Do you think faith is a necessary component to atheism?

Interesting question... and the best answer I can give is that I believe Atheists don't have faith... I think they have fear. Fear is the opposite of faith. I believe that Atheists are so afraid that there really is a God that they reject faith out of fear not because they have faith that there isn't a God. But it is an interesting question. I remember once hearing this little tidbit... 'There are no atheists in the foxhole.' Another really cool saying... Two twins were in the womb, one twin turned to the other and asked, "Do you think there is life after birth?"

Neither - both people require faith in order to believe what they believe. Look at it this way: a theist has no solid, abosolute proof of the existence of his/her god(s) or godess(es). They can only believe, or have faith in the existence of their deity. An athiest, while their beliefs are the polar opposite of a theist, must go through the same process to believe what they do. An athiest does not have any real proof that Gods and Goddesses don't exist - they merely believe that they don't. In order to believe something that has no proof, one must have faith. Therefore, yes, athiesm requires faith - faith in the belief that Gods don't exist.

Very interesting discussion howhigh. I wanted to look up the definition of faith before responding, but even that can cause confusion since "faith" is defined as... 1. Belief and trust in and loyalty to God 2. Firm belief in something for which there is no proof 3. Belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion (among other definitions) http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/faith I would have to conclude that to be Atheist requires less faith, even though atheism fits with the second definition above to a slight degree since there is no proof for or against the existence of God. I think to be truly atheist, one would have had to study and look at the same exact information that believers have seen, and would have required a personal choice based on the atheists' intelligence, experience, and his own logical conclusions. But also once that choice is made, there is no faith required to uphold that position. It is similar (in my mind) to someone telling me there is a Big Foot wandering in my woods, showing me a couple snapshots and a plaster footprint. After I weigh the evidence in my mind, I can determine whether it is illogical or falsified and it requires no faith for me to believe Big Foot is not in my woods. However, it does require faith for the believer to insist he may exist even though evidence has been proven falsified or misleading.

Faith may or may not be a necessary component to atheism, howhigh! It all depends on how one defines atheism or how atheism is, to an individual. If atheism is explicit, strong and with certainty and belief in non-existence of GOD or gods, then according to definition of religion, it IS a religion and faith becomes necessary component of atheism. This type of atheism, however, is rare and people belonging to this type constitute a minority among fellow atheists. If atheism is implicit, weak or disbelief in existence of GOD, gods or religion than it is not a religion and faith is not a necessary component of atheism. Majority of atheists belong to this category and can also be called as agnostic atheist. I wrote an article on "atheism as a religion" here: http://www.helium.com/tm/346031 Have a look at it and tell me if you find something interesting.:-)

The monk. Simply because the atheist has no faith. Only the adamant knowledge that there is nothing to believe. Kind of how a faithful person is adamant about their belief. No faith, no leap.

Indeed, you ask a good question. The truth is, both require an equal amount of faith, though atheists try to guise it with science. Honestly, nobody knows the answer and it is impossible to prove either way, so agnosticism is the only one that requires no faith.

When I was growing up one of my best friends was an athiest. We would have long conversations about religion, reason, faith and how they all do or do not relate to each other. His belief (I cannot speak for all athiests, just him) was that there was no proof. As he was fond of saying, he wanted to believe and he wanted to have faith, but how he could he believe in something that logic told him was an imaginary figure? If g-d were to provide proof of his existence my athiest friend stated he would willing bow down and worship and spread the word, but there wasn't any proof. And that is basically what faith is. Some would argue that taking something for granted, for believing in something when you have no proof is the very definition of faith. I would agree to some extent with that view, but in other ways I disagree with it as well. To me, I have proof of a higher power. It is all around me and in almost everything I see. Just because it is not always tangible (though often it is) does not mean that it does not exist. Perhaps I am digressing, but my blatherings are really an attempt to show you my side of the picture and where I am coming from in my reply to your question. I think that both the atheist and the monk have equal amounts of faith. The difference is what they are placing that faith in. The monk would place it in g-d, and the athiest in science, reason and logic. Who's to say who is right and who is wrong? There are countless religions that all claim to be the "one true faith," which would negate all the other religions claiming the exact same thing. You have your stairs to heaven and you may be right; but in my view, it is my opinion that we are all right and ultimately that we are all wrong as well.

I say that it takes more faith that we came from an explosion than from a creator... lets see here creator-one that makes something out of nothing.. explosion-a big blast that destroys stuff... it takes more faith to believe we came from a big bang because all through history explosions have destroyed....NEVER have explosions created anything organized....