Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

No, that's simply a fact.The significant point here, is that those people who went looking for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker did so irrationally and illogically. They used a very poor system for discovering the truth about this world, and they happened to be right.One blind sailing trip that finds an island in the ocean doesn't mean that blind sailing trips are the best method for finding islands in the ocean. What about all the blind sailing trips that end up lost at sea?What about all the people continually searching for other non-evidenced birds that have yet to find anything? And never will because the bird actually is extinct?This isn't about identifying a methodology that works every time and is never, ever wrong. This is about identifying a methodology that is rational, consistent, logical... and works the best.You are right, some irrational, subjectively driven people happened to find the Ivory Woodpecker when all evidence pointed to it being extinct. (I'm not actually sure if all the evidence actually pointed this way, but I'm certainly willing to grant such for this discussion).If such people didn't go looking, the Ivory Woodpecker would not have been found that day. And likely not the next day, or the next week. But it would have been found eventually, because the objective, evidence-based system being promoted by Modulous, Straggler and others here.... works. It works the best. It's foolproof. It's not the fastest all the time, but that's not the goal. The goal is to have a foolproof method that works the best.Taking the absence of evidence as evidence of absence would have resulted in the Ivory Billed Woodpecker remaining seemingly-extinct for longer. However, that error would not have been forever. And, it is rational and consistent and does not waste resources on an infinite number of unknowns.You can't seriously be suggesting that people should dump resources into exhaustive searches looking for any and all species that are currently believed to be extinct. Such a thing is obviously irrational, and subjective. Just like it was irrational and subjective to look for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker.Therefore, unless you think we should be putting resources into exhaustive searches for dinosaurs, you agree that this method is irrational and subjective. Because there is just as much evidence for the extinction of dinosaurs as there was evidence for the extinction of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker (granting to you that "all" evidence of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker actually pointed to it being extinct).No one is proposing that being objective, consistent and rational (including that after looking, an absence of evidence is evidence of absence) is going to return absolute truth about reality immediately.We are only proposing that being objective, consistent and rational (including that after looking, an absence of evidence is evidence of absence) is going to return our best possible chance of being correct about the truth of reality within the time we have to operate.

I think the difference lies in two different planes of being agnostic or atheist. Plane 1: The thinking, internal mindset
Here I agree that we should be agnostic about cheese, and we all have to be agnostic about God or any other unknown concept.
That is, no one knows one way or the other, and there are possibilities for existence or non-existence that we should always remain open to until repeated, objective refutation can (and does) occur. Plane 2: How you act regarding the Plane 1 mindset
I think this is where the difference lies.I agree with being agnostic (on a Plane 1 level) towards the concept put forth by Straggler before we knew it was cheese.
And hopefully we can agree that the logical, rational and consistent approach to this is to act in an atheistic manner towards this unknown concept. That is we should not alter or add anything to our actions in reference to this unknown concept. Really, how could we? It is unknown what this concept either wants us to do, or how it could possibly influence our lives.However, here is the difference:I still act in an atheistic manner towards the equally unknown "God" concept.
Believers, on the other hand, do not act in an atheistic manner towards the equally unknown "God" concept. That is, they go to church, they worry about what "God" may think of them, some even (as we have seen) only act morally decent out of respect (honorable or fearful) of this unknown "God" concept.Granted, the non-atheistic manner in which they act varies greatly from individual to individual. Some just go to church... others will go so far as to acknowledge possibly-crazy voices in their heads telling them to kill other people in "God's" name.I understand how our Plane 1 mindset must retian that sense of unknown tentativity of agnosticism in order to remain logical, rational and consistent.
But, in order to remain logical, rational and consistent, shouldn't our Plane 2 actions reflect an atheistic manner with an unknown "God" concept as much as we do with an unknown "cheese" concept?I don't think many believers got the idea of going to cheese-church or accepting the moral cheese-government from that unknown concept.My thoughts lead me to believe that it is nothing more than social pressures (the popularity of belief, both current and historical) that cause believers to act in a non-atheistic manner towards the unknown "God" concept. Such actions are not logical, rational or consistent. Believers have latched onto these social pressures and created all sorts of ways "God" wants us to act or ways "God" influences our lives. But, in doing so, they have forgotten that they were supposed to have an agnostic Plane 1, internal mindset about what God is (and therefore wants) until we can get more information. Since "God" is an unknown concept, it is actually impossible to know (or even get a glimpse at) what "God" may want or how "God" may influence our lives.As far as this debate is going, I'd say that RAZD and CS are arguing from the Plane 1 level, and Straggler and Rrhain are arguing from the Plane 2 level. I also think that Straggler and Rrhain understand the Plane 1 level, and have voiced their tentativity regarding it. The questions they have are regarding the reasoning behind why RAZD and CS seem to take non-atheistic-actions on the Plane 2 level regarding "God," however they both take atheistic-actions on the Plane 2 level regarding any other unknown concept.