I didn’t suggest that one could. I said that one could point to evidence that supports (such) a belief or the lack of it (evidence).

Having ‘faith’, i.e. believing the truth of something, implies that such something exists. Therefore, we can seek evidence to indicate support that such is the case.

The analogy you have given is as invalid as that commonly used by the religious — the faithful, if you will — though I consider there to be a difference, i.e. that you either ‘know’ God or you don’t and, if you don’t, then you don’t understand. It is just a reinforcement for the concept of privileged access which is a major component (reward) of most religions and one of their most moronic and arrogant features. It is also why they, (religions) are essentially divisive.

So called ‘faith’ is just a result of blind adherence, with neither reason nor rationality and regardless of objective consideration of its validity or consequences in a notion, usually implanted by either covert overt conditoning. The ‘faith’ of the terrorist is precisely the same as the ‘faith’ of the Christian or the Muslim or the Jane or whatever. Indeed, its result is more often than not, rebuttal, discrimation against or even hatred for those who don’t hold it by those who do. Hence the countless ‘holy’ wars and conflicts, genocide and dispossessions of whole people that have happened throughout history and right up to the present day.

‘Faith’ is an excuse used to justify perfidy. Religons are the code by which such perfidy is decreed. The religious hierarchies are the one who decree those codes. The religiously indoctrinated are the ones that carry them out.