Why not deism?

[chimp3]

Inqwizitor:
"If theism requires faith, and atheism is a lack of faith: deists claim to acknowledge a causally necessary being with no faith or revelation, so on that score, it isn't a kind of theism but a kind of atheism, unless atheism means more than just a lack of faith."

Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). Atheists could still have faith in something, faith being a belief unsupported by evidence. Not all atheists are sceptics.

This is a key semantic point, and warrants its own thread (I'm sure you've had many already and I'm reluctant to start another). It is not a complete theory of justification to categorically deny that faith is unsupported by any evidence: there can be either direct evidence via authoritative testimony, and circumstantial evidence, or both. Faith is belief that is unsupported by empirical or logical proof.

I disagree. Authoritative testimony is not evidence. Logical proofs are not evidence. Both need to be supported by evidence. Please, this is the limit to my Philosophical knowledge and if we go deeper into that rabbit hole I will have to go Mad Hatter.