Why religion is fading in the West

[Act_of_Reparation]

35. This thread should come with an aversive side-effects warning...

the fact is that atheism basic principle is materialism...that no other reality exist but the material...because to admit that there could be is to admit that they could be wrong.

No. No. No. No. No. No. No.

Atheism is a rejection of god claims and that's it. There are atheists who believe in ghosts... you gonna tell me they're materialists???

is not belief based on knowledge?

Nope. Knowledge is a subset of belief. There are things I believe, and among the things I believe there the things I know.

...you say you do not believe but admit it is not because you have knowledge?

If you find this confusing, I would suggest opening the closest dictionary. Look up the word "certainty" and get back to me.

...what is the difference between you and people of faith then because they believe too without knowledge...you are admitting that your belief in atheism is a matter of faith.

These equivocations are tiresome.

If you are using faith in the colloquial sense of the word--to believe something with some enthusiasm--then, yes, I have faith there are no gods.

But this is a dishonest deployment of the word, as it isn't what believers mean when they talk about "faith". What they describe as "faith" is a strong belief in the absence of evidence. And in that regard, no, I don't have faith that there are no gods. I simply reject claims to the existence of gods for a lack of evidence and compelling arguments to the contrary.

Is that not argument from abserdity?...who is claiming that the universe was created by a cheese sandwich?
The fact is that there is no proof that the universe was created at all...creation is a concept of time and time is only something we perceive. It may not even be real.

No, it isn't an argument from absurdity. It's an illustration of why the burden of proof lies with the party making a claim and not the party rejecting it. My inability to conclusively prove a claim incorrect does not by virtue of itself lend said claim a single shred of plausibility.