[quote]But this very same question can be applied towards the counterposition; atheism asserts an absolute,[/quote] Claiming to be an atheist offers only one given, that that person does not believe in God. Atheism is not the absolute claim that a deity does not exist, it is rejection of the concept due to the abundant lack of empirical evidence and logical reasoning behind the position. [quote]which lacks the vast pedigree of theistic accounts.[/quote] The last time we debated on these sorts of things, you asked me to search for unbiased sources supporting the notion that a non-metaphorical "great darkness" of sorts occurred the day of Jesus' crucifixion, because you were confident such sources existed. I found zero when looking, so I'm not sure where you received that information. I have never been presented with any form of convincing evidence suggesting a deity exists, and thus, I classify myself as an atheist because I have more reasons to claim organized religions are incorrect than are correct.

The 'darkness' example is extraneous; it was merely an example. Origen, Phlegon, Tacitus, Thallus (and Julius Africanus) all claim its occurrence (and of course, as do the gospels which are a compiled account of the testimony of many eyewitnesses).

[quote]But conversely, of course faith in something that is right is good.[/quote]No, it isn't. If you have faith in something, and it happens to be true, then that is merely a coincidence. If you have faith in a belief, you necessarily don't know if the belief is wrong or right (if you did truly know it was right, then this implies that the belief is justified by reason, so no faith is required). Thus, said belief, even if it is right, can't have any meaningful application in reality since you don't know if whatever actions justified by the belief are right or wrong. However, actions which are justified by reason are necessarily always right (this is merely a tautology; if an action is wrong, then it can't really be said to be reasonable). [quote]Where do we see this? This is common in court cases. Lawyers are tasked with assembling evidence to convince jurors of a certainty of an event beyond a reasonable doubt. But clearly that is not always sufficient because false convictions are relatively common. So in this case, 'beyond a reasonable doubt' implies a sense of faith. In the scenario where a defendant is incorrectly found guilty, this faith is bad. In the scenario where the defendant is rightfully found guilty or innocent, this faith is good.[/quote]This is a good point to make, but it doesn't really justify faith. No faith is applied in court cases (well, no faith should be applied). Rather, the innocence or guilt is determined by what is supported by the given evidence, even though it's likely that the evidence is not sufficient to allow us to be certain. This isn't a matter of people using faith in lieu of evidence, rather, people having to accept with the limits imposed upon them by reality. [quote]Why should someone want to believe in something for which they have no supporting evidence? This question is flawed; it implies there is no supporting evidence. 'What is this evidence?' is the logical response. But this very same question can be applied towards the counterposition; atheism asserts an absolute, yet offers a similar source of metaphysical, philosophical reasoning which lacks the vast pedigree of theistic accounts. It culminates in a back-and-forth of demands of proof. Ironically, this displays an inherent faith in atheism: the assumption that because no evidence exists (or in actuality, the evidence the subject has chosen to not examine) of a certain claim, that it is not true. However, quantity of evidence does not dictate the validity of the claim. So now we're faced with the question to atheists, "why is faith good?"[/quote]Atheism is defined as the lack of a belief in a deity. Therefore, the only absolute an atheist necessarily assert is that they, personally, have never seen convincing evidence of God. I think it's possible to be certain of this. No, atheists in general do not claim that they know God doesn't exist. The more interesting part of your post is the aside where you imply that there is evidence of God, that atheists choose not to examine. I think that's what more atheists would be interested in, not the (false) claim that atheists have faith that God doesn't exist.

Your definition of atheism seems to lean more towards defining agnosticism. I agree that the proofs of God are more interesting, but faith was the topic mentioned. I recommend that at some point in the near future you, and anyone reading this, view the video in the link below. It is a 2 hours video of one of the world's leading Apologist, Ravi Zacharias giving a lecture at Princeton that is really just a fantastic insight into the mind of a rational theist. [url=http://christian-apologetics.org/2013/ravi-zacharias-why-i-am-not-an-atheist/]Link[/url]

[quote]Your definition of atheism seems to lean more towards defining agnosticism.[/quote] This shows a misunderstanding of atheism, just as much as a definition of faith as belief without evidence does of theism.

Having been adamantly atheist for 16 years, I believe I have a somewhat decent grasp of what it is. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, and I'm not asserting it means a belief that there is no evidence in existence. The absolutism comes from the lack of belief in a god, not the availability of evidence.

A lack of belief isn't an assertion.

I agree.

Then you admit you were attacking a straw man?

It depends. If we're addressing weak atheism, then any attack would be against a strawman, since there is effectively no assertion to discuss. But my thesis was simply to show that the offered definition of faith was inaccurate, not attack Atheism.

Not quite. The concept of faith (in a religious sense) necessarily implies a lack of evidence, for there would be no need to believe if there were more concrete reasons to accept the veracity of a claim. One does not have faith in physics, because one can identify through rational means the veracity of the claims made by those who study that field; the same does not hold true for religious claims.

Not at all. This is a common misconception among atheists; Christian faith is not belief without evidence, it is trust in God. There are many believers who choose to accept the religion without intensely analyzing the evidence, and there are those that do. The disciples of Jesus studied under him for three years; they literally did everything He did, went everywhere He went, and studied every word He spoke. And yet when He was crucified, they vehemently denied ever knowing him, and prior to that often questioned what He said. They saw him face to face, saw His miracles, and had essentially everything that contemporary atheists ask for: for Him to show up in front of them and prove Himself, but that wasn't sufficient, because they sometimes lacked faith. But I digress.

Either I lack understanding of what it is you're saying, or I'm confident it is bad reasoning. How is the loyalty of Jesus' disciples at all evidence of his supposedly miraculous endeavors? How does that support the idea that he was the son of God? Because his followers were adamant in their assumption he was divine, that is sufficient reasoning to postulate that he, in fact, was?