I know that it’s a common belief in atheists that it’s not a faith. But if you take a step back, it’s hard to deny that there is some belief in the sentence: “if science has neither evidence of something nor of its absence, it doesn’t exist”.

The opposite of that is: “if science has neither evidence of something not of its absence, then science doesn’t know yet, and until then, neither can we”.

It’s fine to believe in things. I’d say it’s not great though, to think so highly of one’s own belief that one wouldn’t want to call if a belief.

atheist faith describes people who BELIEVE that god does not exist

besides the fact that I do exist...

if there is no evidence that god doesn't exist, or that god does exist, then yes, there is no reason to believe god exists, but apart from the absurd and extremely vast absence of evidence that would point towards proving even the slimmest of traces of existence, that is also an epistemological challenge in that our perception is extremely limited and we don't know, as ritswd said, what we don't know.

so we have a lot of evidence, but there exists an extremely small and remote possibility that our theories are wrong, just because we're dumbfucks with very smol brains & tiny eyes that can only see 3 dimensions

so saying with 100% certainty that god does not exist is a dogmatic belief in our conclusions.

It’s a common misconception, but agnosticism is the one that is the lack of belief, and applying the scientific method to one’s belief system. It’s the “we don’t know what we don’t know” approach, which defines the scientific method.

there’s no point in basing your life on things you can’t know

I certainly don’t disagree.