When I say "militant atheist", I am referring to someone who believes that there is no god, as opposed to someone who simply does not believe in a god.

The definition of "faith" that I use is belief without proof.

I had an unfinished discussion with an atheist once, and he asserted that he did not have faith that there was no god.  His reasoning was that he expended no extra thought or energy on the belief.  (It's been a while, so know that those are not his exact words.)

We were unable to finish our discussion, so I did not get the chance to ask him why he thinks faith actually requires any extra thought or energy.  As per the definition I go by, faith is more like a math equation.  5-3=2.  Belief-proof=faith.

I'm not saying he's wrong about whether or not faith requires extra energy or thought.  Given the element of belief, it probably does.  So, I suppose the better question to have asked would be, why does it matter?

But this post is not about an unfinished discussion.

Typically, a militant atheist will extol the virtues of logic and reason.  So do I.  What about the logic that says that you cannot prove a negative?

Granted, it seems rather conditional.  I mean, I can prove that a box is not full.  Who can prove that no god of any kind exists, especially if a quality of that god is unknowability to some degree?

If you want to cry, "well, that's convenient", the go for it.  I'm not talking about liklihoods or probabilies or your cynicism.

Logically, before you can say so broadly that something does not exist, you first have to know everything there is to know about the subject in question, and then you have to know everything there is to know about everything else.

You would have to be omniscient.  I'm of the belief that omniscience and omnipotence are two sides of the same coin: you cannot be one without being both, so, in order to truly prove to yourself that there is no god, you would have to be a god, which is a little self-defeating.

But why do I offer that perhaps militant atheist are more faithful than theists?

I suppose I should be a little more specific.  Consider any religion that says that there is something after death.  Or perhaps more specifically, one that allows for an awareness that you have died.

So, you have faith that after you die, you will go somewhere else, know of your former life, and it will be proof that there is "life" after death.  You essentially have an expectation of eventual proof.

But if you believe that there is nothing after death, and if it is true, then you cannot ever know that proof.  A militant atheist has faith in something that they can never even hope to be proven.

That to me sounds like one hardcore religion and some hardcore faith.

I certainly don't know everything, and there may be something that I overlooked, so if you disagree with something that said, then I welcome your perspective.