Um... It's safe to say unicorns do not exist right? Flying jellyfish? Birds that have no wings and are instead propelled through the air by farts?

Edit: flying sea jellies.

Not faith, logic. ?

Atheism is lack of belief. Atheism is not a belief that something doesn’t exist.

If we assume that science is based on logic, then where did the science come from?

Faith is the belief in something for which there is no logical explanation. I think that this takes agnosticism or atheism out of the equation.

Yes it does..its no easy thing to abandon all previous..once dearly held beliefs. Furthermore you may face consequences for opting out of and completely abandoning all things religious.
From family friends and your community. You let go of Christian comfort for accepting truth and reason..because deep down it feels right to you.

For me it doesn't take any faith to say there's no god. I haven't seen any evidence for the existence of god(s) so for me it's not faith it's a fact.

I agree. The best we can say is there is no credible evidence to date that would be consistent with a supernatural being who reads our thoughts, punishes us if we don't believe in "him", answers our prayers, etc. and....created all space, time, matter, and energy. Nothing that would stand up to any kind of scientific scrutiny.

If I tell you I can fly and you say 'no you can't' do our opinions have equal validity? Until proof is produced it's a fact there is no god- the same standard I'd hold for the tooth fairy.

How about Spider-Man ?

Religious faith is based on what if rather than what is.
Once the door to what if is opened, anything goes - got this invisible Dragon in my garage....says it created the universe.
The atheist/agnostic/believer game is a paradigm most can't get past as most are trained not to, rather to swirl in its circulatory, debating fiction as if it were real.
Cast the nonsense aside.
Evolution demands it.

Firstly those making the claim would have to define what they mean by god, but yes: anyone making the claim would have the burden of proof, yes.

I don’t think an agnostic would suggest there is no god, by definition of the word: agnostic.

Well, I'll start off by saying that I'm an atheist since I don't believe in gods. That's what an atheist is fundamentally. A further step is to say definitively that there is no god. I suppose there could be gods, so I won't make a definitive statement that there aren't any. Evidence does not point to the existence of gods thus, I have no good reason to believe in them.
At any rate, it doesn't take faith to believe in a negative, not really. If you have no good reason (i.e. evidence to back it up) to believe something, it's not really faith so much as a lack of credibility to the belief.

I disagree.

Faith is a belief in something where there is no justification for that belief except that you want to believe it.

As an atheist, I see no evidence that would lead me to believe that a god/s exists. However, I do also appreciate that an absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence, unless of course there is a lack of evidence where you should expect to find evidence. For example, theists claim that their god answers prayer, yet study after study has shown that prayer has no better success rate that would be expected by pure chance. Holy books are at best ambiguous and at worst downright wrong.

The time to believe something exists is when their is evidence to support that belief. Not before.

As an atheist I do not say that there is no god. I say that I do not believe the claims that there is and that doesn't take faith.

How do you figure? There's not much if any effort needed to honestly not believe in something that makes absolutely no sense to believe in....no effort, no faith. The burden of proof does not rest on me for not being convinced...its on anyone making the assertion and the claim. Show me credible, objective, proof and evidence, and I'll change my tune. Until then, I don't believe it, because there's nothing to believe; and unlike theists, I don't need faith to NOT be a believer.

So if I make up a god and tell you it’s true. How do you identify this god is fictional inabsence of myadmitting I invented it. If I claim that a god visited me and added to its messages, what hurdleswould I have to jump through to get people to believe me? In short when there is zero way to confirm these claims are not fiction, there is zero good reason to accept them as true.

I am agnostic and I say the same thing.

I really don't think so. There is substantial evidence backing up the evolution based theory of how we came to be (among other things). If it is true it directly contradicts the way this is explained in any religion that I know of. I am fairly certain in my conviction that there is no higher power controlling any of this at least not any of the ones humanity has dreamed up or anything similar to them.

If there is nothing to think about, there will be no conflicts about it... agnosticism and atheism are one way streets...

As an atheist, it takes no "faith" whatsoever to say "there is no god". All it takes is a complete lack of credible, verifiable evidence. That's all. No faith required.

Just because people can think of something like a new God, doesn't make it real. Requiring evidence to believe in something is just smart, especially when there should absolutely be evidence.

Evolution does not logically kill the very idea of God, but it is his redundancy notice.

I am Agnostic because that term best describes me. If there was a " I DON"T GIVE A SHIT" I would be there. I have made my way through life, on my own. ON MY OWN!! And when I effed up I suffered the consequences.

"I see no evidence for a god or any supernatural phenomena." That is a true statement for me in that I am going to base my decisions and actions on it. This is basically what Neil De Grass Tyson says. He does not use the word "atheist". Atheist is an interpretation of the above true statement, and belongs in the discussion section of any scientific paper, not in the results. Agnostic is an interpretation also, and says there is no evidence for a god but we cannot absolutely it out.

I think what one can say with some validity is that there is no evidence for a god that interacts with humans in any way. There may be a god and we are such trivial blobs of protoplasm that he/she pays no heed to us and is involved in much more important things, like making parallel universes perhaps.

I always interpret the word faith as another way to say you really really "hope" but you don't know for certain. I just really can't place my hope into anything with out evidence. It would take much more effort for me to place hope in something without supporting evidence.I do say that I am agnostic only because I do not believe in any god defined in religious terms. Its all a matter of interpretation and definition. If you define a god as a entity of power, all knowing that sort of thing...we all are using that power now, we can summon it almost at will, right in the palm of our hand! The power to connect to people all over the world, and acess to all the known knowledge of mankind via internet! Technology and science is a higher power if defined in proper context.