Welcome to Gaia! ::

Thank you for completely misunderstanding atheism and everything about it.

Atheism is not a faith. It is not a religion, it isn't a sect, it isn't organized. Please do not make this mistake. It's impossible for atheism to require faith, because, by definition, atheism is a lack of faith. Let's get out our knowledge of Greek, why don't we?

The prefix 'a' means 'without.' 'Theos' means 'god.' 'Atheos' therefore means "without gods." Now, let's Anglicize that a bit, and we get "atheism," meaning, "lack of belief in a god or gods." The word itself implies not a faith, but a lack of faith.

This means that atheism doesn't require proof. It isn't making any positive claims, whereas theism is making a claim that god exists. It is up to the theists to prove that god exists, not up to the atheists to prove that god doesn't. Try proving that unicorns don't exist, and maybe you'll see why negative proofs aren't really possible.

You also make a lot of assumptions about god that aren't necessarily true even if a god does exist.

There's no proof that fairies exist. No proof for unicorns. No proof for a lot of ideas. By the same logic, it requires faith to not believe in fairies, unicorns, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and other magical entities. While I would say it takes a good deal of faith to believe that these things exist, I would say that it doesn't take too much to not believe in something like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Besides that, atheism is just the lack of belief in God in general. What if you've never heard of a god or gods? This is known as passive atheism. Does that require faith? To not believe in something that to you, literally has no existence? Definite no. I can't have faith that something I don't and can't know of doesn't exist. To me, it doesn't exist already. That's not faith.

Even with knowledge of the idea of god, it doesn't require faith to disbelieve the concept. There is a difference between what is called "strong atheism" and what is called "weak atheism." A weak atheist is one who does not believe in a god or gods, yet does not assert the nonexistence of such. This doesn't require faith, as it isn't asserting anything at all. It's just disbelief, perhaps for personal reasons. I would call it a disassociation with the idea of a god instead of a disbelief in god. I think a better term for this is nontheism.

A strong atheist, such as myself, is one who asserts that a god or gods does not exist. This is not based on empirical proof, but rather on the belief that the concept of a god is self-contradictory, and therefore cannot exist. It doesn't require faith to assert that no thing can be both itself and not itself. It just requires the simple rules of logic. While one can argue that logic doesn't apply to god, that really has nothing to do with this argument. The point is that there is no faith in atheism, even if you define faith as "trust in something," which I don't.

Okay, I am going to try and adress two things.

A ) With the whole faith thing, using the logic that faith is just trust, then everything we do is by faith. We have faith that 2+2=4. If you look at it that way, it is rather silly. We don't have faith that 2+2=4, we KNOW 2+2=4. Things in the realm of science can fall onto knowing as their form of trust, and not faith. This is more of a word semantics discussion than as to whether an atheist has to have faith...

B ) Atheist believe in no god(ess)(s/es). Basically, no dieties. This does not mean that there is no spirtuality in an atheist's life.

C ) You bring up that the scale is titled against atheism, but that uses no empericle evidence. Now, if you will remember there is a rule of thumb called the Law of Parsimony. Basically, this states that whatever takes the least assuming is probably true. So, using this law, we look at your point that human existance points to a god. In this, we must assume that a god, that they have the power to create, and that they created human life. Now, the other side says evolution (being backed by empirical evidence) is what we must assume, and, to be nice I will throw in we have to assume one of the life creation theories(Primordial Soup, Asteriod, whatever, aliens for all I care, just anything but a god). So, to assume god(ess)(e/es) created us assumes three things, while assuming we are here due to scientific cause assumes two things. That slants the scale in the atheist favor.

D ) Negative proofs work when things are based on empirical evidence, but not when something is like god(ess)(e/es) where there is a general lack of evidence. We can proove that Genetically Modified Foods do NOT pose a threat to wildlife, and we can prove that stonehenge was NOT build with deseil vehicles.