A common claim (and may I say, a bit strange, because I don't really know what they are trying to achieve with it) that many theists say about atheists is that they, too have faith, that they too have beliefs.
Somehow this feels such a childish argument. It seems to be saying "you think you are better than us, but you are not; you too have blind faith, you too have beliefs, so you shouldn't be criticizing us for that." Is that really the best they can come up with? A childish "well, and so are you!" argument?
Anyway, this is another example of playing with words, and an equivocation fallacy. Even the most moderate versions of this claim commit that fallacy.
You see, when an atheist or skeptic uses the words "faith" and "belief" when talking about religion, they are specifically referring to believing in something without proper evidence. They are contrasting this with science, which is fully evidence-based. This is a matter of actual practicality, a concrete measurement stick that we can use to determine the reliability of claims: If there is ample and proper evidence, and it has been tested and verified as correct, and especially if it has real, tangible applications to real life, then the claim is extremely reliable. If, on the contrary, there is no such evidence, then the claim is very unreliable.
The theists, however, want to use a rather different meaning for those words. They want to remove them from their evidence-based, practical-applications-based context, and move to a more abstract philosophical context. They want to play with the higher-level abstract meanings of the terms "belief" and "faith" in philosophical terms.
In other words, since technically speaking a person can never be 100% sure that his senses are an accurate depiction of a reality independent of his own mind (after all, in theory a person could just be a computer simulation, or a brain in a vat, running a completely nonexistent, simulated reality) then, philosophically speaking, no person can that they know with absolute certainty that things are real, and therefore, still technically speaking, they have "faith" and "belief" in everything (and I mean absolutely everything.)
However, that's just hypothetical, highly philosophical stuff. That's most certainly not what skeptics and atheists mean when they use the words "faith" and "belief."
There are levels of certainty about claims, and science has proven time and again that it produces the most reliable results. By far.
So no, when we are using the terms as they are meant to be used, atheists do not have "faith" in science, they do not have "beliefs" in what science tells them. They are based their notions on actual tangible tested evidence, not just blind faith. No amount of playing with words is going to change that.