There were a collection of thoughts I wanted to respond to, so I'm copy-pasting.
What does it mean to be human? What is good and evil? What is beautiful.
I agree, at least at present, that there is a set of questions that the scientific process doesn't seem to address as well as I'd like it to. Though I will note that there is current scientific work attempting to answer "What is good and what is evil?", and the arguments for the approach are philosophic (in particular, they address Hume's contention "You can not derive an ought from an is" -- a pretty important philosophic point you would need to address to turn ethics into a science)
So, for myself, while I suspect there are questions that can not be answered by science, and that I think we ought to try and answer them (regardless of the possibility of answering them), I do have to admit I have no proof of that. It's just built on my shoddy conception of the relation between science and philosophy. So... perhaps, before declaring things like "you have faith and there is an exact identity between the atheist and theist", I think a stronger argument need be made than "Well, there isn't a science that addresses these questions yet, and this implies that theism/religion/faith/etc. should take over"
I tend to the scientific. Science is the work of discovery. It does not answer perfectly every question, but gets us closer than anything I could think of.
Have you noticed that this is a common trend amongst those who call themselves "atheists"?
Once again, when you talk about atheism there is only one thing that you can infer from it...
I understand that there is only one thing that you can infer with certainty from those who self-identify as "atheist": There is some conception of God that they think does not exist. However, we can still draw correlations and find trends, and possibly from these, build towards a reasonable, approximate possibility of other positions held by the community which is forming.
...I must accept any value on life on faith...
I tend to agree that all value questions are poorly addressed by the scientific approach, at least at present. However, I don't think rejecting a scientific approach to a question necessarily implies a faith-based approach to a question. There are other methods, and faith itself is a contentious word -- multiplicity of assumed meanings, and it has the ability to explain any position (Why do you believe "X"? can always be answered "I take it on Faith") -- as it can explain everything away, it really isn't much of an explanation.