[troutman]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Exactly my point. Too many hypotheticals to be fact at this point. I actually do believe the Big Bang theory until something better comes along, but I would certainly never say it is fact.

So wouldn't you say that believing in something that is not proven as fact does not require faith?

I don't "believe" in Big Bang Theory. I understand it is a theory supported by ample evidence. This is nothing like religious faith.

On "faith:"

http://skepdic.com/faith.html

Those of us who are atheists and believe that everything evolved from natural forces, nearly universally maintain that theists and supernaturalists have a very weak case for their belief, weaker even than the case for Bigfoot, Nessie, the Tooth Fairy, or Santa Claus. But, more important, we are convinced by the overwhelming nature of the evidence that natural forces have brought about the universe as we know it. Thus, our disbelief in a supernatural creator is not an act of faith, and therefore, not non-rational as are those of theists and Christian apologists. However, if Christian apologists insist on claiming that their version of Christianity and the rejections of their views are equally acts of faith, I will insist that the apologists have a non-rational faith, while their opponents have a rational faith. Though I think it would be less dishonest and less misleading to admit that atheists and naturalists do not base their beliefs on faith in any sense close to that of religious faith.