you are right and I have been playing the troll and having fun at your expense. doggone that ole sin nature!
I'll try to be serious about this, because you guys appear to really want an answer, almost as if you really want someone to prove Christianity true.
Honestly we think you are wrong. Quite wrong. However we, or I at least, hold that factuality trumps previously held notions and desires. I don't LIKE being proven wrong, however the temporary embarrassment is trivial to actually being wrong.
As I have stated before, I consider this a monumental task and I will attempt making some coherent, rational, thoughtful response, but I am sadly out of my league, so if I draw on the words of others, it is because I believe that they can speak to this more clearly or more concisely than I.
Do you consider atheism a "religion"? While not an organized religion with a central hub of authority, I believe that it takes "faith" to be an atheist, so can I start with the apology on why Christianity is true and atheism is false?
No, atheism isn't a religion. It could hold the same place for legal purposes(also known as a legal fiction:An assumption that something occurred or someone or something exists which, in fact, is not the case, but that is made in the law to enable a court to equitably resolve a matter before it. The most common example is a Corporation is treated as a person for the purposes of contract law.) Atheism, to me, is a subset of skepticism. In this case skeptical of the assertion there are one or more god(s).
As to this faith to be an atheist thing: that's the portion that is insulting.
I have a belief that while I am asleep and there are no recording devices present that my shoes do not fly around the room. You might even call it I have faith in non-flying shoes.
And if you do, so what? You are really really stretching the definition of belief and faith. The belief in non-flying shoes is not the equal to the belief shoes fly around the room while I am asleep. Both may be claims, for sure. However the claim, the claim that violates what we see and can test, is the one that has the burden of proof.
Theist, until I mentioned The flying shoe thing, you had no belief about flying shoes. You were Aflyingshoeists. After the claim about flying shoes you are still an Aflyingshoeist, but now one with a belief that flying shoes are a falsehood.
Atheism is similar. The Atheism we had as a baby is very different than the atheism we have as adults. Adult Atheism is a belief that things operate as they appear without the need for gods If you belief that there is an invisible force making things operate differently, the burden of proof is on you. Many time through the ages of man has this been demonstrated, Gravity being an excellent example. The burden of proof was on the claimant, and they met that burden of proof. Similarly many other such theories have come and gone, and those that have been proven have been added to the sum knowledge of man. Many seem to gain some currency, and when proof was not forthcoming, they were dropped and mostly forgotten, Ether theory for instance.
So while some argue whether Atheism is truly a belief like theism by semantic games, it is just obfuscation.
Yes it is a kind of faith. It is that same kind of faith that I have that my shoes do not fly around my round when I am asleep and no recording devices are present. I'm sure you share that same faith, the faith of NoFlyingShoeswhlesleeping, how's that faith working out for you? Does it require a deep conviction of resolute solemnity, or do you have that faith because the proposition that your shoes fly around when you are asleep is in contradiction to everything observable about reality?
By the way, you guys have been really good sports while I was toying with you. No hard feelings?
More like "Mild irritation that can be overcome with not doing it again" type feelings.