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

My main contention has always been, "it takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist." That is to say, it takes more faith to believe there is no God than to believe there is a God. Any additional beliefs any religion or the atheist has regarding their worldview, does not apply to the statement. Can you believe there is a God with out believing in angels? Certainly. Can you believe in God without believing in heaven or hell? I know people who believe that. The Sadducee didn't believe in a heaven or hell, yet believed in God. Can you believe in God and not the Bible? Of course! Those add-on beliefs do not apply to the statement.Opponents Arguments"I think that if a statement is false, it follows that it is harmful"If my sister were to get a hair fixed up and it looked horrible, and she asked what I thought and I said "It looks great." That would be a false statement, yet it is not harmful, but actually encouraging. "The argument is over whether or not it takes more faith to believe in God."More correctly, it takes more faith to be an atheist (believes there is no God) than a theist (believes in God)"The reason that the atheist doesn't apply is that they have no faith to begin with."I've said time and time again, that they have faith that there is no God. I could also say that theists have no faith that there is no God. Theists have no faith in what the atheists believes."They reject the notion or possibility of faith."Just because they reject the notion or possibility, doesn't mean they don't have faith. I can proclaim that I do find this certain girl pretty, but that doesn't mean she isn't pretty!"That would mean: If theism is true, it takes more faith to be an atheist.Now this is where the argument falls apart: This statement means that faith is inversely proportionate to the truth of a belief. How then can the theist say they have any faith at all? How can a Christian claim faith in Christ?Well, so what? The argument is about faith of God or no God. The definition of faith changes when we start talking about the religious add ons, like we have discussed in the past."Problem with this argument: The atheist with respect to God lacks belief (or if you insist, has positive belief in no-God...although most atheists would have a problem with this definition as most wouldn't be full on anti-theists).Now this definition is based on HAVING belief not LACKING IT."Atheism is the belief there is no God. Not the lack of belief. Like I said before, if you lack belief in God, you just stating your psychological state. So you're saying you have similar psychological states as a cat, or an ant, or an infant. It's not really helping atheists out. And like I said before, theists also lack belief there is no God. "there is still no "complete trust and devotion to" or firm belief "in something which there may be no tangible proof." there is only firm belief that there is NOT something..."Exactly. Atheists have complete trust and devotion to there being no God. And they believe in something which there may be no tangible proof. But I'll take it a step further and say there is NO proof."Does this mean they have more faith? If it does, then you seem to believe that faith is ignoring defeaters. If that is so, faith is rejecting reason."I wouldn't take it that far. Would it be reject reason if someone told me their name was Adam, and they dropped an ID and it said their name was "David" and I still continued to believe his name was Adam? I don't think so, you'd just ignore it like it's not a big deal or that there might be some explanation I don't know of.Round 2: "But the two are different, We are saved by faith, not by reason. Although both are important."Round 3: "Because as the Epistle says, we are not saved by faith alone"How do you reconcile with these two statements? FaithI looked up Hebrews 11:1 and looked at the Greek word for faith. The transliteration is pistis. The Thayer Definition of this faith is: "Conviction of the truth of anything, belief." It also goes on to have other definitions as well. But what I found most interesting is that the origin of the word is from the Greek word "peitho" and that means persuade. If you take that definition, who has more persuasion to hold that belief? There isn't any good persuasion or defeater to believe there is no God.Now, the reason I chose the definition of faith like I do, is because that's how most people I talk to seem to take it to mean. If you said, "I have faith God exists." It's like saying I don't really have a reason. That sounds a little funny. Because you need to be certain he exists to say that "I have faith in Jesus for my salvation." Now an atheist would never use the word faith to describe his reason for believing there is no God because he thinks that faith means to have no reason." I'm using their definition against them.Now I'm not arguing about all the add ons theists may or may not have. You can believe in God and reject Islam, and Christianity and Judaism and even any sort of organized religion all together. I'm just talking about having faith that God exists or faith that God does not exist.I think I've made a pretty good case when you just talk about God and nothing else. Atheists over the ages have provided some reasons to believe there is no God, yet they have all been crumbled. And theists have provided numorous solid reasons to believe in God that have lasted for centuries. Some say that atheism is not falsifiable, but I think it's been falsified. If you think atheism is true, you're making a pretty big claim that you have no reason for. Which is part of the reason for the redefinition to "Lack of belief" so they have to avoid the situation altogether.