point. Faith is simply the beleif in something without logical backing or evidnece, using logic to hold a belief is not exercising faith. My opponent attempts to break down logic into saying you have to believe in it, but he's simply trivializing the issue to the point where it is not an accurate arguement. We know logic to lead to truth because using correct logic has been proven to lead to the correct conclusions in the past. This is using evidence, not faith. My opponent has failed to prove that I place faith in a higher power, and so he has failed to uphold his burden of proof. Works Cited:1. ) . http://www.nizkor.org...;