"Does Atheism Require Faith?" is the title of recent American Spectator blog post by R.J. Moeller. I, to be honest, don't expect much from an ideological and factually challenged rag like the American Spectator but this one was particularly ludicrous. The title alone gives you a pretty good idea about the level of idiocy involved. So, lets deconstruct it it a bit.
"theism" - a religious based belief system
"a" - a prefix meaning none or without
a lack of a religious based belief system
How many belief systems rely almost entirely on faith? How does lacking one type of belief system tell you much about what an individual or group may or may not actually believe in? Moeller's title is as vacuous as the content of the rest of the piece. The blog is essentially a review of "the latest effort from radio show host and best-selling author Dennis Prager’s virtual 'Prager University'" during which "Dr. Peter Kreeft, Professor of Philosophy at Boston College, is the instructor for the new 'God or Atheism' course and in it presents a case for why belief in a Higher Power is not as irrational as many in the academic world and entertainment industry would have us believe. Professor Kreeft opens his argument by citing the first 'way' in Thomas Aquinas’ 'Five Ways' to prove God’s existence — The Argument from Motion."
I suppose you could claim that this post is a bargain since you get 3 dumb-asses for the price of one. If you are not familiar with Prager feel free to look him up but keep your expectations very low. He is as stupid as he is narrow minded and deceitful. I have also never understood why so many are so impressed with Aquinas. Even for his own time Aquinas' thinking was grossly flawed and rather easily refuted. In the end, this blog drags out a number of old fallacies and apologetics that have been routinely trounced.
For the record, the answer is a resounding no. Not only does it not require faith by definition it cannot. If you have "faith", at least as it is commonly used, you are not an atheist.