As a logical man I have always considered those who willfully choose religion but do not solicit it to be awarded a respectable status of religious faith. Any other kind of garbage like sticking up for your religion (because your belief should hardly need the re-enforcement) I find rather contentious and soliciting in nature. And I know some people try to say that "Atheists have faith in science, and in logic, and refuting religion with scientific facts is sticking up for our own beliefs." But I'm not talking about faith or belief I am talking about Religion. Those of any Christian denomination often find merit in defending the obsolete teachings of their religion through their bible rather than the faith they have in their god. If you have issues with your faith that is your problem, you don't need to strongly assert that your faith is better than anyone else's just so you can keep telling yourself that you are right. Its really rather sad to be honest.
Science and religion are directly conflicting concepts. Science is an agnostic discipline (constantly being open to improvement and never becoming complacent with old ideas in search of knowledge through repeatable testable evidence) And religion is strictly attributed to a gnostic discipline (indoctrination through 2,000 year old teachings that are literally contradictory to the current era of acceptable socialistic behaviors, but still assert authority in order to know something for certain as an ending to a journey of knowledge)
Does accepting scientific studies take belief? No, it doesn't take belief to understand that when the leading scientist's of their respective fields say, "these are the facts of _____ology." And that they are indeed supported by repeatable testable evidence. Because that is how science works. It does however, take tons of faith to believe say, the pope, when he says "these are the facts of religion" and then later says, "I mean these are the facts of religion" because when support for ideas teeter-totter on opposing sides you have to believe that the person/teachings you follow are correct. Because that is how religion works. It is an illogical practice of uncertainty from an Authority to its fellowship in hopes for a reward. Science is an ever improving discipline of study in search of knowledge. This is why science and religion do not coincide with each other.
Science works with supportable evidence and logical methods to prove things.
Religion works with presupposed ideologies that lack evidence and work outside of logical methods to assert things from authority.
I've tried not to be condescending when I debate a religious person, but it is hard when you know the truth behind each practice. It is also very hard not to offend a religious person who is literally ignorant (lacking knowledge) of scientific methods and logic. Then when explaining to them that they are in fact ignorant they get offended. It often stems from the issue that they don't even understand that ignorance does not have a directly negative connotation. They feel it is negative assertion of name calling instead of a reasonable observation. This can easily be tracked back to their illogical desire to defend their faith in god by defending the wrong thing, their religious indoctrination.
Now if any theist would realize how utterly illogical it is to defend their religion and instead, accept their own faith without soliciting it. Don't you think everyone would be a lot better off than the current compulsory situation we have had to deal with for the last 2,000 years, debating one aspect of life, with two opposing topics? And the only really issues begin when the burden of proof is given to the skeptic and not the owner of the idea. "There is a god", " well there is no evidence of that claim", "prove it" And then we begin the circular arguments.
Can't we just get along? Probably not, I mean, not until the indoctrinated masses either accept their faith as simply their own personal need (for whatever reason it is, logical or illogical it doesn't matter, because it is a personal need) or all organized religions fall at the hands of something that fills that personal need with something that does not cause a compulsory desire to defend it.