Atheism is based on "faith"

"This debate is getting off-track. The topic is not atheism itself, but whether or not it is based on faith." Actually it's not really. I argued that Atheism is not based on faith. Allow me to some up my argument: The Bible is historically accurate, and this is a proven fact.(http://www.christiancourier.com...) The Bible is also proving its accuracy today through fulfilling prophecies. This is all obvious. The Prophecies that are being fulfilled were made by God. This is evidence of Gods existence. The Bible is historically accurate, God historically made prophecies in the Bible, these prophecies are being fulfilled. That was my argument; that there is proof of God. There, now you have the proof you were waiting for. "Waiting for proof of absence is not agnosticism, unless one also thinks that proof is possible." What you simply do not get is that ATHEISM IS DENIAL OF A GOD. Atheism = belief in no God. Atheists do not wait for evidence, they rebut evidence presented by Theists and present their own evidence. I, as a Theist, presented evidence for my position, and the burdon of proof was on your side the whole time. When you say that you're waiting for evidence, and do not present any yourself, you are not acting as an Atheist at all. As I have been telling you the whole time, you sound like an Agnostic. Your argument concerning the Loch Ness monster is flawed, then, because when people conclude that there is no evidence for the loch ness monster, or that the evidence presented is not reliable, and choose not to believe in said creature they have faith. Why? Because there is no solid proof against the monster. If there is little to no evidence on both sides, both side require faith. Why? Because faith is believing something there is little or no evidence for. When it comes to Theism and Atheism, it is the same deal. There is little evidence on both sides, so both sides require faith. It's that simple. "The prophecies you outlined are not proof of God's existence at all." I have already addressed this. "My argument is that if someone does not see ANY EVIDENCE of God's existence, and they then do not believe he exists, there is no faith involved." Yes, there is faith involved. YOU HAVE PROVIDED NO EVIDENCE FOR YOUR POSITION, so you are believing in a claim with no evidence supporting it. THAT REQUIRES SERIOUS FAITH. Let us go over the definition of faith one more time... Faith: Firm belief in something for which there is no proof You have provided no proof, and therefore have faith BY DEFINITION. "The simple answer to this is "I have no idea." [where the universes cam from]" Wow. That takes faith. To believe that an all powerful God did not create the universe takes faith. If it did not come from a God for a reason, and it was not the Big Bang, then there is no explanation for where it came from. Thus you have no proof it came from nowhere, thus you have faith. No proof + belief = faith BY DEFINITION. ""God does not exist." 1) One cannot prove something does not exist. 2) Therefore, something must be proved to exist before it is considered "real."" That is actually very confusing, and I have spent way too long trying to understand it. It makes no sense. You can't prove it's not there, so you have to prove it's there before it's real...right? Well, what this is saying is that you cannot prove God isn't there, so you have to prove He IS there in order for Him to be real. THAT"S EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO TELL YOU. You cannot prove God isn't there, therefore it requires faith to believe that He isn't there, because faith is belief without proof. This "Logic behind Atheism" just worked against you. "3) If there is no proof something exists, then there is no reason to assume it exists. 4) There is no proof God exists. 5) There is no reason to accept God's existence as true. Q.E.D." Oh, oh, my turn! 1) If there is no proof that something does not exist, then there is no reason to assume it does not exist. 2) There is no proof that God does not exist. 3) Therefore there is no reason to accept Gods existence as false. The difference between your logical equation and mine is this: I provided proof. You did not. Like I said before, the burden of proof was on you the whole debate, and you provided none. I found that the best way to deal with your "logic" was to break it up. The first portion was a self contradiction, and the second could easily be turned around to work for my side. You "logic" is flawed, and is really not logic at all. our format was premise, conclusion, premise, premise, premise, and makes no sense at all. "But this debate rests solely on whether or not one can use only logic to arrive at the conclusion that God's existence is not fact. I have demonstrated that it is. Therefore, atheism does not require faith." Your demonstration was flawed, and I have demonstrated that. Logic does not support Atheism. What you presented as logic proved to be contradictory to what you have argued this whole debate. Therefore Atheism requires faith. READ THE WHOLE DEBATE BEFORE VOTING PLEASE. Thanks, Renzzy