That’s totally reasonable! You disbelieve an extraordinary suggestion thats inconsistent with what you know. The amount of faith in that’s so miniscule that I don’t think it’s worth mentioning.
In the same sense, an atheist can disbelieve the divinity of the Bible’s detailed accounts of events and miracles without any significant degree of faith.
But you must remember what we are dicussing. Why are we here, where did the universe come from, what happens after death are all matters of faith.
Concerning the Gospels, they don't pretend to be anything other than an account presented as honestly as possible of a very unusual event. Check the introduction to Luke
One of the goals of famed archaeologist Sir William Ramsey was to disprove Luke (also the author of the Book of Acts.). He found Acts to be accurate.
I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favour of the conclusion which I shall now seek to justify to the reader. On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth. In fact, beginning with a fixed idea that the work was essentially a second century composition, and never relying on its evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations
According to the link this experience led Ramsey to become a Christian.
Another noted skeptic who put scriputure to a secular test and came away a Christian was Simon Greenleaf (1783-1853)