Christian "faith" vs. plain "faith"

[Esquilax]

There you go with the misrepresentations for the third time, But I'M the dishonest one...right?

Yes, you are, and I'll happily go into why.

First I'm Justifying rape,

We can start here, because the actual point I was making during that conversation was that your position was that no rape had occurred. Given this, how on earth could you accuse me of saying your position was a justification of rape? Wouldn't you have to believe rape had actually happened, to even be in the business of justifying it?

I told you this the last time you made this point, and yet your argument hasn't changed. When you say something that you know is false, that's dishonesty.

next I'm claiming gold has inherent value,

And as I said there, when you make two claims, the first being that fiat money has as much value as monopoly money, and the other being that gold has been valuable for thousands of years, the intersection of those two claims is that gold has some value over and above fiat currency. I pointed this out, and as far as I know you didn't respond. It's not my fault that the things you say have logical consequences that you evidently never think through.

now I'm denying evolution. Before I respond, to you, I want you to show where I've denied evolution.

I'm not going to play games with you, Huggy. There's a ninety page thread of you braying "show me a cat giving birth to a dog! We've never seen a change between kinds!" When you spend so much time arguing against something and strawmanning it, you can't then pretend later that you don't deny the actual, scientific definition of it.

Mind you, all of this is a deflection from the actual point I was making: mind answering that?

No, I said "Having to repeatedly preform tests actually shows lack of confidence".

Let me break it down for you since, you apparently can't understand that concept.
Say I have a ladder, if i give the rungs a test before I climb up on it, obviously I'm not confident in it.

It's not that I can't understand the concept, it's that the concept itself belies such a complete misunderstanding of science and why it does what it does. You repeat a test, when doing science, because you want to know why you got the result you did; it's about gaining additional information, not lacking confidence in the initial result. You run the test again because you want to see if the results are replicable, because if they aren't then obviously the dependent variable had nothing to do with the result the first time. You run the test again to see how much the results vary, or to see if there are other effects you may have missed, or additional variables not accounted for. You run the test again to learn more, not because you suspect the results might be wrong.

Well, when I say "you," obviously I don't mean you. You wouldn't repeat a test, because apparently you wouldn't test at all. You'd just take it on faith, assuming the guy telling you is well dressed enough.

Just because I've seen evidence doesn't mean I require it. when Jesus walked up to the disciples and said "come follow me" they dropped what they were doing and followed him having no idea who he was... that's faith. Having spent enough time with him, they seen the evidence of who he was, now it's no longer faith. Get it?

Yeah, I get it, but that doesn't make it any less idiotic a thing to do. Mostly because your paragraph could also have ended "they dropped what they were doing and followed him, and then were later found dead, having been lured into a solitary area and murdered," and both stories would have exactly the same level of justification. Faith is not a pathway to truth.