I hope I'm not being unkind when I say that you have a very faulty understanding of what the word "atheist" means. The word "faith" can not be used correctly in conjunction with the word "atheist", any more than "faith" could be used in conjunction with the observation that it is raining outside.
Could there be a god or gods or a whole management team of gods or even a galatical corporation of gods with many levels of responsibility between them. Well yes, maybe, but probably not at least from any evidence we have. Am I going to devote my life to one narrow specific possibility of a god out of the infinite choices our imagination could come up with for god or gods? No not me. I also chose not to believe (opinion??) in leprechauns, yeti, space aliens occupying human bodies, transcendental travel all of which may be possible, I don't know, but all of which I wonât base my life on either. If god or a leprechaun does appear to me then I reserve the right to change my mind on this, but until then...
It's impossible for an intelligent person not to have serious questions about their origin of life beliefs, period. To date, absolute certainty on the subject is not attainable by any rational person.
On the contrary - I am not simply accepting the atheist refutation of that definition simply because they say so. They are using the same approach as those who use the word "faith" without equivocation. Atheists do not adhere to scientific principle. As such, their conclusion is a matter of....faith.... If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck.... even if they won't call it a duck.
I guess, bigarrow, you don't want to consider any analogies to your never having seen God and won't believe in him until you do. But then, I've never seen Obama and don't believe in him either.