Faith vs. evidence, abstracted

This was a Facebook post I wrote as a response to this article and this reddit discussion.

---

I read AronRa's article, and I agree with the criticism that he cherry-picked only those meanings of faith which fit the point he was trying to make, and shame on him for doing that. As someone who actively opposes creationists so much, he should be making a much more deliberate effort to avoid justified accusations of quote-mining.

But, personally, I think there might be a little too much focus from both sides on what a specific word means. At the end of the day, I think what it really comes down to is that any belief or position you hold falls into one of two sets: "beliefs based on evidence" (call that Set X) and "beliefs not based on evidence" (call that Set Y). People like AronRa use the word "faith" to describe Set Y, and people like you take offense at that; you call it drivel and claim that it undermines his entire argument. But to me, you and he are both getting too hung up on a simple word choice. What's more important is whether a belief falls into Set Y, not what word we use to describe Set Y.

What I think might be more effective is this: 
1) Which set does your belief (about God, in this case) fall into? 
2) If it's Set X, what is the evidence it's based on?
3) If it's Set Y, why do you think that's a good way to believe true things?

In that way, I think there can be a productive discussion about the issues AronRa raised, without ever needing to worry about what the word "faith" really means.