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

I accept this challenge. I will defend only the statement, "It takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist."I agree that "This is not an argument over which belief is better or more true" because one of the beliefs is true and the other is false. They both can't be true. This will be a debate on whether the "STATEMENT that I have written above is in fact a correct statement." It is my job to show that this is a correct statement. It is my opponents job to show that it is incorrect.Definitions:Atheism: The belief there is no God or godsTheism: The belief there is a God or godsFaith: a belief not based on reasonTo show the statement, "It takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist" is correct, I will have to show that atheism is based on less reasoning than theism. Likewise, to show that it's incorrect my opponent will have to show that theism is based on less than or equal to reasoning as atheism. In my first response, I will give reasons theism is sound, my next will be reasons why atheism is unsound.Some people don't even have reasons for being atheist or theist, but if you look deeper into each claim, we can find which one is more valid.Philosophical ReasonsTheism has several philosophical arguments for support, which atheism lacks. All these arguments are logically sound. The ontological argument, the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, and the moral argument. I'll briefly go over each of them.Ontological ArgumentThe Ontological Argument is powerful, because it shows that a God is a necessary being (it has to exist). To help understand this argument, here are the definitions. A maximally great being is a being with ALL the good qualities to the maximum value. So this being is all powerful, all good, ect. And a possible world is a possible logically coherent form of reality. Not another planet or universe. So, it's possible a unicorn exists in a possible world because a unicorn is not illogical.1. It is possible that a maximally great being exists2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world5. If a maximally great being exists in the actual world, then a maximally great being exits6. Therefore, a maximally great being existsTo show that this being doesn't exist, my opponent will have to show that this being is illogical.Cosmological Argument1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause2. The universe began to exist3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.The first premise we can is commonly seen in our daily lives. My headphones began to exist, and it has a cause. The second premise is scientifically proved through the second law of thermodynamics, and the expansion of the universe. Now this cause still remains unknown to us, but we can give speculations as to what properties it has to have. It has to be transcendent, outside the universe because the universe cannot create itself. It has to be powerful, timeless, spaceless, causeless, immaterial. These are all good precursors to God, or this maximally great being.Teleological Argument1. The fine tuning of the universe is due to either natural law, chance or design2. It is not due to natural law or chance.3. Therefore, it is due to design.The first premise is easily accepted as true. If my opponent has another choice, I'll gladly hear it.The second premise needs some explanation. It can't be natural law because these laws don't cause anything to happen. They are just the way nature is and acts. Now chance seems appealing, but the chance that our universe is finely tuned is so incredibly low. If the gravitational constant was altered by a little, no life would exist. If you add up all the constants and the probability that they are the way they are, it would be crazy to think it's by chance. It would be like walking out to your car and seeing that it's a 2013 Camero and the licence plate are your initials and birthday. You wouldn't think that it was by chance, but that someone was behind this. Moral Argument1. If God does not exist, then objective moral values and objectives do not exist2. Objective moral values and duties do exist3. Therefore, God existsThis is pretty straightforward. If God does not exist, then these moral values and duties are a result of evolution adaptation and social conditioning. They aren't really objective. But we can see that these objective moral values and duties do exist. It is good to give to the poor. So it follows logically that God exists.We can see from philosophical reasoning, theism has great grounds in reasoning. From this perspective, it takes more faith to be an atheist than a theistScientific ReasonsThere is some crossover from the philosophical arguments. There are several reasons from science that can lead us to theism.Beginning of the UniverseThe universe has a beginning is one of the most widely accepted statements in science. And it's really outside of science to say what caused the universe to come into being. Science only explains things in nature, but the cause of the universe is outside of the universe. So science may never say what this cause is. If theism is true, then a being or mind is behind the cosmos. An atheist has to believe nothing created everything.Origin of LifeScience has come up empty handed as to how life actually started. Theory after theory has melted away at how it actually started. And how could this even be tested in science? If they were to create an environment where amino acids roamed free, and certain events took place, and life began... this environment was still created for life to begin in. If theism is true then some prime mover at least initiated the process of life. Acceptance of Scientific TruthWe can't know that scientific truth is true based on science. If atheism is true, our minds evolved for survival, not to find truth. So we can't really know what's true, we just have to make assumptions. If theism is true, we were created in the image of this mind to reason and think and ponder truth.Origin of InformationRecently a great discovery was made about our DNA - it contains actual information. It's instructions on how to build and work our body. Some even say this information falls into the definition of what a language is. To think that our DNA contains a language is remarkable. Just think about it. Out of all the languages we know of: English, Spanish, binary code... it all started in a mind. Nature doesn't accidentally create language. Even if this information isn't a language, still all information originates in a mind. Historical ReasonsThroughout all human history, across all cultures and nations and tribes, people have acknowledge some sort of Creator or spirit(s). If we take the New Testament to be historical and reliable documents of history, we can see that this Creator cares for His creation. ExperienceMost people who believes in a Creator believe you can experience Him personally and have a relationship with Him. This creates a personal and reachable way to know that your belief is true.The Statement ApplicableThe Con brought this up in his last paragraph, so I will comment on it. Even if this statement is false, it can still be useful and applicable. If a theist is talking with an atheist, and the theist says, "it takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist." If the atheist is open minded, he will take a look into this claim, just like my opponent has, creating a discussion such as this. If this statement isn't useful or applicable, then we wouldn't be debating on such a topic. However, this debate isn't about the applicability of it but the truthfulness.As we can see, there is great reason to believe that it takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist. I look forward to my opponents response.