If I say I don't know if there is a god and you say there is no god, then you have a belief about something whereas I just don't know. Faith can also mean that you are just confident that what you believe is true.

is there ANYTHING one couldn't accept on faith? if one has evidence there is no need for "faith".

Tell them they are an idiot in the nicest way I can conceive at the time...

I argue that believing there is no god/gods is a belief itself as there is no true way to know. One cannot prove a negative, but it doesn't mean it automatically means it exists either.

FAITH

1. a :allegiance to duty or a person :loyalty: He lost faith in the company's president.

b (1) :fidelity to one's promises
(2) incerity of intentions. He acted in good faith.

2. a (1) :belief and trust in and loyalty to God
   (2) :belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion

b (1) :firm belief in something for which there is no proof: She was clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return.

(2) :complete trust

3. Something that is believed, especially with strong conviction; especially :a system of religious beliefs: The Protestant faith

— on faith
:without question: She took everything he said on faith.

According to the various definitions of 'faith', this is one atheist who has no faith in anything because everything is open to question/doubt/consideration. That I accept the posits of evolution and consider the evidence for it is adequately sound does not in any way indicate a faith in the theory.

There are certain things we all believe or have faith in that are mundane in nature. The car will start in the morning. When it doesn't, that belief, that faith is easily discarded in favor of the evidence to the contrary and we set about to solve the problem.

Science operates similarly. An observation is made and is followed by a question. When some sort of plausible or reasonable answer for that question is formulated, there is an hypothesis. After sufficient experimentation, study, and other attempts do disprove the hypothesis, the explanation for the observation graduates to that of a theory. The theory is accepted, but the questioning does not end there, and at the slightest indication that there may be something wrong with the theory, it is reconsidered. At any point a theory can be proven wrong. If it is, it is discarded based on the new evidence and the issue is attacked anew.

Many of the steps on the way to establishing a theory can require a certain degree of faith, but it is not the kind of faith that is unshakable.

After explaining all of this, I then ask the believer to show or explain how his/her assertion can be even close to correct based upon their particular definition of faith. They can't, of course, but they manage to come up with some kind of filler drivel that they think makes sense.

I don't make pummeling theists an occupation. I consider it more of a hobby, but I won't engage in it unless the brave, ignorant little theist initiates it. I'm polite that way.

I think it requires more faith to be religious. Especially since religion has been proved wrong about a lot of things. The earth isn't flat. The sun doesn't revolve around the earth. The earth isn't the center of the universe. etc... Not to mention biblical contradictions in both the old an new testaments. When you get to all the evidence of how old the earth is, and of evolution, then faith starts to cross over into not just faith, but willful ignorance.

faith
f?TH
noun

1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

2. strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

I'd ask which definition they mean, first. Then I'd say i don't trust myself completely, let alone anyone else, so no, it doesn't.

I would respond: No it doesn't, all it takes is common sense!

What does an atheist need faith in?
They might need doubt - doubt we know how the universe came to be, and how life appeared and how that life evolved into us. And that doubt will erode as we learn more about the universe.
I guess we might need faith in people.

But that is less than 1)There is a god 2) we can know about this being 3) off the seven thousand versions of god, my parents taught me about the right one and to disbelieve the right 6,999. 4)God wants to to believe 5)for reason we can't understand, God who can do anything provides no proof for us believing, despite this apparently being the most important thing we have to do before we die. 6)There is life after death 7)I have been praying to the right giant bunny to go to paradise.

I just say that I know where the limits of current knowledge lie, and it's only faith when filling in those gaps with "magic" (e.g., God). To not believe in unfalsifiable claims is the exact opposite of faith.

there's everyday experience

when someone becomes a born again Christian they are to immediately tell everyone they know, making a change of mind a bit embarrassing, meet with other Christians, go to retreats and to church, to get refilled with lies, and normally say something like 'I have faith but I leak'.

After becoming an agnostic or an atheist you don't have to do any of that

There is no response you can make. You can bring logic into it, you can cite studies, you can turn blue in the face, but the cycle of "but THAT requires faith, too" never ends.

Perhaps a lack of faith in fantasy? IDK....

The idea that it takes more faith to be an atheist comes from people who, on the one hand, want to be told what to believe, and on the other hand, they don't have any real understanding of science. Religion tells them that what they are to believe is predicated upon the unerring word of god, whereas scientists claim to be human, fallible and willing to alter their beliefs in the light of new evidence. Disconcerting to someone seeking to "know ultimate truth" without bothering with any actual understanding.

Does he mean that it takes more faith that science will someday discover all the secrets of the universe and it takes less faith to believe in a deity?

Ask how much faith it takes not to believe in big foot.

Definitions faith = allegiance, belief = obedience

Words like faith are bullshit. They mean anything you want them to mean.

I literally said this to an uncle who said something like that: Oh, yeah, how do you measure that? Faith - you called it? Is it on a Likert scale? Do you need an app for that? Can I use a ruler? Is it a substance? See where I'm going with this, kiddo? How could you possibly tell that I have more of this nebulous juice you call faith?

Faith is a mumbo-jumbo word for belief. Belief is an identity-heavy word for assumption. Assumption = to take the position as if something were true, whether or not it is proven so.

Nobody needs faith when looking at a chair and determining if it's a chair. Nobody needs faith in the tangible. And nobody needs faith in the not-something - we get into the double negatives and weird part of language at some point. But basically, the burden of proof is on the one who places the claim, and it has nothing to do with faith. I don't have faith in not-god. The fuck?

I'm not quite sure I understand the question. Perhaps the word he meant was "brave." As in, "I believe in god because I'm afraid of what will happen if I don't believe in him" so you must be brave to believe that he doesn't exist?

I'm sorry, I don't understand the question.