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

In my opening statement I said I'd defend, "It takes more faith to be an atheist than a theist." I'm not proposing that this is an harmful statement. You can see in my definitions I did not define a theist as a Christian, Muslim, Hindu, and/or Jew; just simply someone who believes in a God or gods. The statement can be misleading based on how you define "faith." I tried to keep the definition consistent, but Pro decided to throw all sorts of definitions out. But my main contention is that this statement is a true statement; not that this is good, bad, useful, or harmful.I'm glad my opponent agrees with all my arguments as being solid ground for the theist to believe in God. He has not provided any arguments to show an atheist has sound ground to believe there is no God.I'll show how wacky an atheist belief system ultimately brings him. Then respond to my opponents arguments.Wacky AtheismHuman life has no valueIf you're an atheist, you are lead to believe that humans are equal to animals. Their life ultimately has no more value than the dirt on the bottom of their shoes. Life has no purpose or meaning, or it's all illusoryWhen the atheist dies, that is the end. Nothing they did mattered, nothing they could do will matter. The universe will soon be an cold dead place without any energy. So nothing they do will matter in the end.Can't be sure of your own convictionsAtheists have to believe that their convictions are a result of evolutionary adaptation. Evolution adapts to survival, not for truth.Moral NihilistBecause there is no God, there is no such thing as morals. It's morally indifferent to kill a child for one's own pleasure. No FreewillOn the atheist view, we are just a bunch of chemicals that have by chance ended up together creating reactions. All we do are just a result of previous reactions in the past. We don't determine what we do or say.I don't feel like going much deeper into that because I'm sure my opponent agrees with these statements. Con's Arguments Con gave seven definitions for faith. Four of the seven do presuppose you already believe in God. They have to do with certain doctrines of religions, or God's promises. He then concludes, atheists have less faith because they don't believe this. I'd say these definitions don't apply to an atheist, and that doesn't makes an atheist have less faith- it's not applicable. An example of someone having less faith with these definitions would be a Christian believing in God, yet didn't think He'd follow through with His promises. That is having less or no faith. An atheist doesn't apply to this situation. My argument is faith towards a God or no God. And I still contend that you have to have more faith to believe that there is no God than there is a God. Heck, I don't even think it takes faith (any definitions you can storm up) to believe in God. I'll expand on that later. So, with those definitions, God is not the object of faith; so it doesn't require any faith for the theist or atheist to believe there is a god or no god.Now what of the other three definitions? God can be the object. He says that theists have faith there is a God, and atheists have less faith there is a God. I find this inconsistent. Why can't we say that theist have less faith there is no God and atheist have more faith there is no God? Theism= there is a God, atheism=there is no God. Con seems to be confused about my definition. He alluded to atheism being lack of a belief in God. On that definition, my pet dog is an atheist, we both were born atheists, and the chair I'm sitting in is an atheist. They all lack a belief in God. So I suggest we stick with the traditional definition of atheism that it's a belief there is no God. So, if we're to keep all things equal, theists have faith there is a God, and atheists have faith there is no God. Now, we must ask, which one is taking a bigger leap in faith? We both seem to agree that being an atheist is going against reason. Point for theism. FaithWhy did I choose that definition? If we used a definition of Faith as I normally would, or Con suggested, those definitions presuppose God. God is not the one having faith in. You don't have faith in God. As I have shown, that sort of definition would be useless in this discussion. Believing in God doesn't require faith with these situations. The atheist doesn't have less faith or more faith, it's just not applied. Same goes with the theist. We have to use a definition of Faith that can be applied to where God is the object of faith. Three of his definitions fit with that:1. Faith is a strong conviction; firm belief in something for which there may be no tangible proof; complete trust in or devotion to With this definition I've shown several proofs that show a theist needs less faith to believe in God, and the atheist needs to take a larger leap. Con didn't disagree, he actually helped support the arguments. He hasn't provided any proof that there is no God.2. Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see. (Hebrews 11:1 ESV)Sorry I used a different version. To stay true to the original manuscripts, I chose a more accurate interpretation. The King James Version has several translation errors, so I try to avoid it (Go to Biblegateway.com, select KJV and search unicorn.) But still, this definition atheist still have faith. Let's play fill in the blanks. Christian: Now faith is confidence that God's grace will save you and you are assured he will follow through. Atheist: Now faith is confidence nothing will happen when you die, and you're assured there is no God.3. Faith is that certainty of the mind about absent things which surpasses opinion but falls short of scienceIn my opening statement, we can see that an atheist is going against scientific truth in believing there is no God. Con seems to agree with that. The theist is being consistent with modern scientific truth. The atheist has to add on philosophical statements, to which there is no proof, to make his worldview consistent with science.I've seen time and time again discussions between atheist and theist alike where the atheist asks, "Why do you believe in God?" The theist foolishly answers, "Because I have faith." Using the religious definitions Con has provided, we can see how faith in God is presupposed. If the theist's response is going to make any sense he'd have to use a different definition of faith, like the one I provided in my opening statement. Atheist often take it as a lack of reason. Is that a correct definition? If two people can agree on that meaning, then yes it is a correct definition. But that's getting into semantics.Properly Basic BeliefNow I suggested that using the kind of definitions atheists often use for Faith, that the theist STILL doesn't need faith to believe in God. Believing in God is a properly basic belief.What is a properly basic belief? Well, if someone came up to you and said "Hi my name is Adam." You have every reason to believe his name is Adam. That is a properly basic belief. Does it make it true? Of course not. To start believing that his name is not Adam, you'd need a defeater. So, if he dropped his license and you saw that his name was "George." You'd start to suspect his actual name. Does that mean his name is not Adam? No! You can have a defeater for the defeater. If he'd laugh and say, "Oh, it's a fake ID." Then you'd be back to square one to believing his name is Adam.God is the same way. Theists simply know there is a God. We'd need a good defeater to change our mind. But no defeater has ever been able to do that. Atheists have to ignore several defeaters to keep believing there is no God. I'd like to comment on the Con's last paragraph. "We're saved by faith, not reason." The faith we're saved by is not the belief in God, but the promises he's told us. "You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!" James 2:10 ESV. Even demons believe in God but aren't saved.