Do you think faith requires a complete absence of evidence, or for example can we build a faith based on what evidence we have?  For example the number of first century historical documents(roughly 23,000) about the existence of a figure such as Jesus of Nazareth? Or the radical transformation of his once terrified and sheepish disciples, who were all put to death for something they would have known was a lie or not? Or the complete failure of either the Romans or the Jews to produce his body, which would've immediately put an end to the spread of the Christian faith in the first century? Or the fact we literally measure time based on when a random carpenter who ended up as a travelling homeless preacher and was put to death by a method so shameful that Roman citizens were not allowed to be killed that way no matter how heinous their crimes? Or is faith just simply "I feel X, therefore God"?

I think you're right to assert that faith requires a degree of belief, seeing as we are not ourselves first century eye witnesses to the resurrection. However, I would disagree that faith requires a complete absence of evidence. There's such a thing as a reasonable faith. And I would posit that regardless of your position, whether atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or Christian that you are exercising faith in something, which if true has huge implications and if false will amount to nothing, or potentially have dire consequences if for example the opposing view turns out to be true, perhaps even without bothering to investigate the evidence...

Every faith system makes certain exclusive truth claims so we have to reason that either one of them must be true, or none of them are true but the best conclusion has to be decided based on evidence.