Agnosticism is a step in the right direction, but atheism is absolutely not a kind of faith. That's a claim that theists make about atheism (which is partly why some of us find it so offensive), and it is strictly incorrect. Atheists hold that there is no god by the same reasoning that we know there is no Huckleberry Hound. We know the character to be a work of fiction. The fact that somebody made something up does not give it a leg up in the existence probability sweepstakes. Do you seriously believe that the Flying Spaghetti Monster has any positive probability of existence? No, you don't. You know for a fact that the probability of the FSM existing is precisely zero.
And anything godlike that we might find would not, in fact, be a god, now would it? There cannot be any such thing as the god of the Bible, since it is a self-contradictory fictional entity. Anything in the ballpark would be an alien being or some force (or forces) of nature. But definitely not a god.
The only god claim left standing is the deist "the universe is God" claim, which suffers from the problem of irrelevance (why give the universe a pseudonym?), and in the case of a deist creator, the problem of infinite regression.
Demigods could simply be powerful aliens, but an omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent creator god is simply not possible. That's got nothing to do with faith.
Faith requires neither evidence nor reason. Faith is the antithesis of reasoning based on logic and evidence. Faith is the only refuge for those who accept the unreasonable and illogical.
Atheism is based on logic, reason, science, as well as historical and psychological foundations.
As an atheist I hold a particular view because it was reasoned or demonstrated.
It's simple. As Bertrand Russell asked, "Where did God come from?" Either an infinitely intelligent and powerful, and either loving, vengeful, or distant god has always existed; or something created such god/gods/God and now that has to accounted for, thus creating an infinite regress. I contend that the laws of logic Kant be limited by the transcendent. That is a function literature and art.
If more atheists really understood logic there be fewer agnostics.
And what proof would you offer to back up your belief? Generalizations are wonderful. It's like when a christian says that he sees the order of the universe as an evidence of intelligent design... When we get into specifics, that's when these things fall apart.
There you go again. Now you're using the term belief instead of faith. The issue I think is a confusion of the meanings of faith and belief with those of proof, reason, logic, and evidence. Can't argue with a disconnect.
Faith is belief WITHOUT proof. I've always attached that precursor.
The view I hold takes it's proof from the logical reasoning I stated above. I was offering that discussion as proof. Logic is not merely generalization. Anyway, what was I generalizing? I thought I was quite specific.
This is not and has not been a issue with me. There is no god, never has been a god (except those created in the minds of ignorant people) and never will a god be proven to exist or have existed. So, there you have it, straight from the mouth of the person that was born an atheist.
My response to your question is I am 100% certain there is no God. I think the whole concept is just too far fetched. I would usually require some sort of tangible evidence before deciding whether something is true or not, but in this case, there is none and there never will be as is the case with all fairy stories. I think that you and the others who are leaving a minute chance that it might be true are still leaving it open just in case. Still a fence sitter until you get real and go for 100%. I promise you absolutely that you will not be struck by lightning. If you are, then I'd be happy to pay for your funeral. Just look back through history at all the Gods that have come and gone, and they were feared. Even made sacrifices to appease them. Where are they now?
The lack of evidence makes this an insoluble question. It's just as likely that there is a god as there isn't, which is as much to say that it's a pointless question. If a deity really wanted to make its presence known to the human race, it would've chosen a better way than to talk to a bunch of illiterate, xenophobic shepherds in the Ancient Near East who wrote down all their experiences hundreds of years after the fact. I'm not 100% certain there is no god, but that doesn't change the fact that it's far-fetched, so I choose to live my life as if we are alone in the universe, which the evidence suggests that we are.
There is no evidence of a god, because evidence of a god is impossible. There is enough evidence of the validity of the law of identity, however, to know that things that are contradictory, metaphorical, undefined or supernatural cannot manifest. I concede that things we do not now know about can exist, but nothing worthy of the name god. Unwillingness to state this plainly shows an inappropriate adherence to skepticism, which contradicts itself as an absolute.
Arguing, as an atheist, that you know that god is possible is kind of funny. And erroneous.