Thomas Nagel's The View from Nowhere makes much of that dichotomy between subjectivity and objectivity. Of course, this is the major dualism in modern philosophy since Descartes. Christian apologists like CS Lewis or William Lane Craig, though, need to defend naive intuitions to protect the absurdity of their religious faith. Kierkegaard's defense of religion is more honest, since he embraces the absurdity and doesn't pretend that ancient myths still align with commonsense.
I'd resist speaking of atheism as fervent belief in nothing. There's no such thing as mere atheism. "Atheism" is what theists focus on and it's their label. No one who lacks religious beliefs has only that lack of belief. The nonbeliever believes in all sorts of other positive things such as reason, nature, liberty, America, family, love, human nature, money, consumerism, technology, progress, and so on.
As I point out in the above article, atheists are divided along political lines. There are secular humanists or neoliberals and there are libertarians and populists. (I think of it as a difference between feminine and masculine secularists.) The godlessness of their operative worldview, the one that directs their actual behaviour isn't so central. Their worldview entails atheism, but they don't dwell on God's absence or think about God one way or the other.
For that matter, faith in God is likewise irrelevant to the operate worldview of most theists, since most theists (lay theists) are secularized and hypocritical. That's especially true of conservative American "Christians."