No conflict between faith and science, eh?

[FatAndFaithless]

I'd just ask him..what about the beliefs he holds in his religion that...can't be tested (or verified or falsified) by investigation?  What basis would he have for holding those beliefs, and isn't accepting a conclusion before sufficient evidence has been provided...kind of the definition of unscientific?

I suspect the religious beliefs he holds are on par with beliefs we hold about who we are and what we value. True "faith" is about embracing the truth as you find it.

Okay, but... I'd be wary about using a term like 'true faith' though, since everyone uses it slightly differently. I'm using 'faith' as 'belief in a proposition without evidence', like some people have 'faith' that prayer works or that their healing crystals help their asthma.

I have no problem with people believing things about themselves that are unconfirmable to us other people, because we have no way of investigating what it's like to be another person. I'm talking about claims about the reality that we all share, outside of ourselves. The OP is talking about science specifically, and since science isn't in the business of making claims about peoples' intrapersonal beliefs (or even truth statements, for that matter), and is focused on describing and discovering the external reality we all seem to share, I'm not sure what use bringing in intrapersonal beliefs serves.

Religious "belief" tend to be more specific. Belief is at odds with faith.

Depends verrrry heavily on your current usage of the terms. Many theists would say their faith is their religion, some theists might say 'faith' is identical to 'trust', or any number of other definitions.

I think most atheists are more faithful in the sense of being open to the truth/reality as we find it.

Again, that's no definition of faith I've ever encountered. Believing something only once evidence is provided isn't 'faith', it's just being rational.

The downfall of atheists tends to come from adopting a "nothing-but" stance.

I can agree with you here in the sense that I don't think science will solve everything, but the methods of investigation and confirmation and verification that science employs have been proven throughout history to be the single most reliable way of obtaining the closest things to facts about reality that we've ever been able to grasp, so far. I'm not saying there couldn't be a better method somewhere, and to use your words I'm open to reality and improvement as we find it, but that's nowhere near anything I'd call 'faith'.

The trick is to embrace all kinds of truth, intra-personal as well as inter-personal, while knowing where and how each applies.

I'll refer to my above comments, I'm not really too interested in verifying or debunking 'intrapersonal truths' as by definition they're different from individual to individual, and its rather useless for me to try and 'test' something you believe to be true about yourself.

You can't and shouldn't ignore the observer (you) any more than you do empirical observations. A full life needs to include both.

Sure, but I myself as an observer can be extremely flawed, and while I certainly do have confidence in my own ideas and judgments, I always attempt to compare those ideas and judgments not only to other peoples' judgments, but also any sort of verifiable evidence (if there is any, depending on the claim).

Theists stop at belief in doctrine rather than remaining faithful to the truth they humbly do not fully possess. I wonder if atheists who take a nothing-but empirical evidence stance are also afraid of something.

I'll admit I'm not quite sure what that means.