Atheism is based on "faith"

This debate is getting off-track. The topic is not atheism itself, but whether or not it is based on faith. "You say there is no God? Prove it. You claim it, you have to prove it. Saying you are waiting for evidence for God's existence is more Agnosticism than Atheism. An Atheist, by definition, actively claims there is no god, and it is unfair to say that Theists have to prove there is a God, simply because they claim to believe in Him, but Atheists do not have to prove there is no God, when they claim he does not exist. It's a double standard." Waiting for proof of absence is not agnosticism, unless one also thinks that proof is possible. There is no conclusive proof, for example, that there is a monster living in Loch Ness. Many people agree with the conclusion that there is no monster living in Loch Ness, simply because of the lack of evidence. They are not taking the "middle road," saying that there MIGHT be a monster. They simply consider it unrealistic, and therefore untrue. Taking this approach to the question of God's existence is not agnosticism, nor is it based on faith. The prophecies you outlined are not proof of God's existence at all. For one, the Bible cannot be taken as a reliable source, given the OBVIOUS conflict of interest. If someone does not consider the Bible a reliable source, it is not because they have "faith" in the contents being false. Rather, they do not consider anecdotal evidence from a biased party to be logical proof of anything. "Atheists on the other hand have nothing to base there claims on. "I have never seen God, so He must not exist." Well, neither have I, but there is evidence that He is working in the world, so I can deduct from that, and from what I read in his word that he must exist." This is over-simplifying my argument. My argument is that if someone does not see ANY EVIDENCE of God's existence, and they then do not believe he exists, there is no faith involved. You might interpret from what you have read that God exists, but someone who interprets that "evidence" differently is not demonstrating faith. They simply thought through the decision differently, using my above-stated reasoning for not assuming religious texts to be trustworthy. "So if you don't believe the universe came from nothing, what do you think it came from?" The simple answer to this is "I have no idea." I don't know where the universe came from, no do I presume to. I don't think God created everything, nor do I think everything simply happened for no reason. Simply put, neither of those claims have proof to back them up. I don't have an answer to that question that carries proof behind it, but my not knowing where the Universe came from does not mean your answer has to be correct. Just because an atheist does not know where the Universe came from does not mean he has faith in God not having done it. Atheism stems not from faith, but from logic. You might disagree with the logic, but that does not make it faith. Logic is logic. I have demonstrated this logic before, and I will one last time, for posterity. "God does not exist." 1) One cannot prove something does not exist. 2) Therefore, something must be proven to exist before it is considered "real." 3) If there is no proof something exists, then there is no reason to assume it exists. 4) There is no proof God exists. 5) There is no reason to accept God's existence as true. Q.E.D. You might not agree with this logic. However, that does not mean that it is not logic. The question of what constitutes "proof," for example, is debatable. But this debate rests solely on whether or not one can use only logic to arrive at the conclusion that God's existence is not fact. I have demonstrated that it is. Therefore, atheism does not require faith.