If evidence for god is in abundance, why is faith necessary?

[Astonished]

Pinpointed it. There was just something distractingly disingenuous in how you wrote on other threads and this is a glaring red flag (if it's unintentional, whatever, it's just a tad bothersome when it feels like I'm reading something written by two different people using the same name). But seriously, don't just make a bogus generalization like that. You're misusing faith just as badly as theists when they deliberately misrepresent the rationalistic perspective, and you're also wildly exaggerating that inappropriate example of how we (don't) use it anyway. That doesn't really square with the label of anti-theist under your name, if indeed that was the label you intended under the literal definition. Please reconsider your position on this completely false equivalency. It's disrespectful to any non-believer if not outright condescending.

I have been posting on here for quite some time and even longer than you. On top of this is the fact that there is no difference in definition of faith unless you are using it to be polite towards the religious. Faith is merely a belief held without good evidence at its most crudest usage. 

And you seriously have no understanding of anti-theism in the slightest. I am more concerned with your understanding of atheism since so many are trying to make it a religion while telling the religious otherwise. Atheism is not a set of beliefs or an affiliation with an ideology, so stop preaching otherwise or go make your own religion but don't go telling other atheists or in my case anti-theists who and what they are. 

You are no different than an evangelical.

If you can define faith like that, how the hell did you manage to misuse it so badly in your post before? You can't seriously expect me not to be puzzled as all hell by your apparent misunderstanding, or to know if you were just being sarcastic. Again, this is like talking to two different people. Freaking bizarro world.