Your question relies on multiple interpretations of the word “faith.” For example, in the first instance, it’s faith that the book is wrong; in the second, that the book is correct. Normally, “faith” means belief in the existence of God, or, more generally, belief in a proposition that is supported by neither direct evidence nor logical reasoning. Nearly everyone, including atheists, believe that *something* is true, or false, without having direct evidence or a sound logical reason to believe it, irrespective of their belief in God. Trying to show that *even atheists* have faith, when the faith is that the book might be wrong or right, is not to say that, therefore, they have faith *in God.*
Thank you for your point. I used the word faith to mean any belief held without proof or evidence of its truthfulness. Although it’s never directly related to a faith in God, the main purpose of the piece was to stop hard nosed atheists that pride themselves of “only believing what there is evidence for.” Perhaps this could be used to reason with agnostics as well? If you have any ideas how the argument or explanation could be reworked to be better at accomplishing the task of showing how all display faith to some degree I would greatly appreciate it!