The argument against faith is prepositional in declaring that it is wrong. Of course faith in something that is wrong is bad. But conversely, of course faith in something that is right is good. Where do we see this? This is common in court cases. Lawyers are tasked with assembling evidence to convince jurors of a certainty of an event beyond a reasonable doubt. But clearly that is not always sufficient because false convictions are relatively common. So in this case, 'beyond a reasonable doubt' implies a sense of faith. In the scenario where a defendant is incorrectly found guilty, this faith is bad. In the scenario where the defendant is rightfully found guilty or innocent, this faith is good. Why should someone want to believe in something for which they have no supporting evidence? This question is flawed; it implies there is no supporting evidence. 'What is this evidence?' is the logical response. But this very same question can be applied towards the counterposition; atheism asserts an absolute, yet offers a similar source of metaphysical, philosophical reasoning which lacks the vast pedigree of theistic accounts. It culminates in a back-and-forth of demands of proof. Ironically, this displays an inherent faith in atheism: the assumption that because no evidence exists (or in actuality, the evidence the subject has chosen to not examine) of a certain claim, that it is not true. However, quantity of evidence does not dictate the validity of the claim. So now we're faced with the question to atheists, "why is faith good?"