Yes, but atheists deny that their position is one of faith, while overall defining the latter as belief in the absence of evidence. However, aside from being like a baby who cannot believe milk comes from a cow since he is not capable of such reasoning nor has knowledge of such, in order to logically be an atheist as a person capable of deciding to believe in what he/she is taught, then to be a atheist is a position of faith, even blind faith in the case of a ignorant communist who simply believes what he/she is taught, and more so when faced with evidence that challenges his position.
Beliefs, by definition, are less supported than knowledge in the sense of science, a facet of man's pursuits which is also by definition incomplete. This forum has advocates for varying and competing beliefs, as an example, when we read views from Protestant and 'non-denominational' evangelicals, as distinct from Roman Catholics, as distinct from Seventh Day Adventists, and so on. All appear in the FR forum. Which is right? When arguing belief, one argues against another belief. It's quite an arena, when all is said and undone. And elbows get thrown in the tussle, to be sure.
Comparing the debate btwn theists and atheists being analogous to debates btwn religious flying the Christian label, In former, using scientific discoveries alone means debating the meaning of physical evidence and extrapolations from such, however limited.
In the latter, the fundamental debates btwn evangelicals and Catholics is not due to what Scripture itself teaches using sound principals of exegesis out of a quest to follow that Word of Truth wherever it leads, but the debate is effectively due to the Catholic belief that it alone authoritatively defines what Divine revelation consists of and means. And she defines that body of Truth as also existing on Oral Tradition, and both of which are cited here to support her premise that she alone authoritatively defines what Divine revelation consists of and means
Thus, those defending the Catholic position in which their one true church is itself an object of faith, when seeking to validate distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, and with Acts through Revelation especially revealing how the NT church understood the gospels), then such are compelled to force Scripture to validate their beliefs.
While atheists can charge that creationist do the same with scientific evidence (and both see bias confirmation), yet they can support their basic position (that, not only do effects have a cause, but that ultimately an Uncaused Cause is required, that being a Creator-God) and more via secular sources. And proceed from there to compare competing identities of that cause.
First up, thanks for a cogent comment, which is refreshing.
We might have differing experiences, but when I have debated an atheist, moving them to 'confess' their's is also a statement of belief has been relatively easy, structurally. For one particularly ardent atheist, I pointed out his repeated attempts to proselytize for his belief was a parallel, rather than opposing, stance. As I still see him occasionally, I am among the few he toys with about his 'belief,' for so it is. Letting a atheist get away with saying their's is not a belief is missing a bet rhetorically. One cannot even form the argument, atheism, without the word theism. I'd venture to say he is slowly amending his thoughts, given patience with him. We'll see.
As to weighing into controversies between "sola scriptura" as a formal stance and "prima scriptura," I tend to let individuals hash that out. After all, from the so-called "great schism" of 1054 ( before the Protestant revolutions, there having been more than one ) one can be driven back to questions such as "which Bible" -- 66, 73 or 81 -- is THE Bible. Rather a bit like "which translation" is THE translation. It becomes problematic as one finds schisms within schisms. After all, when discussing the rapture, for example, one finds at least three distinct and differing stances.
Of course, it comes down to language. In another period in my life, I had the chance to query a number of theologians as to those deep aphasias which destroy one's language facility. Question: without language, can one have a relationship with God? It is a serious question.
From different stances, I got back two views from a number of them. The initial view from all was "no." Why? Theology, scripture, apologetics, debate and liturgy of various forms are all conducted in language. "Our Father..." "The Creator." Language.
All then amended their views to "yes" as follows. Intuition. Not being willing to close avenues to God to language alone. It's a subtle thing, to be sure. I'll go with their views, which coalesce into a view. They were Protestant by denomination, non-denominational Christian, Roman Catholic and two Jews too. All who conduct their thoughts, thinking, study and prayer in language.
A small reflection. Even Darwin capitalizes "Creator," as he writes in a conclusion of his theory -- for it only a theory -- "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." Not advocating for him, but merely pointing out the use of language even in that text. That quote, by the way, is rarely cited because the Social Darwinists find it an anathema to their lunacy.
And of course, our wonderful Declaration of Indepedence relies on -- "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." Definitely advocating for that founding document.
You wrote "Uncaused Cause" with that capitalization as well. Bravo.
Beyond this, one founds one's faith -- beliefs -- on one's "scriptura" and how it is read and understood. This nation's Creator who has "endowed" us with that striking perspective -- "unalienable Rights." Liberty. No wonder why so many of the political Left and the utterly corrupt would eat away at them, as they would tear away at our Creator, our Uncaused Cause.
As you say, we can " proceed from there to compare competing identities of that cause." Sounds darn fine to me.
Best wishes.