Wrong. I don't do faith but thanks for making the unfounded assumption that I did. I have a certain amount of trust in people, not faith, trust, and this is built up slowly over time by being able to listen to what they say and then later demonstrate that it was true.
Example:
If my friend of 20 years says to me, I've just bought a new puppy. I'll probably take him on his word. I won't really require any more evidence because it's such a trivial claim and because I've known him a long time and found him to be truthful and reliable. That isn't faith, it's trust based on acquired evidence over time.
However, If the same friend comes to me and says, I have an invisible pet dragon in my back garden. I'm not going to take him at his word. I will require a little more than that. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'm going to want to visit his back garden and check for myself. I'll be looking for dragon footprints, dragon poop, dragon sounds. Can I touch the dragon to prove he's there ? Get the idea ?
So my trust in science and the truth of atheism is not faith. It's trust. When scientists publish their journals, I know they will be peer reviewed and scrutinised and attempts will be made to falsify them. If after this the journal stands up, it becomes our best explanation of the observed phenomenon given the evidence we have. So when a scientist like Lawrence Krauss or Richard Dawkins speaks about the vast improbability of a gods existence, I trust them. I verify this trust by reading their books and listening to their arguments and then listening to other peoples challenges to those arguments. If those challenges fall down, and they do when it comes to god, then the best explanation is the one which stands up. Nothing changes the debate except new evidence. For the god squad, so far there is none. So the default position is to reject religious claims of deities till they can demonstrate them to be true.
You either trust the scientific method or not 