While I would never argue that atheists can't find meaning in life or that they can't be good people, I would argue that a number of the statements you make here are in fact wrong.
Faith is not "belief in something regardless of evidence" as is so often claimed. While faith certainly can be blind, it does not have to be. In fact, most of the things we put our faith in receive it because of evidence that it is deserved. Faith, after all, is a form of trust, and trust usually is earned.
Nor is religion inherently incompatible with science. While it is true that some religions have held some positions long after scientific evidence accumulated that those positions were wrong, the fault for this lies not with religion itself but with the human tendency to cling to resist change. Scientists themselves are not immune to this. Max Planck put it this way: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." My own religion, the Baha'i Faith, teaches that we should "put all [our] beliefs into conformity with science."
Which brings up another point, Although Christianity in its various forms is the largest religion in the world, it is not the only one. Religion should not be exclusively viewed based on what Christianity is or was. Most religions have never had a problem with scientific advancement, and most of those Christian sects that have are not necessarily representative of Christianity as a whole. In the main, the workings and history of the universe aren't much of a concern for religion in the first place. Creation stories and the like aren't primarily about such things, but about our spiritual nature and relationship to the divine. They are allegories that have much to teach, if read properly. Turning them into literal histories actually cheapens their religious value as much as it conflicts with science.
"The Church" (by which is usually meant the Roman Catholic Church) did not routinely persecute or kill scientists. Those that did end up in trouble with the Church generally did so not so much on scientific grounds as on theological ones. Historians have known this for a long time, but scientists like to play up their martyrs just as much as religious folk do, so the complexities of the truth tend to be obscured.
In any case, such persecution is hardly a quality of religion. It's a human quality. People can use any excuse, be it religion, politics, class, gender, economics--anything at all--to trample each other. Religion properly understood actually is a force countering this tendency, although admittedly it is often misunderstood and misused. But it is basically a tool, and like any tool it can be used for good or for ill. A hammer can be used to build or destroy or even commit murder. Science, too, is like this. It can be used to improve our lives or to wage bloodier wars or more effectively enslave people.
The world won't be made a better place by getting rid of religion, because people will still be people. But religion could, if properly understood and practiced, make the world a better place. In fact, it often has done so.
