To me the point has always been that when faced with the really big questions, some of which are unanswerable, people have to use some sort of faith to fill in the gaps. Whether that be God or Evolution. People on one side have no problem admitting they use faith to fill in certain gaps, the other denies that it is faith at all.

You stated you believe in a higher power. You definitely are claiming you know of something which clearly lies outside of human knowledge at this given time.

Rustled? Hardly. I responded to you in my typical fashion. Let's assume I am SUPER RUSTLED. How does that negate what I said?

Your just as bad as a bible thumper trying to shove the bible down someone's throat and tell them that its the only thing that is real in life and that you are not allowed to think for yourself. I used greek/roman/Viking mythology as an example of what I THINK are closer to what "gods" are if they do exist. I use words like believe/think because I DONT know for sure and neither do you. Believe and Think do not mean that I know there is a higher power. I simply stated that if you believe in Karma then you believe in higher powers as Karma is something that by definition is supernatural. I don't claim to know there is/are a god(s) I said I believe in higher powers.

The problem here is that closed minded people associate faith with religion. Faith is not just for religion. You don't need to be religious to have faith in something.

There are lots of things you can infer based on the available evidence. Tire tracks for instance typically mean a vehicle produced them. You could argue that there is no way to be 100% certain that a vehicle produced them and you would be right. That doesnt negate the fact that vehicles produce tire tracks and we can observe this phenomenon.

You can also narrow the scope by finding more evidence to support the claim. A camera showing a car producing the tire tracks you are investigating would be a strong indication that a car produced the tire tracks. Now, you have two circumstantial pieces of data to support the theory. You could argue that the video was doctored and you could possibly be right.

What if we added witnesses to the mix? Now we have 3 pieces of circumstantial evidence to back the claim. The witnesses could be mistaken, the video could be doctored, and the tire tracks could have been made by something else but with each new piece of evidence we are making that scenario less and less likely.

Does it take faith to believe that a car produced the tracks? Well, it depends on how you define faith. I define it as, "belief without evidence". So I would say no...it doesnt require faith. Are there gaps in the information still? Yes, but there is evidence there too.

That is why we have a separate word for faith and belief. Do I believe a car produced the tracks. More than likely. Am I certain? No. Do I have faith? No, because there is evidence available for me to digest.

You have faith there is a higher power not a belief. You cannot believe something for which there is no evidence. See my last response to Glenzig for a deeper explanation.

Sorry but it isn't up to you what I can cannot believe in.

can and cannot***

Absolutely. I agree.

I didnt say you couldnt believe in anything you choose to. You are using the wrong terminology though. You have faith in a higher power...not belief.