Like with any philosophy, the usefulness of its claims starts at the usefulness of its axioms or starting "If's". there is no observational evidence that can be reliably repeated to suggest something is knowingly interacting with us and our lives. If we stick to just the definition as opposed to using "level & rows" for the words belief and faith, I little faith or belief in much. I would say atheism takes far less faith as opposed to no faith at all. I also don't do "belief" without something to support it in the way of repeatable observations. With that in mind some atheist treat atheism like a religion in that they make claims past what is known or flat out counter observational evidence just to be "not like them" instead of looking for how the universe works with little regard for how it supports or discredits other belief sytems.
anti-logical Fallacies of Ambiguity
