you agreed that "a good scientist" would be the first to tell you that nothing can be said to be an absolute fact

I said there is very little that people can truly call fact. As in relative to the amount of unknowns there aren't many things that are truly known but facts can be known.

Second of all, it is one of the most fundamental tenets of philosophy that nothing can irrefutably be proven to be a fact

Depends on your school of thought.

If something is not a fact and you want to believe it is true then that requires faith.

When you don't know something, you can simply gauge it's likelihood and say "this is what I suspect, but I don't really know". Denying that there are grey areas between fact and blind faith is intellectually dishonest and fucking stupid. You are in fact being a stubborn tampon sucking dick head by denying this.

may or may not have any factual basis.

Exactly.

Belief is faith

That was never in question. what is in question is the idea that "factual basis" and faith/belief mesh well together.

I have explained to you meticulously why it is and provided clear historical examples.

Science in and of itself is methodology. "Scientists" who "believe" in theories are not an example of science being an ideology, they are examples of so-called scientists being unscientific.

you're too pig-headed and narcissistic to admit being wrong.

You are literally the denying the possibility of someone appreciating the evidence (or lack thereof) behind a theory without having a "belief" one way or the other because you refuse to admit that science doesn't require faith.

I have ALREADY PROVEN THIS STATEMENT TO BE FALSE.

You have already spewed crap that you know is wrong out of pure stubborn egotistical penis sucking.

Go away. You're starting to annoy me.

You are objectively wrong and you referred to socialism as a religion which is sickening to me. (In case you try to play with semantics again you said the far left specifically which basically means socialism).