Haven't watched but those questions seem simple.
The absence of theism does not require any faith at all. It is just familiarity. People don't have faith that they will remain on the ground, people are accustomed to not floating off into space and have no reason to speculate otherwise. There is no extrapolation or speculation here, it is just conditioning from being exposed to consistent stimuli. You do not need to believe in the world, you just need a background of cooperating with it, and amazingly enough people who don't cooperate with the world aren't very common, something about leaping off of tall buildings to fly away causing them to leave the world or something... Still, no reason to hate on them, give them a nice padded cell and a straightjacket and they can be all sorts of inspiration.
Granted, once you start getting philosophical you start needing to trust a few things, or not, there are some certain facts and relying upon the familiar really isn't an act of faith but the two certainly do have a lot of blurring once you get into metaphysics. But the question is a pretty obvious false dichotomy. The third option is, of course, to just not care... Then again, you need faith in other people, except you don't, people are all terrible. You have faith in the future or else you commit suicide, right? or not, future is bad, hope is fiction, but death is a part of life so there is no escape to be found there and a lack of faith suggests that perhaps there is some unknown element that might justify the malevolence that went into a world where life requires the consumption of a greater quantity of life(Or the slow death of a star, which many people have worshipped as a living being over the years...) and thus inherently removes its own justification unless humans openly admit that they think that some lives are more important than others and then we get slavery and genocide... Well ,we get those regardless, but at least people don't start worshipping them.
Evolution is very clear on what you ought to do: obey your own nature and be lucky. "Be yourself" is corny but it is actually the correct answer to the "meaning of life", more or less. Evolution is definitely not about winning, it is about letting the world judge if you are a winner or not, and the world is a very inconsistent judge... Of course, Evolution is wrong, obviously. You get a system that is mostly about competition, then introduce the ability to churn through untold millions of years' worth of solar energy in under a century then of course it will go into mad consumption mode and become unstable. This sort of thing is inevitable when your system is repetitive such that children will generally be okay if parents are okay because of similar conditions. Some critters have birth control, so it is not like adaptability is not evolved towards, but competition really is the star of the show to a massive degree and it just leads to a pretty much certain doom once you get the ability to wipe out your food, which happens a lot but is usually only local, and can be recovered from externally, but hey, what could be wrong with globalisation! Breaking away from evolution is the important thing that humans need to focus on right now, but they can't do it. I mean, the ideals are pretty obvious. Preserve diversity to maintain inspiration. Focus upon persistence rather than potency because everything you have ever done becoming meaningless kind of lowers the value of human civilisation and hedonism only works if you value humans over their environment which is obscenely stupid as humans cannot survive to be hedonistic if they don't have an environ in which to exist. And then just remember to have some philosophical curiosity just in case there is somehow a meaning of life that is both valid and useful out there so we aren't stuck choosing one or the other...
Humans are nothing special. The Roman legion disrespects what they do not understand:
A gun: It fires, they are overwhelmed by automatic weapons and defeated.
Contemporary society: All guns and explosives spontaneously vanish, ten thousand armed legionnaires march on a peaceful town and force it to submit to The Empire by brutally quashing all resistance.
Same story, different outcomes, because force is more forceful and civility is difficult to measure. People assume that because they cannot understand the life of a lettuce plant that it has no value. It could easily be that they are correct, but there really is not basis for such a judgement. The same thing occurs between humans, it is inherent to human nature to value some things over others. There was once a laughable study that suggested that humans are not born racist because babies can't identify race. Humans are born with a boatload of bias and it just gets worse, now maybe it won't express towards racial appearance, maybe it will be a split between gender, or region, or culture, or economic status, or profession... humans, in general, innately devalue that which is different from themselves. The humanist cry of "GO TEAM HUMAN!!!" is just feeding the worst aspects of humanity and is this inherently unstable because it just takes the slightest chink in the perception of human homogeneity to trigger a cascade of witch hunts to preserve human purity... The path to virtue lies in humility, not narcissism...