Why Should Anyone Believe Anything At All?

This is the title to the very last chapter in my forthcoming book, The Outsider Test for Faith, some blurbs of which can be found here. That chapter is about faith, which I define as "an irrational leap over the probabilities." Victor Reppert is claiming that if this is what faith is then he doesn't have it. Here's what he said and my response below. I think this exchange cuts to the heart of the issue:
Faith is precisely what you we are trying to define here. When we define a term, we need a defintion that both of us can use to identify the object in question. If a Christian were to define an atheist as someone who is "suppressing the truth in unrighteousness, who knows God is real, but is running away from the truth." that would be wrong, even if that Christian were to believe exactly that about atheists. The atheist would reply, quite rightfully, that "If you define it that way, then I'm not an atheist. I'm not suppressing anything, I just don't see the evidence."

Wait a minute. Let me get this straight. You say that it's the mark of delusion to believe that what you believe is more probable than not overall?? Everyone believes that about their own beliefs.
Vic is a Christian philosopher who just doesn't understand. When it comes to truth propositions about reality I don't believe anything at all, or to be more accurate and precise, if I want to know any truth propositions about reality I shouldn't believe anything at all. I should think exclusively in terms of probabilities. When there is sufficient evidence to arrive at a conclusion then I should hold to that conclusion with the same degree of probability it has, and nothing more. Faith adds nothing to the probabilities. I cannot make the odds of my flipping a coin and coming up heads anything more than what they are. That is, faith is irrelevant, superfluous and even detrimental to the whole process of knowing the truth. We see this in the many different religious faiths and claims by believers all over the globe. Faith is even dangerous.

You see, I'm not the one who believes there is a forever existing triune God who sent the second person of that trinity to earth as a 100% God and 100% man with nothing left over, who atoned for our sins, resurrected from the grave, ascended in the sky from whence he came, to return from the sky in the future (if he hasn't already). According to the Creeds this 2nd person of the trinity is now one person with a created being, the human side of Jesus. This means Vic believes a human being will forever be an inseparable part of that Godhead. I'm not claiming anything other than that there isn't enough evidence to believe this (along with other things too many and varied to mention). I'm a non-believer.

So let's put it to Vic. If he disagrees with my definition of faith then let him tell us what the word "nonbeliever" means. By his lights is there such a thing? Who or what does the word "nonbeliever" describe? I suspect that his answer, if he answers at all, will be yet another example of the fifth thing Christian apologists must do, become an expert in obfuscation by playing semantic games with words.

I suspect I ask in vain. If Vic wishes to claim that what he believes is more probable than not overall, then he should think exclusively in terms of probabilities, eschew all faith, and openly embrace the only non-hypocritical standard for evaluating religious faith, including his own faith, in the Outsider Test. But he refuses. Because doing so would mean he must treat his own faith as if it has the burden of proof just as he assumes other religious faiths do, and just as I do with them all.