There are two levels of atheism - the weaker that god *does* not exist, the stronger that god *can* not exist. The weaker requires little faith = if, after a reasonable search, you fail to find something, it is reasonable to act on the basis that it does not exist without needing faith. But to insist that something *can* not exist takes faith,

I don't see faith as being the same as belief.That is what you mean isn't it. Faith is a state of openness or trust. To have faith is to trust yourself to the water. When you swim you don't grab hold of the water, because if you do you will sink and drown. Instead you relax, and float. And the attitude of faith is the very opposite of clinging to belief, of holding on. In other words, a person who is fanatic in matters of religion, and clings to certain ideas about the nature of God and the universe, becomes a person who has no faith at all. Instead they are holding tight. But the attitude of faith is to let go, and become open to truth, whatever it might turn out to be.

Not at all it takes no faith or beleif to be logical and take a stand only on what you see . Athiests accept nothing. we do not sin for we have no book of rules. really it is easy to be athiest for me . for sure we will not go to heaven or hell but who wants to meets humans in the so called afterlife ? thanks for the good religious who downgrade me and take me to hell far from them in thier stinking heaven

Nope. Atheism is based on nothing but logic. It requires 0 faith. :)

believing someone else's explination always takes a skeptical mind to properly interpret for yourself. I think the greatest faith is faith in yourself to know right from wrong.

Yes and No. Yes: There are still some certain assumptions that science has to make. For example, that reality even exists as we observe. It's an OLD argument that we could be brains in jars (or coppertops in the Matrix), so we do have to make some assumptions, and that takes faith. It also takes faith to believe that how things are is how they will always be - our understanding of the world has been overturned more than once before. No: For all of the points that I mention above, it's still got logic, reason, and experience on its side. Science does match up with consensual reality, while religion may not. So, no faith required.

I agree. Athiesm is not based on logic. Athiesm is a guess just as religion is. There is no evidence for either.

No. Atheism is about logic and evidence, not blind faith.

the idea that not doing something takes as much faith or anything else as doing something is absolutely illogical. Does it take any faith for you not to believe in in leprechauns? Of course not. Not believing something by it's very nature is a passive act. It could be argued that the type of atheist who actively tries to disprove god is retarded since you can't prove a negative. Even that is not faith. It's more like fanaticism and they might as well try to disprove the easter bunny. Do you know the definition of faith? faith   –noun 1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. 2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. 3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. 4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty. 5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. 6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith. 7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles. 8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved. Not one of these definitions mentions a damn thing about NOT believing in something.

That's a good question. I think it is probably a bit easier as you don't have to challenge your beliefs when you see the f@cked up things that go on in the world and ask yourself "how could god let this happen". However it works in reverse as well, as when you are terribly drunk and start thinking about how things came to be, the existence of a higher power seems much easier to believe. I find being agnostic doesn't require too much thought, you can see the pros and cons of both atheism and religion.

no- it takes no faith to accept to me. its like saying it takes faith to accept a giant hamster created the universe. does that take faith? obviously not- the bible to me is total bull so it takes nothing for me not to accept it.

The claim that atheism requires faith is a canard used by theists in an attempt to show that atheism belongs to the same kind of epistemological category as theism; and the reason for this attempt is that the theist could claim that philosophical discussions calling theism into question would also necessarily call atheism into question. It is a failed strategy. As one wit wrote 'Saying that atheism is a religion is the same as saying baldness is a hairstyle.' The fundamental difference between atheism and religion is that atheism is a provisional point of view. With no objective evidence for the existence of gods atheists conclude that the probability of there being gods is very small, and that it is rational to conduct their lives as though there are no such things. Should undeniable evidence for the existence of gods be discovered in the future I should change my point of view in the light of the evidence. I imagine that most atheists would also revise their opinions. Of course we can be absolutely confident that certain hypothesised gods do not exist, at least as conceived of by their believers. The triune god of christianity cannot exist because believers claim that it possesses mutually exclusive properties, but the non-existence of the god of christians does not prove the non-existence of other gods believed in by other people.

Faith is a word that no longer has any meaning for me. Theists have taken it and raped it of every drop of potential communicative value and left it a dried up piece of marketing.

Not really. It is conjecture/opinion/viewpoint/mindset rather than "faith". I think of faith as a state of belief that includes hope. An Atheist doesn't believe in "something"..an Atheist thinks there is nothing there. Having faith in nothing seems illogical to me and perhaps even nonsensical. Happy Wednesday! :)

No, I would say it's exactly the opposite of that statement. It takes no faith whatsoever to not be persuaded of something.

No. Cause there is plenty of evidence that God is a sham.

New Scientist magazine, 7 February 2009, p32: "Even so, religion is an inescapable artefact of the wiring in our brain, says Bloom.'All humans possess the brain circuitry and that never goes away'" I think this means that atheism takes even more faith than theism, given that : 1. We have to go against our natural brain circuitry. and 2. The alternative is to believe that believing in a non-existent God ensures that we are the "fittest to survive"???? Dig up the whole article. It's written from an atheistic point of view but I can't see how it enhances their position.

No. Because religious people 'do other things' besides believe in god. It takes more faith to believe and then also invest time, money, effort etc. into something than it does simply not to believe. ^ just came up with that one. What do you think?

I really can't say. I'm not an atheist. I'm agnostic. However, I would be inclined to say "no." Faith, for me, requires one to believe in something potentially abstract and unbelievable. Atheists (as I understand it and I'm open to being wrong) are pretty much galvanized in reality.

Weareallhypocrits, you are incorrect in stating that I've defined atheism in a way that fits what I've chosen to believe. Every definition I've given I've looked up. These are dictionary definitions and other sources not mine. I've been researching atheism last night and today, and I think you and Zebulon fit into the "Weak Athiest" category, that's why my question, "Do you believe there is a God" probably won't be anwered by either of you. You both sound more like agnostics to me, so I'll just answer this question based on what "Strong Atheist," or Atheist who will state what he or she believes. The statement, "My belief is that there is no God" is based on nothing tangable, nothing evidentiary, nothing anymore valid or provable than ones belief in Christianity. It's still a guess which is akin to faith because no one knows for sure, and it can't be proven.

This was supposed to be a comment.