The existance of God

The definition of faith is, making an assumption that something is or is not, without sufficient evidence. By saying that God could exist anywhere outside of your small circle indicates you not knowing if god exists. Further, since you say it would be outside of the large circle, it will never be possible for you to empirically know if god does or doesn't exist. Therefore, you must excercise the definition of faith for your atheist position. Faith isn't dependent on a positive assertion. It's simply taking a position without the evidence to prove you being right or wrong. Your worldview must give you a horrible concept of what faith is. Faith and belief are synonamous. You believe there is no god, since you already admitted you can't know, therefore, since faith and belief are synonamous, you have faith in there not being a god. If you say anything could be outside of your circle, this only further supports my position. It doesn't matter what you say can be outside of the circle. God, is a bit more reasonable than Santa Clause though I must say. Obviously, since it's probably the most widely debated topic in the world. You've said nothing that makes an atheists belief(faith) in no god different from a religionists belief(faith) in god. All you said is anything could be outside of our small little circle. Anything most certainly includes god. Your worldview dictates you examining real world data inside the small circle, and from that, inferring there is no god. A religionist does the same but infers there is a god. That being said, one can't prove either side. Therefore, it's a matter of faith. This is pure logic you can't argue against that. Either you change your position to "we can't know" (agnostic) or start saying you know god doesn't exist. Because saying you believe god doesn't exist implies, since you already said we can't know, that you have faith in this assertion. A=A is a logical truth. We can't know, but I know , is the same as saying A=B. Therefore, as much as you seem to hate it, you aren't much different from the religious man. I don't say this to upset you. I say this because you to are excercising belief. As far as Christianity goes. One event defines the entire religion. Did Christ rise from the dead? Either all those people lied and it spread through a very skeptical pagan empire at an extremely rapid rate. Or, it happened. Since our senses are quite fallible, much of the world we take in will be interpreted according to our wordview. So, for the atheist, obviously this will be a complete impossibility. This isn't so for a religious wordview. But, again, this can't be proven. We circle back to our faith argument. You believe it didn't happen. I believe it did. Thats it. I can't criticize you or say your irrational. But, you cant criticize or tell me i'm irrational. If you did, this would come from a purely emotional place. Neither one of us knows anything. We just believe differently. Indirectly, you admitted this with the circle analogy. So, without the ability to prove A doesn't = A I'd say in simple objective logic, I've shown that it's no more rational to be an atheist than a religionist. It's only a matter of how this tiny little circle gets interpreted.