Although non-Christian philosophies tend to be rather stupid, the people who profess them very rarely are. Atheists, for example, have a very weak case for any of their worldviews, yet they are experts at dominating the language. By selectively defining key words, you can make any position sound stupid, and so by dominating the language, you can end a lot of debates before they even start.
An excellent example of this is the way many modern atheists understand the word "faith". There is no meaningful definition of the word "faith" that would render faith and evidence mutually exclusive. However, many atheists define "faith" as "belief without evidence", or indeed, "belief in spite of evidence". Now, to my knowledge, there are no dictionaries that use such definitions. I've seen one or two that say faith is belief that does not necessarily require evidence, but that's the closest I've ever seen in any actual dictionary. But this doesn't stop atheists, and unfortunately, they're rather successful in pushing their new, self-serving definition.
Yet, this is obviously not the common use of the word "faith". Most people, including many atheists, use the word "faith" in a similar way to the Bible. Rather than being belief without, or in spite of, evidence, it is effectively an extension of it. As an example, I have faith that I will still be alive next week. Do I have evidence of this? Absolutely. I am still alive now, I have no identifiable diseases, I am somewhat healthy (though admittedly not as much as I'd like to be), I am not at an age when I would be expected to die, and I am safety conscious. That's a lot of evidence that I will be alive next week. However, I have not seen next week, and if the Lord tarries, there are a number of ways I could die, even before I finish writing this sentence. Therefore, although I have good reason to believe I will be alive next week, and even next year, I accept that conclusion based on faith. You see, then, how every day, we walk by faith, and not by sight.
The Bible bears this out in Hebrews 11. It begins by saying "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Ironically, this is where many atheists love to go to defend their definitions of faith. However, what they have not seen (because apparently, due diligence is too difficult for them) is that it goes on to list a few noteworthy examples. Who are they? Most prominently, Noah and Abraham. Two men who had actually seen, and interacted with God. So, was their faith blind? No. Their faith was in who God is, rather than whether or not He exists. For them, it was a matter of "is God really going to send this flood and save me from it?" or "is God really going to give my barren wife a son and make a nation from him?" For the Christian today, faith is about whether or not our sins are truly forgiven, or will we truly get to Heaven?
Look at Paul's discussion of faith in 1 Corinthians 15:15-19: "Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable."
Notice how Paul says nothing about closing your eyes, plugging your ears, and babbling about sky fairies. Rather, he says if Christ is not risen, your faith is in vain, because... you are still in your sins. Faith, therefore, is actually a lot more about what it is placed in than how much evidence we have for it. You can actually meet God and still have faith. If you were to go back in time, sit at the foot of the cross when Jesus breathed His last, have 20 doctors independently verify His death, follow Him into His tomb, watch Him for the entire time, and see the very moment He got up, you would still have faith. Faith and evidence are not mutually exclusive. Never have been, never will be.
So, why do so many atheists act as if they are? First, there's the obvious reason: On a level playing field, Christianity wins every time, but selectively defining faith to suit their purposes means the Christian automatically appears to be defending the irrational position just by having faith in it. But one must ask, why go through all the trouble? The answer to this is that faith was never about evidence in the first place. Atheists aren't atheists because of the evidence. Many of them could personally encounter God and still remain atheists. The trouble with faith in God is that it comes with responsibilities, and accountability. The sins we mentioned earlier are common to all men, and on judgement day, they will be accounted for.
Just as we mentioned the sins, we also mentioned the solution. If Christ had not risen, we would still be in our sins, but because He is risen, we have a way out. A way of being reconciled to God. The way of being reconciled to God. When Christ died, He died as the only man to avoid sin, receiving the punishment for the sins we committed. We can therefore "swap verdicts". He, though innocent, was judged guilty, so that we, though guilty, can be judged innocent. How? Through the very thing we are discussing: Faith. Confess Jesus as Lord, and believe He rose from the dead. Then, and only then, can you be saved.