Do we expect too much from human reason?

[Angrboda]

The atheist believes in the conclusions delivered by reason, even though there is no proof that reason is binding on all reality, the realm it is making claims about. Faith.

*my emphasis

You're making sweeping and unsupported generalisations about all atheists. Your comment that the 'overwhelming majority of atheists' come by their lack of belief due to reason shows a gap in your knowledge on the subject. How many buddhists do you think there are; ~350 million? How many taoists; ~200 million? How many non-theistic pagans..? Now compare that to the number of people who identify themselves as 'reasonable' atheists; although this is a difficult number to pin down, I'd suggest that they represent a minority. Far from being 'a quibble', it's an important consideration to your position and one you can't simply dismiss with a wave of your hand.

Since he appears to be trying to show that, ultimately, both theistic and atheistic positions are lacking adequate epistemological justification, I'm not sure this harms his position any.

---

The sticking point for me is this characterization of atheists, straw man or not, speaking for all of reality. Reason has been shown to work in our limited sphere, and something of an assumption of uniformity is assumed where it seems reasonable to assume it. We have evidence that processes carried out on the surface of the earth are the same, regardless of where on the surface of the earth the processes occur. This is a form of proof by induction, and it's well known that the results of such arguments are only probabilistic. We have creationists who argue that the speed of light may have been different in the past, their arguments have been examined and found to be flawed. We have evidence for the probable uniformity of nature across a vast span of our local reality. However this notion that we categorically depend on reason in areas we cannot or have not examined is, I think, a stretch. It's regularly acknowledged that we don't know what happened before the big bang. Physicists regularly admit that different universes than ours may have very different laws than ours. And beyond that, the whole of science is built on the back of the idea that scientific truth is simply that which has not yet been proven false; it is uncertain by design.

So this idea that atheists outstrip the bounds of reason without evidence for their extension, and without limit to where they extend reason is simply a mischaracterization.

Moreover, to attend to the straw man, in evaluating the claims of a theist to reject them, the atheist only takes on board those assumptions already made by the theist. If they are talking about an area where reason has given evidence of reliability, they use that. Where claims such as to God's existing outside of time and space are presented, they depend upon the theist's representations.

And finally, as noted you're equivocating. The faith of the theist is typically characterized as blind faith, whereas while the faith of the atheist depends on an incomplete justification, the justification is not nearly as woefully incomplete as that of the theist. You are comparing apples and oranges.

[As a personal note, I think blind faith may be less common among theists than often characterized, but rather that faith is justified often on questionable, but present, grounds of reason.]