Okay, party time is over.
The argument upon which the OP is based depends entirely upon a tactical redefinition of the word "religion." Though it is generally my opinion that dictionary definitions function purely as a handy standard and that differing word usage should be allowed if all participants in a discussion agree upon it, the fact that this redefinition has been used as an attempt to put theistic belief on equal footing with atheism, a clear effort to redestribute the burden of proof, as a tactical position from which to reassert Pascal's Wager, this is apparently an effort to portray atheism as a less logical conclusion to reach in regard to the question as to whether God exists. This sort of dishonesty is not uncommon, but it should, under no circumstances, be condoned.
Firstly, we're not going to play the redefinition game anymore. We're going to return to the standard definition because the redefinition present in the OP clearly has the mendacious intention of shifting the goalposts.
re·li·gion
n.
- Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
- A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
- The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
- A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
- A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Claiming that atheism is any of these is an outright lie. Atheists may have a wide variety of beliefs in regard to the origin and nature of the universe, and an absence of theistic belief is not inherently based upon the teachings of any sort of religious leader or writings. Atheists are not necessarily associated with any institution whatsoever, and one is not required to be zealously devoted to atheism in order to be called an atheist.
That nonsense aside, let's move on to tear apart the later claim that atheism requires as great a leap of faith as theistic belief. This is easily the most blatant effort to shift the burden of proof that I have ever seen. Unless atheists inherently insist upon some alternative, they have license to deny the existence of God or gods unless and until uncontrovertible proof of such things has been presented and given rational backing. The burden of proof, believer, is entirely on you.
Pascal's Wager is a classical and classically faulty argument in favor of choosing theistic belief, nevermind that no theist with any moral fiber whatsoever really bases hir beliefs upon it. I'm absolutely not going to rehash this old piece of nonsense here, but there is a very thorough discussion of it at the following links:
http://www.iep.utm.edu/p/pasc-wag.htm http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theodore_drange/wager.html http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/pascalswager.html
Also, my favorite answer to Pascal's Wager is that there may actually be a god that only punishes those who believe in false gods and shows mercy toward those who choose not to believe in any gods at all rather than choosing to believe in some heresy, thus making the atheist and, especially, general agnostics more likely than anyone else to recieve eternal rewards. This hypothetical god(ess) behaves as a counterweight to Pascal's Wager.
I do not condone the distortion of logic that is present in this thread. It does not promote in me a sense that those who have participated in it can be trusted to conduct themselves honestly in debate situations, and I consider such behavior quite unethical. Learn to participate in a real debate. The distortion olympics are over.