You fellas should define your terms or else you'll be playing definitional dodgeball all day. :)

For my part, I hold to a definition similar to this one, pulled from wikipedia.

Faith is a belief in the trustworthiness of an idea that has not been proven.

So, some belief is faith, but not all. All faith is belief, but with a lack of proof, and playing with these terms is where I think people get confused (or seek to willfully confuse others).

I don't have faith that the sun will rise; I have belief, there is evidence, it can be shown to others. When it comes to religious beliefs such as JV-12's, he has belief, he perceives evidence, but he cannot show it to others; it is not apparent, or obvious, or able to be reasoned out, like the sunrise. Therefore, I call his beliefs faith or articles of faith to differentiate the different unproven beliefs.

So, while JV-12 prefers to call his beliefs just that -- claiming evidence -- the evidence fails in terms of proof and so his beliefs are rightly called faith. That is how I process the evidentiary claims thus far; he hasn't demonstrated the proof for any of his religious beliefs, though he has tried. Not all of JV-12's beliefs are necessarily faith-based, but seeking to grant oneself unwarranted credibility by calling articles of faith 'beliefs' is disingenuous.