I don't think Dawkins is straying from the definition of faith that is in common usage. I think you are twisting the definition of faith, Brother Dan, when you say that it is based upon scientific evidence. It could be (as in your faith that the earth will rotate around the sun each day) but it doesn't have to be. The whole premise of Dawkins argument is that theists faith is not based upon any type of credible evidence that is measurable by a scientific (hence rational) methodology. Therefore, it is irrational.
His comments about atrocities committed by religious zealots is intended to prove that belief in God can be and has been a force for justifying tremendous evil and destruction in the world. He provides examples. It's not rocket science to figure out his argument that it is worth taking up the fight against ignorance when this ignorance has been at the core of so much violence in this world.
Here is the dictionary definition of the word "faith" that I pulled out of my new Oxford dictionary. It reflects, common, modern usage of the word and has no bias in this argument.
faith: complete trust, belief, certainty, certitude, confidence, conviction, credence, trust.
Please notice that it says nothing about evidence. There could be evidence but not necessarily.
You also accused Dawkins of intellectual dishonesty because he doesn't acknowledge that theists have an argument. You use the word argument as if it were interchangeable with evidence. One can have an argument and argue until the cows come home. That does not mean your argument is based upon any evidence, any credible evidence, or any scientific evidence. Again that is the entire premise of Dawkins argument, that deists argue without evidence. If you think that is intellectual dishonesty, then you don't know what intellectual dishonesty is.
Falsifying evidence is intellectual dishonesty. Taking credit for others work is intellectual dishonesty. Using logical fallacies in your arguments is intellectual dishonesty. Incidentally, attacking Dawkins character by saying he is out for fame, fortune and influence is an example of this, called "ad hominem" attack. It does absolutely nothing to attack the credibility of his arguments, but deflects attention to his character.
He may very well be egotistical, rude, out for money, power, etc. So what? That doesn't make his arguments any less factual or correct.