Can an Atheist argue someone out of faith?

[Edwardo Piet]

well EV when ever you want to come to an agreement that it's far more unlikely for an atheist to fully understand faith in God, than a theist and thus commonly confuse http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith with their own colloquial use of http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blind+faith I'll stop bringing it up. Faith isn't about proof, it's in confidently trusting that the gaps that experience has are proven to be just as consistent as the experience. It's not being in denial of anything, nor self-justification or rationalization.

We agree that faith isn't about proof then.

But then, science isn't about proof either. Maths and (other) tautology are about proof. Science is about evidence.

And faith doesn't even have evidence.

Without evidence faith can never be validly evident to anyone, it's just delusive magical and nonsensical thinking. If faith-based thinking were to be evidentially supported it would no longer be faith-based thinking: It would then be evidence-based thinking.

Since faith lacks evidence that's what makes it blind. Faith therefore=blind trust. Trust without evidence, belief without evidence=faith.

The colloquial term "blind faith" is handy because it expresses how faith actually is. But then on the other hand it is but a tautology. It's a tautology like a lot of colloquialisms are.