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

"But my main contention is that this statement is a true statement; not that this is good, bad, useful, or harmful." I think that if the statement is false, it follows that it is harmful. " I tried to keep the definition consistent, but Pro decided to throw all sorts of definitions out." The reason is that we could get hung up on whether or not the specific definition is a proper one. I wanted to show that given ANY definition of faith that a theist would accept, my argument stands. "He has not provided any arguments to show an atheist has sound ground to believe there is no God." But this isn't an argument for God's existence or against it. If it was, that is what I would've titled the debate. The argument is over whether or not it takes more faith to believe in God. "I don't feel like going much deeper into that because I'm sure my opponent agrees with these statements." Very true "An atheist doesn't apply to this situation" The reason that the atheist doesn't apply is that they have no faith to begin with. Most atheists don't just lack faith, they reject the notion or possibility of faith at all because they reject in principal the spiritual or supernatural realm or revelation itself. "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." So far then, it follows that neither the atheist or theist has any faith. Until we add something else to the object of faith (assuming faith is intellectual belief in something we need a thing to believe in) then the atheist and theist both lack faith. What candidates do we have for this something? 1) Truths of revelation 2) The supernatural realm 3) The spiritual realm 4) Scripture, Tradition, or Church 5) The invisible 6) Things which transcend reason 7) Things which we cannot know to be true or false at all 8) Things which contradict reason Well, if we look at any of these things, and call them proper objects of faith, we run into problems. 1 atheists reject because they reject the existence of God to begin with so revelation goes out. Same goes for 2. As for 3, it is possible that the atheist believes in this although highly unlikely. So maybe atheism might not per se have less faith but practically it does in most cases. If 4 is the object of faith, then it follows that atheists lack belief in this. If it is 5, then it could be theists or atheists. However most atheists don't believe in MORE invisible things than the theist does. Assuming atheists and theists believe all things the same other than religious doctrines, it would follow that the theist believes in more that is unseen due to the fact that Christianity and other religions profess belief in the invisible realm of Trinity, Angels, Heaven, Hell, etc. If we define faith as 6-meaning the things which we cannot know if they are true or false by reason alone but need some other sort of grounds for belief- It depends. It is theoretically possible that an atheist believes in things beyond just what reason says. For instance, an atheist could believe in true morality despite no reason to believe in it (without an objective standard like God) and they might base this on personal conviction rather than evidence. So an atheist can have faith in things that goes beyond (ALTHOUGH NOTICE I DID NOT SAY CONTRADICTS) reason. However, theists do to and they ALWAYS do especially if they are part of a revealed religion (Christian/Muslim/Jew). Christians necessarily and by definition profess faith in these things. Besides, even if we use this definition and say atheists have more faith, it isn't relevant in the sense that it relates to theism vs atheism debates because the atheist would believe in things on this "faith" but it would have nothing to do with their atheism. However, theists would have their beliefs based on the theism. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, theists have more faith even with this definition. As for 7, this doesn't really have to do with religious belief essentially. Any atheist or any theist could believe in more unknowable things. Both theism and atheism are not systems that attempt to make people believe in things without any grounds for belief---a false sort of willful hope. Atheists would accuse theists of this. But then again theists would say atheists just refuse to believe and say "I don't know" so I think this point is irrelevant. Most people wouldn't admit to having any faith if 7 is the definition. Now 8 is where we reach a problem. I am not going to say who has more faith given this definition. However, it is far better, given this definition, to lack faith completely. Faith is unreasonable. Faith is a lie. Faith is false. From a Christian perspective (or any theistic religion with a sense of "faith") this definition is untenable, false, destructive, etc. Therefore, from a Christian perspective, even if it is true that "atheists have more faith" (i.e. atheists are less reasonable) is this really something that they want to defend? Think about that next time you use this statement. "We both seem to agree that being an atheist is going against reason. Point for theism." Here is the worrisome part of your entire argument. It is a point for the TRUTH of THEISM yes, I will agree. However, is it a point for the TRUTH of the STATEMENT? The only way for this to be the case is that the truth of theism and the truth of the statement correspond. 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? The answer is that they have dug themselves a whole and are in a bind. This is the result of basically defining faith as contrary to reason. "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." 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. So atheism, as a lack of belief, has less faith. Now if you define atheism as the positive belief that there is no God (which is dubious to begin with), 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... "In my opening statement, we can see that an atheist is going against scientific truth in believing there is no God." Yeah but this definition of faith (#3 on your list) isn't about what fits into or goes against science. This definition of faith is about what falls short of science. It was a definition given by a Church Father I believe. Falling short of science here just means things which transcend reason (e.g. The Incarnation). Its not really about empirical science and its not about reason--its about what transcends reason. "Atheists have to ignore several defeaters to keep believing there is no God. " 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. "Even demons believe in God but aren't saved." Because as the Epistle says, we are not saved by faith alone " faith we're saved by is not the belief in God, but the promises he's told us." But then faith is something good and virtuous. Do atheists have more of this? That is my ultimate point: Either the theist (and esp. Christian) has to accept that faith is a virtue and in Christains more than atheists or not.