Atheism is a faith

[s2a]

Hiya Rollingstone,

You said:

Faith defined as a belief with "no rationale" was borrowed from someone who wanted to use it to argue that atheism is not a faith.

Is that a premise you wish to defend and support, or discredit and debunk?

If you regard that claim as logically flawed, why then feign the same as some otherwise promising/inviting valid and revelatory inquiry?

But even using your definition--"faith" is utterly reliant upon emotional rationales, not reason, in order to supplant its claimed foundations of asserted "truths--

1) Evasion and mischaracterization. I did not offer you my own "definition of faith". I tendered an observation/opinion predicated upon my own understandings and experiences in that particularregard. I stand by that opinion, but it is hardly a "definition" of what faith means to you, or to anyone of "faith".

I offered you the opportunity to clarify and define, with your own personal specificity, what the word "faith" means or expresses when you use the word in any relevant context. You chose to dodge that opportunity of self-expression and lent clarity, and again only introduced further obfuscation and evasion.

The premise of your "inquiry" is flawed. I have illustrated as much. You have offered no rebuttal (either in substantiation or concession) to my assertion that your initially tendered premise only argues against a Strawman of your own craft.

2) Again you fail to provide ANY definition of "faith" that you would accept or support. If I allege that "faith is naught but a bowl of cherries", would you then construct an argued and supported premise upon that inane supposition?

"....the question still stands: where is the rationale in the belief that order, life and intelligence can emerge from chaos?"

It stands no longer as representing any acknowledged substance or merit. It's invalid. Defend it with reason...or leave it alone.

You are continuing to flay about in arguing against a position that most mature atheists would never espouse nor favor. Hello Scarecrow.

If it would aid you any in being more forthcoming and earnest in personalized reply, I'll be pleased to reference some "definitions" of the word "faith" for you to deliberate upon, accept, challenge, or reject...as suits your own understanding of what "faith" means to you.

Faith, noun:

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
--Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.
5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith.
6. the obligation of loyalty or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement, etc.: Failure to appear would be breaking faith.
7. the observance of this obligation; fidelity to one's promise, oath, allegiance, etc.: He was the only one who proved his faith during our recent troubles.
8. Christian Theology. the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved.
—Idiom
9. in faith, in truth; indeed: In faith, he is a fine lad.
--Source: Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006

Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests. Faith is the result of teaching (Rom. 10:14-17).
--Source: Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary (more)

Keeping within the realm of the "theistic", or a "belief in the existence of a god or gods" (vs. an atheistic view) in accepting a suitably contextual definition of applied or personalized "faith"...do you find any of the provided definitions above acceptable to you?

I submit that not one of the definitions (in a theological context) above, cite ANY requisite capacities of employed or articulated human reason as a foundation of "faith". NONE. I invite you to lend correction, if you disagree.

....the question still stands: where is the rationale in the belief that order, life and intelligence can emerge from chaos?"

What rationale does "faith" employ/testify against any claim "that order, life and intelligence can/can't emerge from chaos?"
What "reasons" do theistic faiths offer as invalidation of such a irrational claim?
Are these prospectively provided "reasons" an expression of theistic faith, or not? If not, then may they be subject to fair and legitimate scientific methodology/scrutiny, or not?

I''ll offer you one better, 'tho my conscience advises against it.

I'll play the part of Beelzebub's advocate, and argue FOR the claim "that order, life and intelligence can emerge from chaos?" I don't need to prove my claim...I only need believe it to be true. I'll merrily claim "that order, life and intelligence can emerge from chaos."
Period.
I believe it. That settles it.
I leave you the happy burden in demonstrating the flaws of my faithfully expressed estimable conclusion. YOU are invited to demonstrate and debunk the failed rationale of such a claim.

I'm listening...;-)

 

[doppelganger]

But where did I come from? If it from the world I exist in, doesn't that introduce a chicken and egg problem? Oh the joys of philosophy in the age of quantum mechanics! :drool:

Perhaps you came from a social objectification of your self-awareness and the neurological system for self-awareness. "I am" is a set of neurological connections through which sensation and memory are given significance and integrated - sort of a backbone to consciousness or an operating system for your reality. Socially, for purposes of language acquisition, we are taught to concretize that operating system as a thing in itself. That concretization lies at the base of abstract reasoning and the usage of symbolic language. If that interpretive backbone is altered, the process of integrating sense and memory is likewise altered. Thus, drugs, brain damage, deep meditation, chemical imbalances all effect the ordinary function of the neurological process concretized in thought as the self.

These ideas fascinate me specifically because of my research and experience with autism. For many autistic children, this system for self-awareness - identity imprinting - does not turn on, turns on in a strange or incomplete way, or tuns on late. The result is that the neurological framework of identity necessary for socialization, creative play, and the ordering of thought doesn't develop for many autistic children. They may have no "I am," and thus have no fixed reference around which to order the universe they experience.

This is related to the theory of mind:

Theory of mind is the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, etc.—to oneself and others. As originally defined, it enables one to understand that mental states can be the cause of—and thus be used to explain and predict—others’ behavior.[4] Being able to attribute mental states to others and understanding them as causes of behavior means, in part, that one must be able to conceive of the mind as a “generator of representations”[5] [6] and to understand that others’ mental representations of the world do not necessarily reflect reality and can be different from one’s own. It also means one must be able to maintain, simultaneously, different representations of the world. It is a ‘theory’ of mind in that such representations are not "directly observable" [7]. Many other human abilities—from skillful social interaction to language use—are said to involve a theory of mind . . .

Theory of mind appears to be an innate potential ability in humans (and, some argue, in certain other species), but one requiring social and other experience over many years to bring successfully to adult fruition. It is probably a continuum, in the sense that different people may develop more, or less, effective theories of mind, varying from very complete and accurate ones, through to minimally functional. It is often implied or assumed (but not stated explicitly) that this does not merely signify conceptual understanding "other people have minds and think," but also some kind of understanding and working model that these thoughts and states and emotions are real and genuine for these people and not just ungrounded names for parroted concepts.

That is fine, but we cannot deny that the order and complexity actually exist can we? Gravity is real and it has order to it.

Of course. "Gravity" has an extraordinarily useful reality. But that is not the same thing as "truth" or "order." The latter are subjective judgments. Gravity, like any scientific theory is a predictive model, not a "truth." In the case of gravity, it is a predictive model that has such a high level of certainty that it is elevated to the level of a "law," but it is nevertheless the case that you cannot prove with 100% certainty prior to dropping a ball that the ball will indeed be pulled toward the earth by gravity, for the same reason you cannot disprove with 100% certainty the existence of "God," among many other possibilities (space aliens, flying spaghetti monsters or invisible pink unicorns, etc.). Without disproving "God" you can't disprove that the next time you drop the ball, "God" isn't going to interfere and cause the ball to rise off the earth rather than be pulled toward it. This is uncertainty.

Nietzsche explains it very well in Will to Power. This is a bit long, but well worth the read I think:

"There is thinking: therefore there is something that thinks": this is the upshot of all Descartes' argumentation. But that means positing as "true à priori" our belief in the concept of substance-- that when there is thought there has to be something "that thinks" is simply a formulation of our grammatical custom that adds a doer to every deed. In short, this is not merely the substantiation of a fact but a logical-metaphysical postulate--Along the lines followed by Descartes one does not come upon something absolutely certain but only upon the fact of a very strong belief.

If one reduces the proposition to "There is thinking, therefore there are thoughts," one has produced a mere tautology: and precisely that which is in question, the "reality of thought," is not touched upon--that is, in this form the "apparent reality" of thought cannot be denied. But what Descartes desired was that thought should have, not an apparent reality, but a reality in itself. The concept of substance is a consequence of the concept of the subject: not the reverse! If we relinquish the soul, "the subject," the precondition for "substance" in general disappears.

One acquires degrees of being, one loses that which has being . . . The degree to which we feel life and power (logic and coherence of experience) gives us our measure of "being", "reality", not appearance.

The subject: this is the term for our belief in a unity underlying all the different impulses of the highest feeling of reality: we understand this belief as the effect of one cause--we believe so firmly in our belief that for its sake we imagine "truth", "reality", substantiality in general.-- "The subject" is the fiction that many similar states in us are the effect of one substratum: but it is we who first created the "similarity" of these states; our adjusting them and making them similar is the fact, not their similarity (--which ought rather to be denied--).

One would have to know what being is, in order to decide whether this or that is real (e. g., "the facts of consciousness"); in the same way, what certainty is, what knowledge is, and the like.-- But since we do not know this, a critique of the faculty of knowledge is senseless: how should a tool be able to criticize itself when it can use only itself for the critique? It cannot even define itself!

Must all philosophy not ultimately bring to light the preconditions upon which the process of reason depends?--our belief in the "ego" as a substance, as the sole reality from which we ascribe reality to things in general?

The oldest "realism" at last comes to light: at the same time that the entire religious history of mankind is recognized as the history of the soul superstition. Here we come to a limit: our thinking itself involves this belief (with its distinction of substance, accident; deed, doer, etc.); to let it go means: being no longer able to think. But that a belief, however necessary it may be for the preservation of a species, has nothing to do with truth, one knows from the fact that, e. g., we have to believe in time, space, and motion, without feeling compelled to grant them absolute reality.

Every ontological assertion has some uncertainty. This is the problem of induction. However, we tend to treat ontological assertions as being "true" or "not true" because that mode of thought is quicker and generally highly useful for most of our daily purposes. This jump from high probability to inductive "truth" is usually of no significance for most of my purposes, but stage magicians, scientists and mystics work with it, and for some purposes, being aware of this jump is of vital importance.

"Order" is a function of my perspective and purposes. This is why Evolutionary theory is "false" to Creationists and how mystics can jump almost seamlessly from one symbolic religious system to another.

Are you proposing that we should not believe in anything?

Of course not. I merely suggest that there can be some value to remembering that the forms of things are put there by my thoughts and that they can be changed. In my experience, this allows a freer flow of communication and understanding because it helps me account for the reality that someone else's perspective means he or she is actually experiencing a different universe than I am. And it revitalizes the sense of wonder that underlies human curiosity, inquiry and spiritual and emotional growth.

Yikes! Is there no way to become wise?

Perhaps wisdom is the opposite of certainty and knowledge.

And how is not this the most reprehensible ignorance, to think that one knows what one does not know? But I, O Athenians! in this, perhaps, differ from most men; and if I should say that I am in any thing wiser than another, it would be in this, that not having a competent knowledge of the things in Hades, I also think that I have not such knowledge. - Socrates

 

[doppelganger]

Thus, "God" becomes the objectification (and usually also the personification) of uncertainty, over which a veneer of certainty is placed - what is generally regarded as "faith." Some atheists have this sort of "faith." When scientific wonder and inquiry is covered with a veneer of "truth", the person doing so is engaging in that same sort of "faith" - concealing uncertainty from their perception.

Everybody experiences uncertainty. Some choose not to objectify it or personify it. The non-objectification of certainty as "God" is not in and of itself the sort of "faith" in which certainty of belief operates as a veneer to conceal uncertainty.

 

[MoonWater]

We covered this before.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/962189-post450.html <---click for post 450

k, but that still doesn't answer the other questions in my post. Here I'll repost them in case you or anyone else would like to take a crack at answering them.

The thing is Atheism is also defined as "belief that there is no God". This is where the trouble arises. While by definition "no belief in God" could be said to not be a faith statment "belief that there IS NO God" by definition would be a faith statment. Both are used to describe Atheism. So the trouble is which is the correct definition? Are they both valid? If "no belief in God" is the most accurate definition then what of those Atheists who consistently call God and religion delusions and say that "there is no God"? Would their claims be "faith"?

Anyone want to give it a go?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

k, but that still doesn't answer the other questions in my post. Here I'll repost them in case you or anyone else would like to take a crack at answering them.

The thing is Atheism is also defined as "belief that there is no God". This is where the trouble arises. While by definition "no belief in God" could be said to not be a faith statment "belief that there IS NO God" by definition would be a faith statment. Both are used to describe Atheism. So the trouble is which is the correct definition? Are they both valid? If "no belief in God" is the most accurate definition then what of those Atheists who consistently call God and religion delusions and say that "there is no God"? Would their claims be "faith"?

Anyone want to give it a go?

I'll try:

Personally, I define atheism as simply "without theism". Any person who does not have a belief in a deity is an atheist, IMO. I recognize that other definitions are floating around... as you pointed out, some people define atheism as "belief that there is no God"; at other points in history, atheism has been defined as "denial of the Christian God". Which definition is "correct" is a tricky question, as it is in any case where multiple definitions of a term are in general acceptance.

How do Christians who believe that "Christianity" implies belief in Christ as God (and therefore claim that Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses and others "aren't Christian") settle their disagreement with those who believe that "Christianity" implies following the teachings of Christ, and not necessarily believing that He is God? For the most part, they don't: the discrepancy in definition goes unresolved. I imagine that the same will hold true for atheism.

The last part of what you ask is easier to deal with: atheism is a term that encompasses many beliefs. Holding beliefs that are compatible with a lack of belief in God does not stop a person from being an atheist. Just because an antitheist holds a definite belief that there is no God does not mean that this belief must be shared by every other atheist.

Any set of beliefs that does not include a belief in God will fit under the "big tent" of atheism. What some other atheist believes about God, politics or anything else does not define what I believe personally, or what all atheists believe generally.

 

[Don Penguinoini]

A faith belives in god. Atheism doesen't simple, how much simpler does it get. Is there a building where all atheists get together to talk about the non-existence of god? The atheist aid? No.

What do you call their place of faith?
Aidergosquedir.

 

[MoonWater]

I'll try:

Personally, I define atheism as simply "without theism". Any person who does not have a belief in a deity is an atheist, IMO. I recognize that other definitions are floating around... as you pointed out, some people define atheism as "belief that there is no God"; at other points in history, atheism has been defined as "denial of the Christian God". Which definition is "correct" is a tricky question, as it is in any case where multiple definitions of a term are in general acceptance.

How do Christians who believe that "Christianity" implies belief in Christ as God (and therefore claim that Mormons, Jehova's Witnesses and others "aren't Christian") settle their disagreement with those who believe that "Christianity" implies following the teachings of Christ, and not necessarily believing that He is God? For the most part, they don't: the discrepancy in definition goes unresolved. I imagine that the same will hold true for atheism.

The last part of what you ask is easier to deal with: atheism is a term that encompasses many beliefs. Holding beliefs that are compatible with a lack of belief in God does not stop a person from being an atheist. Just because an antitheist holds a definite belief that there is no God does not mean that this belief must be shared by every other atheist.

Any set of beliefs that does not include a belief in God will fit under the "big tent" of atheism. What some other atheist believes about God, politics or anything else does not define what I believe personally, or what all atheists believe generally.

Would you consider the satement "there is no God" a faith based statment? Why or why not?

 

[MoonWater]

A faith belives in god. Atheism doesen't simple, how much simpler does it get. Is there a building where all atheists get together to talk about the non-existence of god? The atheist aid? No.

What do you call their place of faith?
Aidergosquedir.

In regards to using faith as another word for religon then yes it believes in God. But that is not the only use for the word. Faith does not require a belief in God nor is a belief in God required to have faith. Indeed I see faith as integral to the human psyche and it would be near impossible to function without it. I don't mean faith in God but just faith in general. For faith has also been taken to mean "trust" and I consider this the more accurate defintition. Whether it be faith in yourself, in others, in the world around you one needs at least some modicum of faith, some modicum of trust, in order to function. This is why I consider the negative attitude towards faith so hypocritical. So many assume that faith pertains only to religion when in fact faith, while it does play a major role in religion, does not REQUIRE religion in order to be present in one's life. Many speak out against faith not realizing that they themselves have, and in fact need faith. Not in a religious sense, but in the sense that one needs faith in themselves, in their reality/environment, in others..... just because you aren't conciously thinking about it doesn't mean you don't have faith. After all in the end everything we accept as true, at the root, is based on assumptions that can't be proven empiraclly regardless of how logical they may seem. Since these assumptions cannot be proven to be true they, by definition, require faith to be accepted.

Is there a building where all atheists get together to talk about the non-existence of god?

I don't go to a building to talk about the existence of my Gods. Does that mean I don't have faith? Why is it required for someone to go to some building and discuss God's existence or non-existence in order for one to have faith? Why is God required at all for one to have faith?

 

[UnTheist]

In regards to using faith as another word for religon then yes it believes in God. But that is not the only use for the word. Faith does not require a belief in God nor is a belief in God required to have faith. Indeed I see faith as integral to the human psyche and it would be near impossible to function without it. I don't mean faith in God but just faith in general. For faith has also been taken to mean "trust" and I consider this the more accurate defintition. Whether it be faith in yourself, in others, in the world around you one needs at least some modicum of faith, some modicum of trust, in order to function. This is why I consider the negative attitude towards faith so hypocritical. So many assume that faith pertains only to religion when in fact faith, while it does play a major role in religion, does not REQUIRE religion in order to be present in one's life. Many speak out against faith not realizing that they themselves have, and in fact need faith. Not in a religious sense, but in the sense that one needs faith in themselves, in their reality/environment, in others..... just because you aren't conciously thinking about it doesn't mean you don't have faith. After all in the end everything we accept as true, at the root, is based on assumptions that can't be proven empiraclly regardless of how logical they may seem. Since these assumptions cannot be proven to be true they, by definition, require faith to be accepted.

That's not faith. It's a statement of probability based on experience.

Whether faith is falsely interpreted as 'negative' or not, you're just going to have to realize that Atheism and everyday life does not require faith.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Would you consider the satement "there is no God" a faith based statment? Why or why not?

Depends on the context, and on what you think "faith" and "God" mean.

In one rigorous sense, everything is based on faith: the only means that I have to judge my perceptions is relative to other perceptions (as well as my memory of past perceptions). If I started from a false premise, then nothing I believe to be true necessarily is true... and I have no way of knowing whether my initial premises were true. To use someone else's analogy, If we are all "brains in jars" and our perceptions are being fed into our brains by electrodes, we'd have no way of knowing. Just existing and taking part in life takes a measure of faith.

If faith is belief without evidence, then we have to look at whether evidence exists one way or the other. Personally, I have never seen any evidence of God. I recognize that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence, but this lack of God "showing Himself" does tend to exclude the models of God that suggest that God wants humanity to know Him, IMO.

If faith is making a conclusion without definitive proof, though, then just about any conclusion anyone comes to is one made through faith.

Back to what I said at the beginning: it really does depend on what you consider "God" to be. If your personal definition of "God" is an omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, personal, intelligent creator who designed the universe just for us, who wants us to believe and follow Him, and who has created a system of rules for humanity to live by, then I think that "God" is something that is quite falsifiable, and it can be quite reasonably held on the basis of the evidence we have that this God does not exist. On the other hand, if you define "God" as "whatever created the Universe, but not necessarily sentient or wanting people to do anything in particular", "any creature more powerful or advanced that humans", or "love", then it's less reasonable (or completely unreasonable) to say that these things absolutely do not exist, but then the question becomes whether they're reasonable definitions of "God".

So... like I said, it depends what you mean by "faith" and "God". I don't think that out of the options available, the non-existence of God is the most plausible one is a statement of faith.

Actually, based on my own experience, I don't even think that "there is no God" is any more of a faith-based statement than "I'll need an umbrella" is when you look out the window two minutes before you leave the house and see a downpour. I suppose you need a modicum of faith to conclude that the rain won't suddenly stop in the next two minutes, but this statement is well below the threshhold that most reasonable people call "faith-based".

To sum up: technically, there's faith in everything, but in the context of normal conversation, no, I probably wouldn't consider "there is no God" to be a faith-based statement.

 

[MoonWater]

That's not faith. It's a statement of probability based on experience.

Whether faith is falsely interpreted as 'negative' or not, you're just going to have to realize that Atheism and everyday life does not require faith.

last I checked experience didn't count as proof. If it did then there would be no question as to God's existence as so many believe in God BECAUSE of their experiences. Unless personal experience can count as proof a "statment of probability based on experience" would still require faith.

 

[UnTheist]

last I checked experience didn't count as proof.

Please point out where I said experience=proof. I mentioned "probability."

 

[MoonWater]

Please point out where I said experience=proof. I mentioned "probability."

and "probability" is not proof thus it requires faith to believe/trust in something where the only basis you have is probability/experience. You don't have PROOF thus by definition it constitutes a faith.

 

[Jeremiah]

last I checked experience didn't count as proof.

Is that what your experience with experience tells you?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

***MOD ADVISORY***

Personal attacks will not be tolerated. Several off-topic and insulting posts have been deleted. Please be civil.

Thanks

 

[Don Penguinoini]

In regards to using faith as another word for religon then yes it believes in God. But that is not the only use for the word. Faith does not require a belief in God nor is a belief in God required to have faith. Indeed I see faith as integral to the human psyche and it would be near impossible to function without it. I don't mean faith in God but just faith in general. For faith has also been taken to mean "trust" and I consider this the more accurate defintition. Whether it be faith in yourself, in others, in the world around you one needs at least some modicum of faith, some modicum of trust, in order to function. This is why I consider the negative attitude towards faith so hypocritical. So many assume that faith pertains only to religion when in fact faith, while it does play a major role in religion, does not REQUIRE religion in order to be present in one's life. Many speak out against faith not realizing that they themselves have, and in fact need faith. Not in a religious sense, but in the sense that one needs faith in themselves, in their reality/environment, in others..... just because you aren't conciously thinking about it doesn't mean you don't have faith. After all in the end everything we accept as true, at the root, is based on assumptions that can't be proven empiraclly regardless of how logical they may seem. Since these assumptions cannot be proven to be true they, by definition, require faith to be accepted.



I don't go to a building to talk about the existence of my Gods. Does that mean I don't have faith? Why is it required for someone to go to some building and discuss God's existence or non-existence in order for one to have faith? Why is God required at all for one to have faith?

You are using the word faith too loosely. Faith simply means believing in something. When people say faith they mean religion. To most pople, on this forum, it is used in the same context.

 

[MoonWater]

You are using the word faith too loosely. Faith simply means believing in something.

That is the definition of faith and it is the definition I have been using throughout this thread. How am I using the word "loosely" when I'm simply using it's definition?(I've asked this question many times before and have yet to get an answer)

When people say faith they mean religion. To most pople, on this forum, it is used in the same context.

I know, but for this thread I don't mean faith as another word for religion, in fact I've said many times that it is NOT the purpose or intent of this thread to call Atheism a religion.

 

[TurkeyOnRye]

I think this discussion doesn't really merit much thought. Like many discussions, this is a question of semantics.

Having said that though,

Faith is belief without evidence, a characteristic which atheists lack.

I would like to point out that there are strong and weak atheists. Strong being a positive belief that there is no god (these atheists, however, are few, I think.), while weak atheists have no positive belief that there is a god.

A-theist:
Not a theist

 

[UnTheist]

and "probability" is not proof thus it requires faith to believe/trust in something where the only basis you have is probability/experience. You don't have PROOF thus by definition it constitutes a faith.

Nope. Sorry. You're just spewing semantical nonsense. "Faith" is not belief without proof. It is belief without evidence. All the evidence points towards my senses being reliable in day to day life.

You're beating a dead horse here. And it's getting old.

 

[s2a]

Would you consider the satement "there is no God" a faith based statment? Why or why not?

No, in part because a "god concept" (or claim) necessitates an accepting or adherent faith that the concept or claim (of a "god") is "true", by default.

Let's again note that the word "faith" offers differing meanings within a given context. In theistic beliefs, "faith" implies/imparts a spiritual connotation/connection to the claim itself. "Belief" in/of a theistic claim (of an existent god) is not possible (or likely) without a "faith" that the claim itself--even being (admittedly) perhaps unprovable/inevidenced--is none the less an undeniable and incontrovertible fact (or "truth"). Atheistic perspectives do not employ such rationales.

In more pedantic/colloquial/secular semantics, "faith" only suggests a wish or hope that a belief "might be" true (or dependable, or reliable, or worthy of trust).

"I have 'faith' that the Red Sox will win the pennant this year".

...or...

"I have 'faith' in our military that it will prevail in any armed conflict".

These "testaments" of "faith" make no absolutist or prophesied claims, nor do they offer any assertions as to any incontrovertible fact or truth. One might just as readily transpose the words "wish" or "hope", for "faith" in the two examples above, and any/all would echo a similar sentiment.

Ardent adherents of theistic faith-based beliefs (often enough) either ignore, or purposefully blur/conflate these two entirely different "definitions" of [the word] "faith" as being one and the same. They're not...and quite frankly, it's tiresome and tedious work to constantly rebut and correct this focused and deliberate effort to equate the two as being similar, or identical. They're not.

"Faith in god" is not the same "thing" as having "faith" in a baseball team, or a car battery starting your car on a cold morning. Or would you prefer that people equate the failure of car batteries and sporting icons with the apparent failures of their god(s)?

If you claim that an invisible twenty-story building towers within my front yard, and but for a lack of a bit of theistic "faith" on my part, I could see it too...

..but I don't possess that requisite "faith"...

...is my reasonable doubt in the veracity of your insistent and pious claim [that an invisible twenty-story building towers within my front yard] any sort of a "faith-based" belief? I only express my reasonable doubts in the "truth/fact" of your claim. I merely conclude, absent any compelling evidence supporting your claim (or any independent investigations/experimentations of my own), that your claim is..."unbelievable". My "disbelief" does not serve (nor is claimed/provided) as any invalidation/disproof of your insistent claim. Neither does my "disbelief" INSIST that a twenty-story building couldn't be erected in my front yard; or that twenty-story buildings DON'T EXIST; or even that twenty-story buildings might very well exist while evincing no evidence of their existence (go to Manhattan as a tourist, and consider how many twenty-story buildings you never notice amongst the sixty, seventy, eighty, or more...storied structures).

It's not that atheists don't "believe in" (or reject/deny) the "concept" of a twenty-story building, but when theists insist that their favored and theistically-claimed twenty-story buildings are omnipresent, omnipotent, and all-encompassing (and conveniently enough...invisible), that skeptics and atheists alike tend to employ human capacities of reason, inquiry, and burdened proofs to rationally conclude that "belief" and/or "faith" only presents evidence of those qualities...but not of the insistent faith-based claims themselves.

It's not "faith" that allows me to doubt or "disbelieve" a claim of an invisible skyscraper on my lawn. Reason alone suffices...

On the other hand, it's predominant religious theologies that engage conflict and destruction in "proving" which claimed god is "real".

Consider:
"I don't believe/accept that any theistically asserted/derived claim of an existent god is factually true."

Within the contexts and outlines provided above, would you consider my conclusively atheistic perspective a "faith-based belief"? A..."faith"?

If so, by what valid measure or comparison?