Do we expect too much from human reason?

[Ben Davis]

The atheist believes in the conclusions delivered by reason, even though there is no proof that reason is binding on all reality, the realm it is making claims about. Faith.

*my emphasis

You're making sweeping and unsupported generalisations about all atheists. Your comment that the 'overwhelming majority of atheists' come by their lack of belief due to reason shows a gap in your knowledge on the subject. How many buddhists do you think there are; ~350 million? How many taoists; ~200 million? How many non-theistic pagans..? Now compare that to the number of people who identify themselves as 'reasonable' atheists; although this is a difficult number to pin down, I'd suggest that they represent a minority. Far from being 'a quibble', it's an important consideration to your position and one you can't simply dismiss with a wave of your hand.

If we believe that the rules of human reason are binding on all reality, without proof that it is so, we are using faith.

While it's arguable that some proportion of atheists 'have faith in reason', they will be a subset of 'reasonable atheists'. As has already been pointed out to you, some 'reasonable atheists' would not claim that 'reason can give humanity all the answers', mainly because they're reasonable.

This is the unexamined assumption that because human reason is qualified for very many things, it is therefore automatically qualified to analyze all issues, even where there is no proof of ability.

This is an unsupported assertion as models of reason demand that assumptions are examined/tested. Consequently, reasonable people may well admit that reason doesn't have an answer to certain questions (as they have on this very thread) however that doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bath-water: reason has demonstrated itself to be trustworthy enough to be a practical & useful tool. I'd go so far as to say that the overwhelming majority of questions ever posed by humanity have yielded to 'human reason'. That's enough evidence to show that the label 'faith' is not applicable.

The bottom line flaw in atheism is that it's not loyal to it's own principles.

Atheism doesn't have any principles. It's the absence of belief in theistic propositions. Period.

Theism and atheism are both built upon a foundation of faith... I do however realize they haven't heard this form of challenge before...

Actually, we've heard this many times, mainly from theists. You don't get to claim that there's no difference between positions that are based on no evidence (faith in religion) and an overwhelming proponderance of evidence (trust in reason). To do so is clearly disingenuous.