I’ve never understood this whole thing about blind faith anyway. Indeed it is true that some believers seem to posit faith without evidence as a virtue and it is true that if the atheist takes issue with blind faith they have a valid point. There is though a distinction to be made between scientific evidence or to put it another way, evidence that befits the scientific method, and evidence that is not amenable to the scientific method and may not even be able to be.
Many believers don’t have blind faith but faith based on non-scientific evidence. This is where ideology comes in with atheism because some atheists would vehemently argue that evidence that is not scientific, or amenable to scientific methodology, is not evidence as all. At this point no middle ground between this type of atheistic world view and `rational` believers, who do see the need for evidence, albeit non-scientific, is possible. A wedge is also drawn between atheist and atheist, as some atheists do believe in the existence of non-scientific reality. Thus atheists of the type, who only believe scientific reality and evidence, constitute a type of atheism that denies another type of atheism, one type being a materialist world view, which poses as many questions as it answers, and is thus not very `rational` in this sense. The other type includes the validity of science but does not necessarily limit all existence to science, knowing that such questions that are outside of the scientific paradigm may well be valid questions of philosophy and metaphysics, none of which has to include God, although it could, if one is a theist.
So we have a spectrum here between different types of theist and different types of atheist, with the issue of contention revolving around the need for evidence. It seems to start from some saying no evidence is needed all the way to one hundred percent material evidence is needed. Of course there are problems with both ends of this spectrum if viewed only through a materialist lens but that is another discussion. It seems obvious to me that in reality the most `relational` view and approach to understanding is not in the far ends of this spectrum but in the middle regions. It is here also where dialogue can be had and even a future for mankind if we are not to rip ourselves apart with ideological madness. I say oppose those on either end of the spectrum as irrational or fundamentalist and join those in the middle regions, irrespective if they are atheist or theist for there is dialogue there and the potential for progress and peace.
