>

Right. So someone looks at the Illiad, finds evidence that the siege of Troy happened and concludes that Aphrodite actually exists.
Of course there isn't. That's why it's called faith. >

Well, some religious practitioners dispute that this is the meaning of faith. Many Christians, for example, claim that faith is trust based on the evidence. For example, the Christian philosopher John DePoe (who I respect a lot) wrote:

One final objection to Classical Evidentialism that I wish to address is that religious faith by its nature is opposed to evidence. What I am requiring of religious beliefs, some might say, is like asking oil and water to mix. Knowledge acquired through evidential arguments, they claim, cannot be a matter of faith.  
At the heart of this objection is an assumption about the nature of faith, namely that faith is an act of belief without evidence or even against evidence. I reject this view of faith. Faith is better understood (at least in part) as the dispositional characteristic to trust and persevere in one’s religious beliefs. Faith is a virtue that allows believers to remain steadfast in their religious beliefs because they have good reason to do so. (Debating Christian Religious Epistemology, p.27) >

There are circumstantial evidence, like the evidence of the existence of Jesus, David, the flood (probably on a smaller scale, but still significant), the plagues in Egypt and the genetic Eve (mithocondrial Eve) etc.
Do these things serve as an undisputable evidence of God as described in the Abrahamic religions? No, it only serves to show that the events described in the Torah, Bible and Qur'An have their roots in reality.
This means that there are believers ( there are a lot of believers, who simply have blind faith) who believe/have faith because of circumstantial evidences.
As said these are circumstantial evidences, however those can be powerful and a lot of scientific discoveries or legal judgements are based on circumstantial evidence (two good example would be the existence of black holes for the former or fingerprints and DNA tests in the latter). >

This feels a bit like saying that Spider Man is real because some of the events in the comics happened in New York and New York is real. >

No it's saying that the siege of Troy happened, because they found the ruins of the city. Now did it happen as described in the Illiad? Probably not.