The real religion?

[RoadRunner79]

It means that I don't think you are justified in making these arguments against one thing, and then denying them when the same principles can be applied to science, that I rely on other's for knowledge of.

I'm not building an argument against anything, RR.  That's not my responsibility.  I am simply pointing out the lack of sufficient corroborating evidence to support your truth claims.  

So then you are not taking a position of true or false then?

And I didn't make any truth claim here; I was just discussing the validity of witness testimony as evidence and the flat denial of testimony without qualification or any critical thinking.

However if you haven't seen for yourself, then you are relying on the same faith and reason, as in other categories for knowledge.

Nope.  Equivocating again.  Faith is meaningless within the realm of science, RR.  Faith is required for religious beliefs precisely because there IS no evidence to foster confidence in the truth of its claims.  If you want to say skeptics have developed an..."earned trust" in the scientific method, I might be okay with that.  But this is NOT the same thing as faith.  

If you hold a pencil up above your head and let it go, what happens?  Did you need "faith" to observe the effects of gravity on the pencil? Also, in 2016 there is a robust database of original scientific research on almost every subject imaginable available for you to read with your very own eyes.  Tangible, graspable, observable evidence at your fingertips.  No "faith" necessary.  

I think that what you are doing here is called illegitimate totalian transfer. Trust is one of the meanings of "faith" and there is a reason, that the qualifier "earned" or "blind" is affixed to the word.
Other fallacies that may be present here, include straw man, and begging the question.

For instance, where I came into the discussion, was the unqualified rejection of witness testimony as evidence. It was said, that what was testified about in a book, was not evidence. My assumption about our conversation so far, was that you where making this argument as well. And yet here, you give an example from science calling that which is written in a database.... evidence. Now if you are saying, that what the writers of scripture claimed to have seen is not evidence, but this database is; please explain why. What is the difference?