Believing in those things is not the same kind of "faith" as that which is used by religious people to have faith in god. My "faith" in the stability of my chair, for instance, is from scientific knowledge of how chairs work and have been proven to work, as well as precedence of chairs working in the past. Sometimes the chair fails, and then one can study what went wrong, such as too much weight on the chair or a damaged piece of the chair.

With the other definition of faith used by the religious, they believe in god based on no science at all nor any precedence of some other god existing.

Therefore faith as it is used by religious people really is the opposite of science, logic, facts, and reasoning. Because none of those support god.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/scientific-theory

"repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation."

There is a ton of evidence about gravity. There is not a single shred of evidence for the supernatural that can be experimented on or tested. I say that to counter claims that spooky pictures or testimonies of alien abduction are evidence. While technically they are evidence, they are not compelling nor are they scientific. Whereas gravity, evolution, and so on have literal mountains of compelling evidence supporting them. Hence why they are scientific theories.

All theories are possible until proven or disproven.

No. This is the opposite of science. Even "theory" when used colloquially to mean a guess or idea still must be proven to be possible before it can be considered possible. For example if I said it's possible to read minds or use telepathy, I would need to demonstrate it to be possible first. It would not be up to you to prove me wrong. Although James Randi had lots of fun proving these charlatans as fakes, although it still wasn't his responsibility to do so. What he did was give them the opportunity to prove themselves right via various tests, and they all failed. Each and every single one of them. Similarly believers in god have every opportunity to prove any god exists, yet all people have always failed to provide compelling, falsifiable evidence for god.

Dismissal of another persons theories without evidence is a negative and hostile stance.

As I've explained such things are not scientific theories, therefore dismissing a person's guess who does not have any scientific evidence supporting said guess is perfectly acceptable. Like, if I said leprechauns are real and have a pot of gold at the end of rainbows, it is up to me to prove it to be true; it's not up to you to prove it to be false. Look up Russell's Teapot.

True science only cares about the facts, not guesses.

Because it's not based on science, facts, logic, or reason? Those are the opposite of faith.

There is a huge difference between believing in God and belonging to organized religion.

That is true. However it does not change the fact that there is no compelling, falsifiable evidence for the existence of god. Whereas we already have workable theories (preponderance of evidence based on science and facts) that demonstrate how the universe, life, and diversity of life came to be. Big bang theory, abiogenesis, and evolution respectively.

To ignore the possibility of religion

For religion and consequently god to be possible, you must first demonstrate it to be possible. That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

A true scientific mind does not have preconceived ideas of the outcome without data.

Exactly. There needs to be precedent, of which we have none for the supernatural, and data, of which there is none for the supernatural.

Things we cannot observe are theorized and discussed until a method of observation and study is possible.

But that doesn't make them true, any more than body thetons from Scientology are true. And they even have a supposed device for measuring them. But it's not based on science. Until then, such things belong in the realm of fiction.

The odds of all the universe creating itself by pure chance is virtually impossible.

Yet here we are. The odds that your day would proceed precisely as it did today is also virtually impossible, yet you did it.

Albert Einstein even stated this exact same concept. The random chance became less likely as his level of understanding grew. He began to see that there are so many variables that the odds of it happening by itself was ridiculous.

I don't know if this is true and it doesn't matter anyway. Science does not have authorities whose word is law. Just because Einstein or anyone else said something, doesn't make it true. The next two sentences I quoted are basically a repeat of the quote above. No matter how unlikely, it still happened. Unless you can scientifically demonstrate it is 100% impossible, the odds are meaningless and not a valid argument for a god of the gaps fallacy.

You need to look up what appeal to authority fallacy actually is. You should also look up strawman arguments because that's what you just did.

What are you talking about? You don't use philosophy to figure out how the universe works. Philosophy is for "why are we here?" not "how did we get here?" which is where science comes in. Religion is completely useless, especially because any motivation they might give people can be obtained without religion.

Saying and demonstrating are very different things. For example, you say god created the universe but can't demonstrate it - scientists say the universe was created naturally and can demonstrate it. We can demonstrate how the universe works via methodological naturalism; no supernatural or god needed for anything at all.

Nah, just pointing out logical inconsistencies in how your imaginary god operates as well as how you believers think. But then again, what's the point of prayer if not to ask god to change his divine plan for your benefit? Because if his divine plan is never changed, then prayer is pointless. Jesus himself said that if you believe hard enough you can perform miracles greater than what he supposedly did. So far this has not been true.

Seeing people used and getting their money extracted via tithes, all based on unfalsifiable claims, is bound to make any moral person bitter.

I choose logic and science. It's also your choice to believe in that or not, or stay part of a brainwashing cult that wants your tithes with the false promise of an afterlife for being a good, loyal servant of "god".

You can't know the plans of something that doesn't exist, but I do know logic, reasoning, and morals far better than any god I've heard of, especially the Christian god.

First you need to demonstrate that the existence of a god is even possible. Then you need to demonstrate a method that can be used by anyone regardless of belief for determining which god(s) out of the thousands man has invented is the true one, or maybe it's one man hasn't invented yet. We've been waiting thousands of years for even the tiniest shred of compelling, falsifiable evidence for the existence of god, but so far none has been presented. I'm extremely open minded and am willing to believe literally anything, if appropriate evidence can be presented, but alas for god none has ever been shown. So I lack belief in god same as I lack belief in leprechauns and other fictional characters.

Just what happens to be convenient for you. He will control ivermectin reaching you on time, sometimes, but apparently would rather not control you not getting covid in the first place.

My question is, how did OP know it was god's intervention that caused ivermectin to reach him on time? What method did he use to determine which god aided him? Might it have been Allah, or Perhaps Zeus?

Give you free will to get corona, but take that free will away to have ivermectin show up at just the right time? Yea, makes perfect sense.

If god is real and influences the world to help you, why did he let you get sick in the first place? You religtards are so fucking dumb. (In retrospect I apologize for the second sentence. It's childish, accomplishes nothing, and weakens any argument.)