It is appropriate to say "It takes more faith to be an atheist than..."

It is my contention that the statement "It takes more faith to be an atheist" is a misleading, harmful, and ultimately untrue statement. I will attempt to prove this statement. As I said before, I am not arguing whether or not atheism is more reasonable or true than theism, only that it involves less faith. Obviously this depends on your definition of faith. However, the definition of faith is not some arbitrary word. It has a certain meaning to Christians and atheists and the general public. I let pro define faith here. That is because he is the one who has to defend why this statement is good. Now, I am first going to provide some alternative definitions of faith and show why using each of these, the statement is still false. Then, I will use pro's definition to show where he goes wrong. Then I will comment on his arguments for God's existence. I. Alternate definition of faith 1) belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion (Dictionary) 2) Faith is belief with strong conviction; firm belief in something for which there may be no tangible proof; complete trust in or devotion to. (Christianity about) 3) Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. (KJV Hebrews 11) 4) "a firm and certain knowledge of God's benevolence towards us, founded upon the truth of the freely given promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the Holy Spirit (John Calvin) 5) the intellect may be induced to assent to a truth for none of the foregoing reasons, but solely because, though not evident in itself, this truth rests on grave authority ...This last kind of knowledge is termed faith...if the authority is Divine, we have Divine and infallible faith (Catholic Encyclopedia) 6) faith is that certainty of the mind about absent things which surpasses opinion but falls short of science (Damascene) 7) Faith is a Divine virtue by which we firmly believe the truths which God has revealed (Baltimore Catechism) Okay, that's a good sampling. Now lets take a look. 1/4/5/7- According to these definition, it involves belief in God and religion, therefore, atheism takes less faith than theism. In these definitions, either God is the object of faith or faith presupposes the existence of God and the proper object of faith is the truths revealed by God. Since atheism rejects the existence of God, it follows that according to these definitions, the atheist lacks faith, and possibly even the possibility of faith given that they reject the possibility of God revealing. 2/3/6- These definitions have to do with belief in something that surpasses the boundaries of reason. In the first case, it has to do with belief in things without tangible proof. Now, let us assume the existence of some sort of proof for God. In this case, belief in God is not properly termed faith. Therefore, faith must be in something beyond the existence of God, perhaps belief in the Trinity. If this is the case, atheism lacks faith not because they do not believe in God but because they lack belief in the doctrines held by Christians to be revealed by God. On the other hand, lets assume that God cannot be proven. In this case, the atheist lacks faith because the atheist lacks belief in God whereas the Christian believes in the thing that cannot be proven. Now, number 6 is very similar. It is basically belief in something beyond reason. Now, what if God is a proper object of reason? you seem to accept this. In that case, belief in God or not is a question of reason and not properly of faith. Therefore, the atheist lacks faith for other reasons but not on the grounds that they do not believe in God. On the other hand, if God does surpass reason, then it follows that the atheist lacks faith because he fails to believe in God. Finally, the Biblical definition asserts that faith is belief in something unseen or beyond our tangible universe. God is certainly in this category as are many other things. In this case, the atheist lacks faith because he does not believe in anything beyond the tangible (if he is a materialist). Given those definitions of faith, my argument stands. Your definition of faith is belief in something not based on reason. As we cleared up in the comments, I wanted to leave out whether or not faith was reasonable. Therefore, in order to use your definition and avoid the question I wanted to avoid, we have to turn your definition to mean: "Faith is belief in something not based on reason but grounded at least in part in something else besides reason" Based on this definition, it seems as though the atheist might or might not have faith. Let us suppose that there are no good reasons to believe in God and belief in God is based on something beyond reason alone, say personal conviction based on the "Spirit" as some Christians might say. Now, in this case, the atheist lacks faith with respect to God. It is possible, and actually likely, that the atheist has "faith" in other areas. However this is irrelevant in terms of how the statement you are defending is used. On the other hand, the Christian does have faith given this definition. Now, lets assume that belief in God is based on reason (even reason alone). Then the problem with the atheist is not lack of faith per-se but lack of reason. The atheist however would lack faith given that maybe certain qualities of God or Jesus would not be based on reason but on Scripture or something beyond reason alone. In that case, the atheist still lacks faith. Based on all of these definitions, the Christian has more faith than the atheist. But you insist that your definition of faith proves that atheists have more faith than Christians. You say to show this it means that atheism is based on less reasoning than theism. However, just because faith is belief in something that transcends reason (say the two natures of Jesus Christ) and therefore not based on reason (at least not reason alone) it does not follow that the more reasonable system is the one that takes less faith. Christians believe in certain doctrines that cannot be proven. In terms of religion, atheists believe in none of these. So atheists have less faith. If the atheist's belief system therefore does not include those things that transcend reason and are based on things beyond and besides reason, then they do not have faith. The only way therefore to use your definition and make your argument work is to extend it to mean "faith is the belief in something not based on reason and in spite of reason" in other words, your definition has to be modified in such a way that it makes it inversely proportional to reason. If this is the case, then your argument about which is more reasonable belief system stands. Yet if you take this definition, you use a definition that is antagonistic to your own theistic religion! Also, to take on this definition is to fly in the face of faith being a virtue, it would seem blind! Moreover, didn't Jesus say with faith you could move mountains? Is it more likely that an atheist moves mountains? My point is that the only way for the Christian to make this statement is ultimately to reject faith and use a self-defeating argument. The definition of faith the Christian must use is one that is an affront to Christianity itself. It turns faith into the negative. It makes faith an enemy of reason. All of these things are harmful. Finally, as for your arguments. I see that your arguments are similar to Craig's. I think that he could articulate the fine-tuning better. Here is an article on that: http://www.firstthings.com... Anyway, I agree for the most part with your arguments. Although, if arguments can demonstrate God's existence, the atheist lacks reason not faith. But the two are different, We are saved by faith, not by reason. Although both are important.