People in general have a hard time understanding belief and denial and the subtlety of truth-telling.
You and I may hear a dog bark on the other side of the fence. Were you to assert the color of the dog is black but you had no means of knowing, my denial of your asserting “That dog is black” isn’t about the dog being one color or the other. It’s about whether or not you are entitled to assert any color the dog may be; black, brown, orange, red, blonde, and so on.
My denial doesn’t mean that I think the dog is white, or any other color, or even that the dog isn’t black. Assertion relies on justification. When sufficient warrant is lacking, then it isn’t the content of the proposition that’s rejected. It’s only the denial of a person’s right to say it is the actual state of affairs.
As a Christian (though belief in deity isn’t required in order to so be, as far as I can tell), I have a disposition toward the proposition, “There are deity”, and I’m inclined to think it’s the actual case. However, though I think I am entitled to that belief, and justified in having it, I am very much Atheist in all important regards. That is, my anecdotal experience of what I suppose is the divine isn’t justification for me to assert that “There are deity” is actually the case. There’s no way to genuinely suggest everyone has my experiences or that other explanations, just as sound, aren’t more likely the case.
And though this conversely applies to Atheism, the point is that Atheism itself is not reliant on Theism for its definition nor does it entail to the belief that “There are no deity”, since this too is not an ultimately justifiable statement either. While Atheists do have beliefs about the assertion “There are deity”, it more often than not is completely limited simply to denying a Theist has just warrant to say that it is so.
Once Theists understand formal reasoning better, they will stop telling Atheists what they do and don’t believe or that it takes faith for them to believe something they themselves don’t often even believe; that there are no Gods. Instead, folks like Frank Turek will retitle books like “I Don’t Have Enough Faith To Be An Athiest”. The newly titled book, “I’m Completely Unable To Be Convincing”, will also change its content. It would now read in summary that people can’t choose what to believe and arguing about deity with those who lack an impression of otherness in reality is pointless. Though this will never happen as the empires of those like Frank only care about selling shitty apologetics to those who already “buy it”, they just may have not purchased the book yet.
Once Atheists likewise understand that a “lack of belief in” doesn’t at all negate the fact there is no “lack of belief about”, then they can simply tell the Theist the only belief they have about the existence of deity is that they justifiably believe the Theist hasn’t made their case at all. And in nearly all cases I’ve seen or experienced, the Theist only succeeds in removing any faith it would take in the Atheist disagreeing.
Just a thought.