In regards to faith, it's about words, how you define faith. You do believe, based upon whichever logical/philosophical point of reference, that certain things equate this and that. One cannot escape this. I equate belief and faith. We are but humans, and therefore are incapable of reasoning beyond a limited scope. Our rationalized selves are at the mercy of whichever thought process, at whichever belief system, we purport too. So, your lack of faith in a god, therefore becomes a sort of faith in your reasoning power to determine that there isn't a god. Everyone believes in something. I guess it's your aversion to the word faith that has a hook. But atheism, most certainly is a belief system. To disbelieve in something, such as with your webster online definition, one must believe in something else. There's a great quote from David Foster Wallace, the suicide post modern author, considered by some, to be the greatest author of the 1990's. It comes from his speech "This is Water." The whole thing is a great read if you get the time.

"If you're automatically sure that you know what reality is and who and what is really important-if you want to operate on your default-setting-then you, like me, will not consider possibilities that aren't pointless and annoying. But if you've really learned how to think, how to pay attention, then you will know you have other options. It will actually be within your power to experience a crowded, loud, slow, consumer hell-type situation as not only meaningful but sacred, on fire with the same force that lit the stars-compassion, love, the sub-surface unity of all things. Not that that mystical stuff's necessarily true: The only thing that's capital-T True is that you get to decide how you're going to try to see it. You get to consciously decide what has meaning and what doesn't. You get to decide what to worship...

"Because here's something else that's true. In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And an outstanding reason for choosing some sort of God or spiritual-type thing to worship-be it J.C. or Allah, be it Yahweh or the Wiccan mother-goddess or the Four Noble Truths or some infrangible set of ethical principles-is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive."

-in regards to your problems with my assertions, I wasn't saying your sources were invalidated, just that any reference to 19th scholasticism kind of throws up a red flag, this going for an argument for a Christian God just the same...the time period was simply too volatile in relation to agenda.

-I'm confused about your Nazareth statement, shouldn't it being discovered add credence to the Biblical place?

-Q is just a bunch of sayings Jesus said, not narrative...but again, without it ever being found, whether or not it existed becomes the issue...people have come up with this through a literary interpretation, the person of Jesus is consistent according to what he said

-one of our biggest dilemmas is where to place Q and Matthew and Mark in terms of history. Prior to the 1900's, historians were placing the date at closer to 200, but through the years, that time has dipped lower and lower. Now there is a general consensus that Paul's letters came in between 55 and 90, and that in no way could it have been written past 120.

I'm not sure if any of this helps. Anyways, good talking to you.