No, faith is believing without it being right in front of you. What I have issue with, is you stating unequivocally that God does not exist. That is an opinion, not a fact. This is a pointless endeavor. Bye. 

Okay...

Why do you say that "experiencing" is different from "interpreting in a very complex way"? 
Never mind, this question is answered (I believe) in a previous post you made:
"And when I say Cause & effect, I mostly mean Action reaction.  If we were to make the same assumptions 'academic' scientists do, then basically everything works via action reaction. There is no 'choice', because you are programmed(through evolution, ie dna, genes, etc) to act, process information, and react, and that's it, no free will. Going from Action-reaction mechanics to free will is impossible the way we understand things now. Conciousness/free will Can be beneficial to the being, but true free will can't spawn via evolution, if you understand the science taught."
(Since the difference was "it's experiencing if a consciousness does it" as far as I could tell.)

But I do wish to address the statements in that previous post. 
I think an assumption I think you made -- that action-reaction necessarily always has a 1:1 relationship with what happens under the scientific view -- is incorrect.  A lot of things happen at very microscopic levels, and random chance can play a part.  If time could somehow rewind 50 million years, I don't think we'd be having this conversation because some things that literally had an equal chance of going one way or another (due to true randomness and not just unknown factors) would go the other way. 

Also, why can't a causal system create consciousness?  This appears to me to be nothing more than an assumption you have made.
Assuming that consciousness (as separate from a complex system of action-reaction behaviors) exists in the first place, why can't evolution (as an action-reaction system of development of species through generations) create it?  Unless you deny that consciousness originates in our physical bodies, why is it completely impossible that genetic mutations could "press the magic button" to make our physical brains create consciousness? 

@ your new post:  "For the free will & experience part, because It seems too complex to try and explain feelings when we don't experience the same things..   or did I change my position on something else?"

This makes little sense to me.  Are you saying that your evidence that you have free will is a feeling that you have free will?  Or that your evidence is that you have feelings?  Or something else entirely? 

And what I was referring to in changing your position was
"Not unprovable, but subjectively provable."
"I didnt mean it was necessarily proven for me.  I don't believe one specific answer.  But It seems like a strong possibility because of evidence I can't present since it's subjective..."
If it can't be proven to other people, and you haven't proven it to yourself, then either your first statement was only a statement of opinion (not a claim that it was necessarily actually provable, since you'd have to have proven it to substantiate that claim), or you have changed your position. 

God doesn't exist, and I say that with the same knowledge as when I say that the invisible dragon and monster from Mars do not exist.  Religion was made up by man to explain his surroundings.  Today, we no longer need a sky god explain rain or a river god to explain flooding or a sun god to explain the motion of the sun.  Unfortunately, these ideas are still with us and influence the decisions of otherwise rational people.

As mentioned by someone eariler, that is an opinion.  Also it is quite insulting to state that people aren't rational just because they have some faith in their lives.  Based on your rationality comment at least.  

Why can't people have opinions without infringing on the opinions of others.  If you don't believe in God, then you don't believe in God.  Simple as that.  Don't go around telling others who do believe that they are any less rational or whatever just because of their beliefs.  This is the kind of stuff that sparks flames IMO.

I can at least respect those who don't believe and have friends with opinions on both sides.  We can have good debates without telling each other we are any less of a person just because we have those beliefs.

If the theory of evolution is true, then where are my damn wings?

I just made up the monster from Mars, so with 100% certainity I can say that the monster will not bring myself or anyone else gold.  There is a Lepreachuan in my kitchen making scrambled eggs, I just made that up I am 100% certain that this is not true.

You will lead a very 'complicated' life if your actions in real life are a reflection your arguments, because the way you try to explain your point means that you can never reject anything.  Logical people are able to reject things that are not true, illogical people are unable to.  Thats the entire reason of logic, to be able to reason and make judgements about the world we live in.

I am actually a super intelligent bacterium from the planet Kobob that was sent here by King Couscous to cause you grief.  I am also using your computer to look at porn and illegally download music while you are away.  The only way you can get rid of me is if you put your computer in the washer, using hot water and bleach.  Please reject this idea.

EDIT:  Nevermind, there was a Leprachuan in my kitchen, and he makes a mean omlet.

Evolution is a mechanic of necessity, not desire.

If someone is wrong, it is justifiable to tell them that they are wrong.  If it was my opinion that an umbrella would allow me to float safely from a tall skyscraper to the ground, then by all means tell me that I am wrong.  I haven't actually thought anything that stupid, but I am grateful when people point out that I am wrong about many things in life. 

Why would this not apply to someone's opinions on God, sea monsters, fairies, and other such 'supernatural' ideas?

I do respect that stance.  It is indeed a good thing to tell others that they bay be wrong.  However, as I mentioned before, it is your opinion that those who 'believe' are wrong.  So if this is your opinion, who are you to tell others that their own opinion is incorrect?  

Many people can argue for hours about the legitimacy of their beliefs, citing facts and sources.  It could go on for months.  The only thing I am saying, and that goes for everyone, is that whether or not you believe in God or not, it is your opinion.  Since beliefs in their own right are of a personal and intimate nature, it is not up to anyone but themselves to judge whether or not their own beliefs are right or wrong, based on opinion, in this debate.

I can't count the times I've seen just about every faith and evolution thread degenerate into a 'you are wrong and I am right' thread. 

Good arguments, but I gotta go to bed so Ill just try and say a few things.

not sure what you mean by 1:1.  I am aware of that 'randomness' and in scientific terms it'd be put in quantum physics. Quantum physics are not considered into the Theory of Evolution.

"Also, why can't a causal system create consciousness?"

Whether it originates in the body or not is irrelevent with what I'm saying... 

 You have to understand what causal processes can and cannot produce first.. and that's rather hard to pinpoint, so I'm not sure what to say... but I do know the kind that's assumed in evolution cannot produce concsiousness, because when you're talking causal, it's essentially like programming AI, and if you understand how computers interpret data, you know it's impossible for the computer or AI to ever be able to experience, no matter how much or what kind of programming or code is set up.

I don't know where my conciousness comes from, but I do know it's not purely causal, and so evolution either doesn't take into account such a thing, or evolution is not purely causal (which is not like how the Theory of evolution and many academic scientists assume it)

I'm not sure on what point I'd have to explain at this point, it does become harder and harder to detail many things ( which in part is due to my lack of either vocabulary or expertise, so if you want to consider not enough detailed statements invalid, then that's fine I guess)

@Manus

"God doesn't exist, and I say that with the same knowledge as when I say that the invisible dragon and monster from Mars do not exist.  Religion was made up by man to explain his surroundings.  Today, we no longer need a sky god explain rain or a river god to explain flooding or a sun god to explain the motion of the sun.  Unfortunately, these ideas are still with us and influence the decisions of otherwise rational people."

Replace 'knowledge' with 'opinion'. Do you even understand the words you're using? Don't you understand basic logic?

Consider these statements:

"God doesn't exist" - Illogical (no certainty)
"God does exist" - Illogical (not certainty)
"There is a possibility that god exist" - Logical  (it is possible as long as it hasn't been proven impossible)
"There is a possibility that god doesn't exist" - Logical (Same as above)