You seem to be assuming that because you have faith in something, everybody else must also have faith in something. You also seem to be assuming that a lack of faith in one thing is equivalent to having faith in its absence. Both of these assumptions are incorrect.

If I do not have faith in the existence of a flying spaghetti monster, that does not necessarily mean I have faith in its nonexistence. I might simply have no faith one way or the other. I have seen no evidence to suggest that a flying spaghetti monster exists, so I have no belief in its existence. But then neither do I have any particular evidence that it does *not* exist, and so I am not claiming its nonexistence; and thus have no faith in its nonexistence.

Please don't get me wrong: I'm not criticising your beliefs, your religion, or your right to have faith; I am just pointing out that someone can have a lack of faith in a particular god without necessarily having faith in the nonexistence of that god.

Everyone has faith.It is just a matter what you have faith in. My faith is in Jesus Christ. As somone said If I believe in GOD and there is none I have lost nothing. On the other if infact there is a GOD and I deny I have lost everything. You are free to believe as you wish. GOD gave us free will we are not robots.

I read the book and I understand the reasoning that faith is illogical. Yet, I still have some. Back to the title tho, explain the package deal error.

Being an atheist isn't harmful because it's in line with reality. Atheism is not knowing there's a god. It's impossible to know there is a god because there is no evidence for god.

Faith is the acceptance that you can't know things. It is accepting an unproven assertion as true, which requires a blank out, a halting of the rational process. This blank out is harmful as the rational process is man's means of survival.

That would be up to each person to decide for themselves whether it's harmful to be faithful. There are different extremes of faith. Some rely on it for everything and some have it floating in the background, but it doesn't rule over their reasoning skills. I prefer to think that God (or whatever is out there) WANTS us to be individuals and be self reliant and use our logic. Perhaps I'm the oddity. You could also ask is being an atheist harmful to oneself?

Psychologically and philosophically people can and certainly do hold contradictions (for a variety of reasons), but in accepting faith a person is harming himself, yes.

So you have one or the other and that's that?

Faith and reason are opposites.

If you are faithful then you are unable to use reason? If you are faithful than your automatic motive is to make that everybody's top priority? If you believe in objectivism then you cannot aspire to use that in politics? If you are of faith then you can't possibly be a fiscally responsible politician? Unless you clone yourself into every single nook and cranny of Ayn Rand's exact beliefs you're not an individualist?