Since there is no proof that god does not exist, isn't Atheism just a matter of faith?

Touche.

It's a matter of faith, neither theory can be proved. So let's respect one another, and we'll all be so happy.

Since there is no proof that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist, isn't lack of belief in him just a matter of faith?

Come on. You had to have read that before. You know your argument has no merit, so why make it? Come up with a new argument.

"A reliance on logic doesn't help, since our logic is limited to what the human mind can think, and may be totally false when applied to a larger scheme."

Logic is the only thing that can help. When you throw that away, you're opening yourself up to all kinds of irrationality and ignorance. To put that in Christian terms: Freedom from logic (denial of God's manifest Truth in the universe) is enslavement to Satanic Forces. Without the tools to protect yourself from your own primitive nature and the mob's corrupt social forces, you will be lost. You have no way of discerning whether your church is a church of God or a church of Satan, because you lack the tools. You cannot simply take someone's word for it.

To surrender your judgment to God's means to give up your beliefs and check the facts. If the facts prove you wrong, you accept it--you change your belief. Have you done that?

A believer in any unobservable, supernatural world can believe in absolutely anything, up to the point where it contradicts the observable, natural world. If we believe the human mind is capable of understanding the world at all, physical reality is the boundary of metaphysical imagination.

Those who do not believe in the supernatural will not speculate beyond what they can observe and predict about the natural world. However, ever since the Enlightenment, when people started getting serious about this science business, any apparent violation of natural order has led to refined observations and a better understanding of natural order. We understand more and so "believe in" less.

No such improvement is possible regarding supernatural beliefs, since there is no way to test them. They simply continue on until natural theory exposes their contradictions and forces them to be revised and diminished. God's role in the universe shrinks with every scientific advancement, first the weather and natural disasters, then disease, chemistry, psychology, politics, cosmology and genetics. Essentially, God's jurisdiction is now entirely in the spiritual realms.

Everything in the physical universe is fully or partially understood without resorting to "divine intervention". So how can one rationally make the case for this continually retreating "God"? Science can be temporarily stymied by a new perception, but with persistence, it always finds a way to understand. There is apparently no epistemological barrier to its eventual comprehension of the universe. If there was I'd say God must be there, but that boundary, predicted over and over again by concerned, pious prophets, has yet to appear. I'd say the burden is on the believers.

No.

Do unicorns exist? You have no proof that they do not, so why not believe in them?

What about dragons? Surely you better build you house entirely of non-flamable materials just in case.

Meanwhile logical arguments work whatever scale they are built on. The 'god moves in mysterious ways' hokum is just a creation to get out of the fact that bad things happen.

Seriously, if this world is the best an all powerful, all knowing, all loving god can do, then there must be some different definition of the word "all" from the one I am used to.

Atheism has nothing to do with faith and everything to do observation and interpretation. A theist is a theist because he has been witness to some event, experience or phenomenon that he has interpreted as only being real or possible due to the existence of some god or deity. An atheist simply does not share this interpretation. An atheist has never encountered anything that he interprets as only being possible as the result of some god or deity existing to do it. Atheism is about lacking a belief and thus, requires no faith.

Are you serious? A lack of belief can never be a matter of faith. When you say that there is no proof that God exists I ask you what constitutes proof? Are you saying that the statement "God exist" is in principle not falsifiable then I ask you - is there any veracity to the claim. If Gods existence was at least possible shouldn`t we be able to falsify the claim?

I am a "weak atheist" otherwise known as a "agnostic atheist". I do not make the claim that "god does not exist".

Instead, I merely lack belief due to lack of sufficient evidence or a testable theory. A god could exist, I just lack belief until shown otherwise.

In other words, there is no "faith" on my part at all. I am a Skeptic.

In court cases the guilt of a defendant can be decided without absolute proof. In the most stringent cases, all that is needed is "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt." Yet I would hardly say that the jurors' decision was based on "faith." I would call it a "reasoned conclusion" or an "educated opinion."

Do you believe that there is a man, we'll call him Joe, who lives in the back of your fridge, right behind the milk? (Yes, he's very small). Right at this very moment, he's nibbling away at your leftovers (he's tiny, so he doesn't eat much. I'm sure you've never even noticed any food missing.)

Do you believe me? No no, don't get up to look! Evidence is not allowed here! Do you believe in this little mooch? My guess is you do not.

This is not called faith; it's called common sense.

I read the first few answers but not all. so If you get to this one and someone else already posted the same thing, I'm sorry.

While there is no evidence either way this doesn't mean that it's equally likely that there is a god.

There is no evidence that Zeus doesn't exist, but we don't consider that likely. The same could be said of a million things. we assume they dont' exist although technically we can't prove it.

No, burden of proof is on the one making an affirmative claim, not the one denying it.

People ask what would convince me that god truly exists. While I am not sure, I am certainly open to any tangible evidence. I do not know what evidence would convince me because I believe it is impossible to prove the existence of god. What evidence would convince you that god does not exist? See the conumdrum: it is difficult to answer their question! See falsifiability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability ) and Rules of Evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rules_of_evidence ) for more information.

Do not quote bible passages as evidence of god's existence. This is my standard of proof, not yours. However, if proof were proffered that convinced me god exists, I would change absolutely nothing in my life or my behavior. The existence or not of god does not matter. Like many humans I live a purposeful life and god does not add more purpose.