This was essentially one of your first arguments that I responded to, which you never responded back about.
I am, at this time, still trying to figure out what this "original point" is, in any case: stating that atheism is a belief on grounds of evolutionism is false, as again, [furless dogs metaphor]; on grounds of "God/gods certainly don't exist" is one that has never been argued with you; that most/all atheists are hypocrites for having faith in evolution is false, because the faith you refer to is a different use of the word than what they criticize, and you wouldn't need to use evolution anyways as it's a fairly acceptable assumption, I think, that every intellectually developed person holds belief in something.
If I've been missing something the whole time, now might be a wonderful point at which to bring it up.

Same with my dawkins video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxwBtfkv9ns
It clears up this whole argument in a brief 2 1/2 minutes. But no, they still want to go on for days about how they think we know for sure there is no god and blindly believe it as much as they believe in god.

Well, this is a null topic. If you want your argument to be taken seriously, you are probably going to need to explain it yourself rather than posting up some youtube video.

And Johnny.. I can't take you seriously if you just keep posting with "No, you're wrong" without explaining in any way why.

I honestly don't have time to click on all these links and try to decipher what everyone is trying to say through them.

Use a dictionary. What your religion considers faith does not mean it is the true meaning of the word. A word that is synonymous means it is very similar but not always exact. In this case faith is not equal to belief. Just sometimes similar depending on usage.
Faith should have a derogatory manner because it is not considered rationally proven.

I never said it was empirically proven.
(though some concepts can be disproven empirically, like if I believed in some invincible sandwich and then ate him meaning he was not invincible, It really depends on the concept of a higher power).
I said it was rational. It is rationally proven because people use reason to say a certain concept does not exist. (not blind faith)

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Feb 24 2010, 2:09 am by MasterJohnny.

Atheism is not rationally proveable, hence it is a faith.

Explain how is it not rationally proveable? Are you saying that my invincible sandwich is possible?
Please read the links before saying stuff like that. Get a source for an atheist site that says atheism is a faith. Suppose to ask an expert on atheism.

Going from definition 2b: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
Most deities aren't on earth, according to their respective religions. Often, the deity isn't a material being. Science nor experience cannot disprove OR prove immaterial beings or objects. Therefore, deities are neither proveable nor proveable. It requires faith to believe that there is no god. Atheism is the doctrine that there is no god.

EDIT
Why would I ask an atheist whether atheism is a faith? That's like asking a Christian if Christianity is a science. Both will say no. Better to logically prove or disprove it.

Because when you want to know something you ask an expert. Lets say I want to know something about math, therefore I ask an expert on Math. So logically you should ask an expert on Atheism, to know what atheism is.
Sure you can try to logically disprove something yourself but if someone says you are incorrectly doing something, you should probably consult an expert so you can be in a stronger position (or not and horribly realize the mistake).

So you're saying that you're more of an expert on atheism and its definition than several dictionaries?