Faith either way, with this qualifier...
In the case of a believer, they might have observable inner experience which is nevertheless not replicable. But the at least have a data set of one. The quandry of the atheist is determining whether their lack of an inner experience implies a data set even that large.
Ooh, if you're going to invoke subjective feelings, telepathic communication, or whatnot into the argument, then that cuts both ways: We have much more than just one dataset. We all know of many people who obviously have subjective thoughts, feelings, convictions, epiphanies, and yes - hallucinations & delusions. Some of these people soberly insist that they talk to God & He talks right back to them. Some of these also insist that Satan tries to horn in on the conversation & turn them away from God.
The point is, inherently subjective experiences run the gamut from things we'd all agree are valid understandings of the real world as it is, all the way to utter lunacy. The reason we rose out of the bronze age is we figured out how to reliably approximate actual objective knowledge about the world at large by combining & evaluating everyone's subjective beliefs & experiences in a valid way. And so far, the fruits of this "intersubjective knowledge" have not made the case for God nor for ID, IMO.
Now we're getting close to solipsism. I know a fellow who has talks with the Blessed Virgin when he's not on his meds. (He's been diagnosed as schizophrenic). No, I find all this inner experience stuff totally unconvincing.
At least not without some really good hallucinogenics. :^)
(please turn on humor receptors before you get mad)