Right, and I think that the word faith has been overused by religious apologists to the point that it has been rendered meaningless. If faith is going to describe everything from belief in turning an ignition key to theism, and that faith in Jim Jones and faith in electromagnetism are the same thing, then faith can literally mean anything. A word that can mean anything means nothing in a discussion.
If however they have lost confidence in use of the term faith to mean “belief without evidence,” and if they are interested in truth more than in saving face, then they should come to terms with it.
I see no evidence that the definition of the word faith has any bearing whatsoever on the arguments of either side. You seem to have glommed onto this superfluous argument and run with it. As you can plainly see in above posts, a discussion about theism almost instantly turned into a discussion of evidence. Every argument I've seen between theism and non-theism at some point turned into an evidentiary discussion, so however the word faith is defined is completely irrelevant.
If God doesn’t exist, then you’re right—faith in the engine ignition involves prior experience while faith in God does not. But the only way to conclude that these two faiths are different is first to establish that God doesn’t exist.
But if God does exist, then faith in God and faith in the ignition are the same kind of thing. That is, all experience has to do with God because God created everything. So faith in God comes from experiencing God and faith in the behavior of material objects comes from experiencing them.
So to solve the problem of this thread, we have to know which is the correct initial premise. The premise that God exists or the premise that God doesn’t exist. In order to know which premise to accept, we have to establish whether or not God exists.