Although that word may be anathema to agnostics and atheists, it seems true to me. This is exemplified by the response of your atheist scientist friend. Remarkably similar to your christian friend!

The existence of a higher power can neither be proven nor disproven, as you have stated. Therefore, any statements about a higher power's existence must be based on "faith."

on a side note, I put religion-bashing scientists and atheism-bashing religious followers in the same basket of crazy. They are both extremists.

You reminded me (rather off-topic, but you liked my naming my unborn children so here goes...) I've thought for years when I get a cat I want to call it Chomsky. Then Baddie and I were talking about what we would call our dog and I suggested Dawkins or Darwin. We thought this would be hilarious because people wouldn't realise it was tongue in cheek and think we were a bunch of middle class t*ssers! But I still kind of love it because I *love* being an atheist. And you just made me see, there's a kind of faith in that, which is probably when I felt so comforted when I got off the fence and declared myself an atheist. Hmm, I should post about this.

From what I have read, sex addiction being real seems to be the best fit model for a real set of circumstances. I don't have a lot of evidence to assess the model, but you do. If it is a best fit model for you, it is as real as anything else in this universe. The way I think about it, you aren't making a leap of faith, you are working on the best available model. Not that I have a problem with the idea of a leap of faith, it just feels more like a logical step than a leap to me.

For me, (cuz' it's ALL ABOUT ME), the proof in my theorem on my husband's sex addiction is that when he is acting out, he is a completely different person. He thinks he's normal, but when addicts are acting-out they lose as many brain cells as semen. He first becomes a selfish butt nose, then argumentative and whiny, then can't seem to read a clock, and has a million excuses for every irregularity in his routine. He's not as attentive to the boys, upon whom he DOTES, and, when he is really deep in cycle, he watches me dress and undress with utter contempt in his eyes.

That f@#^*r is not my husband. That bastard does what he does (i should point out how infrequently this happens now and to less drastic extents) knowing full well that if push came to shove, i would take the boys away from him to protect them from a dysfunctional environment that approves of the objectification of women in potentially abusive situations. And the chain of sequence, the ritualistic pattern of behavior, is what gives me faith that Bowser does indeed struggle with a sexually compulsive addiction.

But his journey to recovery is and has been his salvation, and THAT is the man I believe in whole-heartedly. I don't need any faith for that.