Something can't come from nothing because nothing is required for there to be nothing. Something existing would then be a change from there being nothing to there being something, but if there is nothing, there is nothing that can change. And if something from nothing were possible then so many different types of things would have always been spontaneously existing, some of them doing or causing the same things possibly. Likewise with things that are the same and any amount of them potentially doing and causing different things, since if a cause is unnecessary, there is nothing to prevent this being possible. The requirements for science, then, would not exist, since nothing would have to be a certain way to cause a specific result from it.
Particles coming in and out of empty space can't be evidence for something from nothing, because empty space is still space which is still something, or else there would be nothing for those particles to exist in. Empty space and vacuums have a minimal amount of energy in them to produce these particles, have dimensions that can bend and be measured, and the amount of energy, that obviously can also be measured, can change. This is all only possible because of how already existing physics make it so, so not only can nothing not be seen or tested to verify the possibility of it, but nothing is by definition what does not exist, so there being nothing is as self contradictory as there being no such thing as truth.
Nothing can have a beginningless infinite past because it would take an infinite amount of time for anything to happen then, so nothing ever would because there never would be that much time. So for anything to exist there has to be something or someone to cause them. The only type of entity that could cause the first beginning would have to be independent of time and space.

Also, it is not necessary to believe something is true in order to act "as if" it is true. Belief grants an idea authority, allowing you to base other ideas on it as if it were an axiom, and also exposes you to confirmation bias. I can act "as if" some aspect of physical reality without believing it. Any decent physical scientist would have to do this very thing.

There is an article about that:
http://turkishatheist.net/?p=1

***ME***
The word you're looking for is either "stupid" or "assholish".

***YOU***

I’m sure that, for some individuals, who feel powerfully convinced of the existence of God, that claim is true: For them it would be harder to disbelieve than to believe.

***ME***
Projecting.

***YOU***

But that’s not the way it is for everyone.
The people who make the claim are on solid ground,

***ME***
No they're not.

***YOU***
though, in supposing that atheism involves a leap of faith.

***ME***
Don't get me started on "faith".

***YOU***

For a very large number of atheists, atheism itself is a position of faith.

***ME***
You're gonna piss me off, aren't you?

***YOU***

Here’s why . . .

Eliminating the Obvious
There are different kinds of faith,

***ME***
To be completely fair, that's true. There are 2 definitions of faith:
1) "trust" or whatever.
2) the closed-minded pig-headed refusal to think lest God punish you for thinking. It is beyond stupid, worst than stupid, anti-intelligence. Ignorance is the neutral point between intelligence and "Faith".

Christians often switch back and forth between the 2 definitions depending whether they're talking about themselves or insulting us. Atheists, on the other hand, are far more consistent. We ALWAYS mean Beyond Stupid when we say "Faith".

***YOU***
and atheists obviously do not possess some of them:
It’s obvious that atheists do not have Christian faith. If they did, they’d be Christians.
It’s also apparent that they do not have the theological virtue of faith, by which we believe in God and believe all that he has revealed to us because he is truth itself.
But there are other forms of faith. Unfortunately, the definitions proposed for them are often inadequate.

Belief Against the Evidence?
For example, sometimes people suggest that faith is believing in spite of proof, or at least the stronger balance of evidence, to the contrary.

***ME***
Yep, that's what we call "Faith".

***YOU***

This is not the way the term is used most of the time, and certainly not by most people who profess to have faith.
The idea of faith-as-belief-against-evidence is more often a straw man that will derail the discussion rather than a helpful contribution to it.

***ME***
Then why do they insult us with it? Listen to their tone of voice when they accuse Atheists of having "Faith"!

***YOU***

In any event, I will not be proposing that atheists have this kind of faith.

***ME***
Dude, if you're gonna complain about "faith" being a straw-man, don't accuse people who think "Faith" is beyond stupid of having Faith!

***YOU***

Belief Without Evidence?
Somewhat less problematic is the idea that faith is belief without evidence.

***ME***
Wait, how's that different?

***YOU***

However, people of faith do not tend to regard themselves as having no evidence for their faith beliefs.

***ME***
Fuck them. Your accusation is about US. I don't care what Christians think "Faith" is.

How do I put this?

Gorean girls can call themselves and each-other sluts all they want, and even be proud of it, no harm done. But, accuse anyone outside of the Gor community of being a slut, they will take it as an insult because they are familiar with the old definition. You can say "that's not what we mean when we say that about themselves" all you want. Doesn't matter. You're applying the word to US, and that makes you an asshole.

***YOU***

They tend at least to think that evidence for their beliefs is available, whether or not they have personally studied that evidence in detail.

***ME***
Wait, they believe things without thinking about it?

See, THIS is why we disrespect religious people and the concept of "faith".

***YOU***

Framing the issue of faith as being belief without evidence is thus not what people of faith understand themselves to be doing,

***ME***
You just said they believe without studying. Therefore, they are. By our standards, believing anything without thinking about it is really dumb.

***YOU***
and so this, too, tends to be more of a straw man and an impediment to discussion.

Belief Without Certain Proof?
I think that the concept of faith can be understood, in many cases, as involving belief without a certain kind or amount of evidence—the kind or amount that would give us certain proof.

***ME***
Ah, well, that's not necesarily "Faith". Atheists accept as likely things for which the evidence is only 90% conclusive.

But;

Our beliefs reflect that. If you ask Atheists where we are on the Dawkins scale, you'll get a different number for each Atheist you ask. Most of us will give you a fraction. Personally, I'm all over the upper half of the Dawkins scale depending which god you're talking about and how much I know about that religion.

***YOU***

This understanding of faith seems to be reflected where St. Paul writes that “we walk by faith, not by sight” (2 Cor. 5:7).
He seems to acknowledge that the Christian life involves a commitment to certain spiritual realities—without the complete and certain proof that we would have if these realities were immediately obvious to our senses.
The commitment of faith is not divorced from evidence. One might have, and St. Paul thought that he did have, very good evidence for his beliefs.
But he acknowledges that it is not the same kind of evidence as if we could see the spiritual realities as easily as we see the physical world around us.
It is this type of faith that I think atheists also share.

***ME***
No, wrong. We are not that closed-minded.

***YOU***

Everyday Faith
Christian authors sometimes point out that atheists display faith every day and that faith is a fundamental part of the human condition.

***ME***
No we don't.

***YOU***

In everyday life, nobody has complete proof that:
his food isn’t poisoned

***ME***
I've had salmonella. So I KNOW, for a fact, that can happen.

***YOU***

he won’t die in a car crash on the way to work

***ME***
No, that's why you have to be carefull when you drive.

***YOU***

his friends aren’t engaged in a conspiracy to harm him

***ME***
I've been betrayed before.

***YOU***

the accuracy of his own memory

***ME***
LOL! Why the hell do you think I keep reminders on my phone?

***YOU***

Indeed, nobody has complete proof of even more fundamental things, like:
the law of gravity won’t suddenly stop working

***ME***
If gravity did change, I would entertain the possibility of that. "Faith" is ignoring evidence. I wouldn't do that.

***YOU***

the sun won’t explode today

***ME***
Actually, it will eventually.

***YOU***

the existence of the external world

***ME***
I do not know that on "Faith". I dismiss Solipsism due to Occam's Razor, but Occam's Razor is about PROBABLE explanations not definite explanations.

***YOU***

the existence of other minds

***ME***
See above.

***YOU***

the axioms of logic

***ME***
Logic is all around us you fucktard, it works all the time, it can be tested.

***YOU***

But this doesn’t stop people from acting on and believing precisely these things.
In doing so, they are exercising a form of faith, and atheists do that, too.

***ME***
Well, with all that "you think your memoury is reliable" and "other drivers will do the right thing" and "you can't get sick from peanut butter" bullshit, if I had even the slightest doubt that maybe I did have faith, you pretty much convinced me that I definitely don't.

***YOU***

“Faith” Is Not a Dirty Word

***ME***
Yes it is.

***YOU***

It’s fair and worthwhile to make this point, because faith is a fundamental part of the human condition.

***ME***
No, it's stupid.

***YOU***

“Faith” is not a dirty word.
We all have faith,

***ME***
No we don't.

***YOU***
and it would be a mistake to pretend that we don’t.

***ME***
No, it's a mistake to believe anything without thinking about it. How do you even drive??!!

***YOU***

It’s just a question of what we put our faith in

***ME***
Nothing

***YOU***
and how good the choices we make in doing that are.

***ME***
Believing anything without... come to think of it, how the hell DO you make choices without thinking? That seems like a paradox.

***YOU***

Atheist Faith
The question of how to make good faith choices

***ME***
Faith is belief without thinking. Choices are thinking about things and acting upon that conclusion. "Faith choice" is an oxymoron.

***YOU***
is obviously of great importance, but we won’t be going into it here. That’s a subject for another time.
What I’d like to do is advance the discussion beyond the claim that atheists display the same form of everyday faith that everyone does.

***ME***
Which you have already disproved by denying that food can be tainted.

***YOU***

Atheists undoubtedly do that, but they also—at least normally—display faith at the core of their religious lives,

***ME***
We're ATHEISTS you moron!

***YOU***
with the very beliefs that make one an atheist.

***ME***
Atheism is a lack of belief you idiot.

***YOU***

To see this, let’s look at a parallel . . .

The Existence of God
In the Catholic view, it is possible to prove the existence of God in a way that allows us to have certainty regarding his existence (CCC 31).
When that’s done, the existence of God is not held as an article of faith but as something that has been proven.
It thus doesn’t fall under the definition of faith that we’re working with here (i.e., faith as belief without certain proof).
But that doesn’t mean that everyone is in a position to have this kind of proof.
Even a great theologian or philosopher, who in the past may have worked out the existence of God with what he regards as mathematical certainty, may not have the details of the proof at his fingertips—only the memory that he has so worked it out in the past.
He may be in the same position as a mathematician who remembers working out an elaborate, mathematical proof, but who does not presently have the whole of the proof in his mind.
Whether a person has never had certain proof of God’s existence or whether he doesn’t have it at the moment, that doesn’t prevent him from accepting the existence of God.
It just means that, when he does so, he is acting on faith (in the sense that we’re working with).
Thus, for example, if you ask a typical Christian, who has not studied philosophy or apologetics, “Do you believe that God exists?” He’ll say yes.
But if you ask him, “Do you have proof that God exists—conclusive proof?” he may well say, “No, but I still believe he exists.”
In this case, the Christian is holding his belief in God as a matter of faith rather than a matter of conclusive proof.
This is all summed up, in similar language, by St. Thomas Aquinas:
The existence of God and other like truths about God, which can be known by natural reason, are not articles of faith, but are preambles to the articles. . . .
Nevertheless, there is nothing to prevent a man, who cannot grasp a proof, accepting, as a matter of faith, something which in itself is capable of being scientifically known and demonstrated [ST I:2:2 ad 1].
Now here’s the twist . . .

Atheists Do the Same Thing
Some atheists may claim that they have conclusive proof that God does not exist.

***ME***
No, wrong. You are an idiot for saying that.

***YOU***

If so

***ME***
Not so

***YOU***
then, per Aquinas, they are not holding this belief as a matter of faith.

***ME***
We're not holding that belief at all.

***YOU***
They are, to borrow St. Paul’s phrase, not walking by faith with respect to the existence of God but by what they regard as sight.
But even an atheist who has worked out such a proof to his satisfaction may find himself in the same position as the theologian, philosopher, or mathematician we discussed before.
He may not have the details of his proof before his mind, only the memory of having done one.
Most atheists do not claim to have a conclusive disproof of God’s existence.

***ME***
THANK YOU! I take back the "you are an idiot" remark... probationally.

***YOU***

Indeed, it is common today for atheists to say, “I can’t prove that there is no God—but I think it highly unlikely that he exists, or at least I haven’t seen convincing proof of his existence, so I don’t believe in him.”

***ME***
Very good, that wasn't a straw-man, that sounds like something we might actually say.

***YOU***

Whether they think it highly unlikely that God exists, or whether they just have not been presented with proof they consider sufficient, they are doing the same thing: adopting a belief without certain proof.

***ME***
NO! NO! WRONG! Faith is absolute belief without sufficient evidence. Weak Atheists have precisely the certainty that the available evidence should support; we think god PROBABLY doesn't exist. "Probably" is not Faith.

***YOU***

In other words, they are exercising faith.

***ME***
No.

***YOU***

They are in the same position as the ordinary Christian

***ME***
No, your believe more strongly than the evidence dictates, we disbelieve exactly as much as the evidence dictates.

***YOU***
who holds the existence of God despite his acknowledgement that he does not have conclusive proof of this.
And atheists exercising faith in this way are doing so regarding the central belief of atheism—the non-existence of God.

***ME***
*sigh*
You were getting there, you were so close, but you completely faked up on the definition of Atheism.

***YOU***

Other Beliefs
Standard western atheism does not just involve a rejection of the existence of God.

***ME***
Yes it does.

***YOU***

It also, at least typically, involves a rejection of the idea of an afterlife

***ME***
Raeliens, Buddhists, Atheists who believe in ghosts, etc

***YOU***
and the belief that the material universe is all that exists.

***ME***
the multiverse theory/more than 4 dimensions, things other than inanimate objects or living things, philosophy, etc.

***YOU***

On these additional beliefs, atheists also exercise faith in the sense we are discussing.

***ME***
I just denied both of your claims just then.

***YOU***

Although the defining issue of God’s existence gets most of the attention, many atheists would be prepared to acknowledge that they also do not have certain proof that human consciousness in no way survives death.

***ME***
You JUST SAID we have faith that there's no afterlife. Make up your mind!

***YOU***

And many would be prepared to acknowledge that they do not have certain proof that the material universe is all that exists.

***ME***
I blatantly deny that.

***YOU***

If an atheist did claim to have certain proof on these matters then he would not be holding them as matters of faith, but to the extent that certain proof is not available to an atheist, he is exercising faith regarding them.

***ME***
What if I completely deny it? What if I think "materialism" is a Theist strawman?

***YOU***

It thus seems that atheists do, indeed, have faith—not just in the everyday matters that everyone does, but specifically in regard to the three beliefs that tend to characterize standard western atheism.

***ME***
You mean the above bullshit I just denied?

***YOU***

They may think that they have good, if not conclusive, evidence for their views, just as Christians do, but there is still an exercise of faith here.
It’s not a question of whether faith is being exercised but what the content of that faith is.
This raises the question of how to make good choices in determining faith commitments, but as we said, that’s a subject for another time.

***ME***
I find your complaint about us strawmanning you by going with the closed-minded pig-headed definition of "faith" to be hypocritical.

The words your looking for are "hypocritical" and/or "stupid"

"The people who make the claim are on solid ground, though, in supposing that atheism involves a leap of faith."

Bullshit

"For a very large number of atheists, atheism itself is a position of faith."

BULLSHIT

"There are different kinds of faith"

True. There's 2 different definitions of Faith: 1) closed-minded-pig-headed refusal to question things lest God punish you for having a brain, 2) "trust" or whatever. Theists use both definitions depending on whether they're talking about themselves or insulting us. We, on the other hand, are far more consistent. We use the pig-headed definition.

"The idea of faith-as-belief-against-evidence is more often a straw man that will derail the discussion rather than a helpful contribution to it."

And yet, here we are, discussing exactly that. By the way, it's hypocritical to complain about strawmen when you INTRUDUCE your article by defending the accusation that Atheists have "Faith".

"Somewhat less problematic is the idea that faith is belief without evidence."

Same thing

"Framing the issue of faith as being belief without evidence is thus not what people of faith understand themselves to be doing, and so this, too, tends to be more of a straw man and an impediment to discussion."

I don't give a rats ass what Christians think of themselves. Notwhat anyone who willingly says they have "Faith" says about it. You're accusing US of having "Faith". Again, hypocritical to complain about strawmen when accusing us of being as braindead as a theist.

"I think that the concept of faith can be understood, in many cases, as involving belief without a certain kind or amount of evidence—the kind or amount that would give us certain proof."

So far, you've described 3 definitions of "Faith" that, to me, still sound braindead. I'm not even clear on the difference between them, nor do I care. Belief for no reason is belief for no reason.

"It is this type of faith that I think atheists also share."

BULLSHIT! Belief without evidence is braindead.

"In everyday life, nobody has complete proof that:
"his food isn’t poisoned"
-then you are insane
"he won’t die in a car crash on the way to work"
-are you kidding? Have you EVER driven around South Melbourne?
"his friends aren’t engaged in a conspiracy to harm him"
- I doubt it, but if I was given evidence to the contrary I would considder it.
"the accuracy of his own memory"
-LOL! I KNOW my own memoury isn't that good you fucking idiot!

Indeed, nobody has complete proof of even more fundamental things, like:
"the law of gravity won’t suddenly stop working"
- that's not based on "faith" that's based on logic
"the sun won’t explode today"
-actually it will eventually
"the existence of the external world"
-you've never heard of solipsism, have you?
"the existence of other minds"
-solipsism
"the axioms of logic"
-let's not get into Presuppositional apologetics

"In doing so, they are exercising a form of faith, and atheists do that, too."

Nope! Some of those things, if I were given evidence to the contrary, I would considder it carefully rather than dismiss it outright. The rest, I KNOW you are dead wrong about.

"“Faith” Is Not a Dirty Word"

Yes it is.
I hate the word, as I hate hell, all Montihughes and thee.

"It’s fair and worthwhile to make this point, because faith is a fundamental part of the human condition."

Only for stupid people.

"We all have faith, and it would be a mistake to pretend that we don’t."

WRONG! All things must be questioned. Never believe anything untill you've thought about it for a while. Otherwise, you are an idiot.

"What I’d like to do is advance the discussion beyond the claim that atheists display the same form of everyday faith that everyone does."

No we don't. I KNOW my memoury can fail me, that's what reminders are for. And frankly, that part makes me question how much self-awareness YOU possess.

"Atheists undoubtedly do that,"

"Undoubtedly"??!! You mean, that was based not on observation but on ASSUMPTIONS???!! You just ASSUMED we act like you??!! Ok, see. THIS is why we hate "Faith" and prefer Skepticism.

" but they also—at least normally—display faith at the core of their religious lives,"

WE'RE ATHEISTS YOU IDIOT!

"He may not have the details of his proof before his mind, only the memory of having done one."

Oh for fuck's sake. Seriously? THAT is what you're calling "faith" now? Having in fact worked out something ages ago, and remembering it later, is "Faith" to you??!! Ugh. I suppose you think the fact that Michelangelo took a break after painting the Sistine Chapel makes him "uncreative".

"Whether they think it highly unlikely that God exists, or whether they just have not been presented with proof they consider sufficient, they are doing the same thing: adopting a belief without certain proof."

NO! NO! WRONG! Being uncertain or thinking something is only probable or improbable is the OPPOSITE of "Faith"! You can't be a closed-minded pig-headed idiot refusing to question something YOU'RE NOT EVEN COMPLETELY SURE OF! "We must kill the infidels who think O.J. Might have done it for we have the absolute truth that he maybe could have done it! AND WE WILL DIE FOR THAT!"

"They are in the same position as the ordinary Christian who holds the existence of God despite his acknowledgement that he does not have conclusive proof of this."

That's not faith either. That's having a bit of a brain.

"And atheists exercising faith in this way are doing so regarding the central belief of atheism—the non-existence of God."

Damnit! I thought you knew what Atheism was. You JUST MENTIONED weak Atheists. Ugh.

"Standard western atheism does not just involve a rejection of the existence of God."

I see what you're doing there. By throwing in "standard western" You're cutting me off from saying "What about Rae-liens? What about conspiracy theorists? What about Buddhists? Etc. It'd be clever if it wasn't so transparent. It's not *quite* no-true-Scotsman, but not far from it.

"It also, at least typically, involves a rejection of the idea of an afterlife and the belief that the material universe is all that exists."

What about Atheists who believe in ghosts? HA!

"On these additional beliefs, atheists also exercise faith in the sense we are discussing."

Me, I believe that when you die, you smell bad. This is not a matter of "faith". It can be proven.

"And many would be prepared to acknowledge that they do not have certain proof that the material universe is all that exists."

What about other dimensions? A lot of us believe in alternate dimensions you idiot.

"It thus seems that atheists do, indeed, have faith"

WRONG! If you are willing to think about what you believe, you do not have "Faith" if not, you don't have a brain.

"not just in the everyday matters that everyone does, but specifically in regard to the three beliefs that tend to characterize standard western atheism."

You picked a couple of obscure unimportant and not-completely-agreed-on things and accused us of having "faith" in things we don't necessarily all agree on or even all have thought about much. I'm honestly surprised you didn't talk about Science since Science is something most of us actually do... Ooohhh, it's because Science is based on evidence, isn't it?

Let's talk about it:

If you say "I have faith that unicorns exist" and I say "I won't believe in them unless there's proof", that is you displaying faith and me displaying lack of faith.

I think the problem with much of this viewpoint is what exactly "proof" means. A theist might say "look, there is a world around us, that is proof that god exists".

This is a false correlation. The existence of A doesn't prove B.

An atheist's idea of proof is a LOT MORE STRICT than a theist's.

To an atheist, the amount of evidence that a theist would accept as 'proof' is not scientific, and not nearly enough to construct an actual proof.

Next we come to the usual ridiculous theist arguments:

"atheists have faith that, "

An atheist will believe that their food isn't poisoned because of facts. not because of faith. If there was no suspicious circumstances, if there was no CAUSE for the suspicion of poison, an atheist won't think the food is poisoned. It's NEVER taken on faith. It's always taken on observation, fact, and circumstance.

- same with the car crash, the conspiracy, and the memory.

If he has no evidence to believe that his memory is failing, why would he? A friend saying something that doesn't match up with his own memory, for instance, is evidence towards that conclusion. it is NOT taken on faith.

Here's the pseudo-science.

gravity, sun, external world: all of these things have HUGE amounts of evidence to support that theory. Scientific, reproducable evidence. Peer-reviewed scholarly evidence.

To re-iterate: these are not taken on faith. They are taken by evidence.

As for the others: existence of other minds, and axioms of logic: these are not taken by faith at all. They are actually debated upon, and great philosophical discussions ensue. They are questioned constantly, they are certainly not taken on faith at all. They aren't even fully believed!

None of this is a form of faith. It is all evidence-based.

As for the christian existence of God part: this is not the correct definition of proof. Proof is repeatable. What this is, is surety. Once you're sure about something, you then need to seek to prove it. Until then, it is not a proof.

As for the atheist section: if you meet an atheist that says he has conclusive proof that god doesn't exist, he is just as crazy as people who say they have conclusive proof that god DOES exist.

Neither are scientifically provable in our current world.

But the conclusion of that paragraph gets warped by faith-based arguments again, saying that if they say "I won't believe in god until there's proof" is a faith. That is NOT faith. That is absence of faith.

I covered this already, but to believe in something without proof requires faith. If there was proof, you wouldn't need faith, you'd use evidence instead. If you refuse to believe in something until there's proof, that is a lack of faith. "I don't have faith in you" is something we say if past evidence leads you to disbelieve them.

Example: Imagine if you give a kid a glass, and he breaks it, and then lies about it. You give him a new glass, and he breaks it one more time. He asks for another glass, and says he won't break it. You don't believe him. You have lost faith in him. That's not you having FAITH that he'll keep breaking them, that's you using repeatable evidence to formulate a new opinion of him. That's very different than faith.

To use an often-used quote: Bald is not a hairstyle. It's an absence of hair. Atheism isn't a faith belief. It's an absence of faith.

If you are atheist, you obviously believe that there is no
god or higher power or whatever you want to call it. If you believe that there
is some higher intelligence than our own that guided human life into existence,
then you believe in some sort of god, so you are not an atheist.

If you are atheist, but claim your belief (or unbelief) is the product of
reason rather than blind faith, then you must believe that your reason is
capable of accurately gathering, synthesizing, and analyzing data in light of abstract metaphysical concepts such as "God," "Truth,"
"Meaning," and so forth.

But then you are believing that an unintelligent hodgepodge of physical matter
and energy created intelligent brains that can be trusted to accurately
understand the universe and its origins. Given the nature of this hypothesis,
it cannot be verified empirically. So I wonder what evidence you can have that
this actually did happen, and what kind of evidence can you have that there was
no involvement by an intelligent higher power.

And as for the objection that this just pushes the problem further back, it
doesn't. The best evidence suggests that humans have not always existed, but
there's no reason to say the same of a higher power. See also:

http://www.meditations-on-life.com/why-i-am-not-an-atheist-christianity-atheism-faith-reason/

Hi Steve,
I just came across your post so i know i'm a little late for responding to it. Forgive me but i will have to disagree with you, i don't think your lazy. that was a well thoughout and concise post.

Two things i thought might be helpful (from my perspective). Start with "faith" in a general sense to see it within yourself. when you chose your job in life, you weren't absolutely certain, when you chose your spouse, you weren't absolutely certain, you looked at the evidence and made a decision. That you could say is faith. when you ask someone to do something for you, you could say your putting your "faith" in them. only an agnostic who never really leaves the home would be one who only adhere's to logic and reason, but we all need faith in various people and things in order to deal with life.

Secondly, remember that when you were praying, God was doing something. something always happens in prayer but at times it takes a while to see what he is doing. i can't tell you how many times i've prayed for direction or even for something good but had to wait. sometimes it was because God was trying to get me to look at something else in my life. When i stopped long enough to listen i could see it. God does answer prayers and so if you persevere in prayer you will see the effect. Perhaps it's not a bad idea to have some doubt. Why not doubt some of the things that can't be proven and are only theories drawn up by various atheists. Perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to doubt some of Dawkins theories that are as of yet unproven?

If you can identify with some of the ideas of how you use "faith" in a general sense we can talk about theological faith etc.