An opinion puff-piece from an idiot that doesn't even understand the topic is "obvious"?

The funny part is to what lengths various fundietards will go to in order to try and deny atheism. Here's a thought for you - if your faith wasn't so obviously weak and threatened with doubt, you'd ignore atheists and atheism as being meaningless and unimportant to you. Every time a fundietard puts for effort to combat the atheist, they expose their own lack of faith.

Really?

Aside from the author being completely wrong, wouldn't it be kind of foolish to keep believing something after you were proven wrong?

I also don't believe their is a pound of gold in my desk drawer and would love to be wrong about that.

Nope, no gold. But that doesn't mean someone didn't put some in while I was typing this.

...Now I don't know anyone who is a strong-sense atheist. Even Dawkins, as I recall, is a "70% probability" man

That guy should have a nice conversation with Penn Jillette sometime.

abscence of evidence is evidence of abscence. If you cannot deduce the existence of gods based on observation, then that is evidence of the non-existence of gods.

Science: Submitter is a moron.

I don't believe in God. That does not mean I think there is no chance of their being a god. Anything omnipotent could hide its existence just as easily as it could do anything else.

Agnostics withhold judgment, atheists don't. There's a chance unicorns could exist, but I'm not a unicorn agnostic because I am not 100% sure there are no unicorns.

If your definition of atheism is such that there is no one who fulfills it, odds are it is your definition which is the problem and not the atheists.

An atheist has absolute faith in the lack of the divine.

An agnostic believes that he doesn't know, or as Socrates put it, "I know that I know nothing".

The former is as much believing without evidence as any other form of faith. The latter is timeless wisdom.

Y'all can believe whatever you want as long as you leave me alone.

Obligatory:



Article fairly is correct. Subby is an idiot.

comslave:

If you cannot deduce the existence of gods based on observation, then that is evidence of the non-existence of gods.

John 14.6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me."

John 10.37 "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ~ Philip Dick

comslave: abscence of evidence is evidence of abscence. If you cannot deduce the existence of gods based on observation, then that is evidence of the non-existence of gods.

While I am an atheist your argument is invalid. Negatives can not be proven. Proof and staunch opinion are not the same thing. I would not go against your statement except that to let the statement go allows for more false arguments to be defended. It becomes a vicious cycle. And false information is the fertilizer of ignorance.

Pssst...EvilEgg -- You believe whatever Penn Jillette believes?



Really?

comslave: abscence of evidence is evidence of abscence. If you cannot deduce the existence of gods based on observation, then that is evidence of the non-existence of gods.


/thanks idsfa

Anybody who categorically says they're certain there is no higher form of intelligence than us can't back it up. It's difficult to prove negatives in general, and pretty much impossible when it involves an entity that could, if it wished, hide all evidence of its existence from us.

But of course, on the other hand, anyone who claims a belief had better have some strong evidence for it. 2000-year-old books by sheepherders that are true because they say they're true don't count.

I'm as sure that there is no Judeo-Christian-Muslim God as I am that there is no invisible elephant in my backyard.

Bevets: comslave:

If you cannot deduce the existence of gods based on observation, then that is evidence of the non-existence of gods.

John 14.6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me."

John 10.37 "If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father."

Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ~ Philip Dick

Lol, Hi Bevets.


Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. ~ Philip Dick

Let's see, we've got a trollish headline, an outspoken agnostic who claims that atheism means having absolute certainty, and Bevets thinking that quoting the Bible means something. Now all we need is somebody to think that he's cute for posting pictures of stormtroopers, and I think the thread has hit all of the points on the checklist. It's a party!

//Okay, I left out (P or Q) = (Q or P), but that hasn't shown up as much recently.

Martian_Astronomer:
Now all we need is somebody to think that he's cute for posting pictures of stormtroopers, and I think the thread has hit all of the points on the checklist. It's a party!.

You know who else liked stormtroopers?

Doctor Jan Itor: I'm as sure that there is no Judeo-Christian-Muslim God as I am that there is no invisible elephant in my backyard.

I'd extend that to any interventionist god.

NegativeNine:You know who else liked stormtroopers?

You're right, I forgot the inevitable Hitler/Stalin comparison. I'm sure we'll get there, though.

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

That is all.

alaric3: While I am an atheist your argument is invalid. Negatives can not be proven. Proof and staunch opinion are not the same thing. I would not go against your statement except that to let the statement go allows for more false arguments to be defended. It becomes a vicious cycle. And false information is the fertilizer of ignorance.

QFT. I have yet to see an argument for deities that does not break down to "just because" when you keep asking how someone knows something is true. I would love to see a positive argument for religion to actually debate over, but every one I've seen has boiled down to circular logic and flawed fundamentals.

Feynman said it best when he stated that anyone trying to prove something should try as hard as they can to disprove it: if their original theory stands, then it is most likely true. I don't think religion has that level of intellectual integrity.

Martian_Astronomer: Let's see, we've got a trollish headline, an outspoken agnostic who claims that atheism means having absolute certainty, and Bevets thinking that quoting the Bible means something. Now all we need is somebody to think that he's cute for posting pictures of stormtroopers, and I think the thread has hit all of the points on the checklist. It's a party!

//Okay, I left out (P or Q) = (Q or P), but that hasn't shown up as much recently.

You're looking for GilRuiz1 and abb3w, respectively, but I'll see if I can't fill in.




We can prove God's nonexistence to the same degree we can prove that your brains are not made of cauliflower.

Racht: "Anybody who categorically says they're certain there is no higher form of intelligence than us can't back it up."

Exactly, the problem is that Christians seem to think this is the position of all atheists when it isn't the position of any atheist I've ever met. As it breaks into the mainstream I expect we'll see polls on where most atheists stand and it'll be really interesting.

Racht: "It's difficult to prove negatives in general, and pretty much impossible when it involves an entity that could, if it wished, hide all evidence of its existence from us."

Right, but if a hypothesis is unfalsifiable, then it's a failed hypothesis in need of reformulation.

symbolset:
The former is as much believing without evidence as any other form of faith. The latter is timeless wisdom.


This is BS I hear from agnostics all the time, and a basic misunderstanding of how logic works.

You can't and don't need to disprove something to know it is false. Claiming so is a logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.

You know that there is not a magical, pink, invisible unicorn next to you. You cannot prove that there is not one, but you know there's not. You also can't prove that you won't die if you don't eat, yet you continue to eat anyways, why? You can't prove or disprove that if you place your hand on the ground, you will explode, without actually trying it. Yet how many of you think there's even a chance that would happen and are afraid to do it?

The burden of proof is on the one making the claim, with no evidence at all, a claim cannot be true, and this is for good reason.

For instance, let's pretend that we didn't know what caused lightning. I can say that God did it, someone else can say that leprechauns did it, or Thor, or any other infinite number of things.

This means that your chance to randomly guess the correct answer is 0%. To find what causes lightning, you need to base your information on previous knowledge, knowledge obtained through observation.

The Dragon In My Garage
by Carl Sagan

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

Zamboro: Right, but if a hypothesis is unfalsifiable, then it's a failed hypothesis in need of reformulation.

Or, worded another way, it's a hypothesis that doesn't have any explanatory power. We cannot use it to make predictions, and we have not expanded our understanding of the world in anyway. An ineffable god is a worthless god.

Martian_Astronomer: You're right, I forgot the inevitable Hitler/Stalin comparison. I'm sure we'll get there, though

I'll just beat them to it with the best refutation I can think of:
No matter how brutal the genocide someone claims was done by non-believers ... it will never top the brutality of a fairy-tale deity murdering everyone in the world except for 8 people on an impossible boat, and then leaving those 8 people to inbreed and repopulate the planet with their tiny-eyed, big-eared, slow-witted offspring. Any faith that demands I pretend to be inbred is patently false.

Any scientist, is by definition, technically agnostic about anything they can't prove, and you can't prove a negative.

The goal of science is to explain how the universe works. With many things, 100% certainty is impossible, so to break the impasse and increase utility, science forms testable working hypotheses based on the evidence available, and use "go with the odds" techniques like Occam's Razor to make intelligent guesses.

There has never been any testable evidence ever produced for any theistic religion. Nor has there for the Easter Bunny. Occam's Razor tells us that the existence of gods and the Easter Bunny is thus highly unlikely,

No-one in their right mind over the age of 9 believes that the Easter Bunny exists.

The only reason religions are given lip service or room for doubt, while the Easter Bunny remains firmly mythical, is because of their entrenched cultural position - it's polite for more advanced species to humour the poor benighted souls who still believe in the sky fairies. However, reality is not a popularity contest, and said sky fairies are near-certainly non-existent.

As a scientist, I am de facto technically agnostic, however due to the overwhelming lack of evidence to the contrary, atheism is a solid working hypothesis which explains absolutely 100% of the available facts, and is unlikely to ever be disproven.

There is a tiny, hard to quanitfy but finite chance that one or more of the theistic gods could be shown to exist; there is a larger finite non-zero chance that all the air molecules in the room will pile up at the far end, but don't hold your breath waiting for either to happen.

So rather than actually trying to show some evidence supporting the existence of their deity, theists are now going to spend a bunch of time and effort arguing over terminology used by non-believers to describe themselves? Why not just, you know, support your position?

"The Vikings won today."

"No, I'm pretty sure the Falcons won when they scored on that end-around"

"Well, that wasn't an end-around, that was a reverse."

Zamboro: Exactly, the problem is that Christians seem to think this is the position of all atheists when it isn't the position of any atheist I've ever met. As it breaks into the mainstream I expect we'll see polls on where most atheists stand and it'll be really interesting.

To be fair, I've seen quite a few atheists who believe that no evidence proves a negative. They're also young, rebellious idiots who think drowning pool is totally rad to listen to while reading twilight. Morons, basically.

As an atheist, I would really like to be able to believe that there is a God and a heaven and hell (because there are so many people deserving of eternal punishment). There's just no rational reason to believe in any religion; it's a nice idea but so are a lot of things that aren't based in reality. That so many people are so crappy to others and harmful to the world in general tells me that they really don't believe in all that religion stuff regardless of what they say.

TheCommunistCow: You can't and don't need to disprove something to know it is false. Claiming so is a logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof.

Actually your argument is a good example of the logical fallacy you are presenting. A simple example would be the scientific world's initial rejection of bacteria as a cause of disease "I cannot see it to validate it, therefore it doesn't exist". They hypothesized that diseases were caused by miasma's because they could recognize the foul smell. Often these smells were caused by the bacteria that these scientists rejected.

For example, I could say "Aliens don't exist, because no one has ever proven that they have".

A similar argument to religion, but knowing you are a logical person that understands the enormity of the universe and the prevalence of Earth-like planets, I imagine you would respond much differently to that statement.

/When I left him, I reasoned thus with myself: I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.

Befuddled: As an atheist, I would really like to be able to believe that there is a God and a heaven"

As a fellow atheist I agree with this statement.

Cool story below,

Well, before you bash Sullivan, keep in mind the 7 levels of belief

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

7 requires the same kind of 'faith' or understanding that a 1 takes. The problem is that we do not have proof for or against the existence of god. But keep in mind, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that the null hypothesis is that there is no god. The believer (in god) is obligated to provide evidence for the positive existence that there is a god.

The non-believer is not obligated to disprove the existence of a deity.

"An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the God question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question."

- John McCarthy

The article is of course correct. To ever believe anything with complete knowledge is (1) impossible and (2) arrogant to the point of insanity.

The reality is that agnosticism is simply used as a sociological shield for people who don't want to say they are atheists.

bigfatdave: Martian_Astronomer: You're right, I forgot the inevitable Hitler/Stalin comparison. I'm sure we'll get there, though

I'll just beat them to it with the best refutation I can think of:
No matter how brutal the genocide someone claims was done by non-believers ... it will never top the brutality of a fairy-tale deity murdering everyone in the world except for 8 people on an impossible boat, and then leaving those 8 people to inbreed and repopulate the planet with their tiny-eyed, big-eared, slow-witted offspring. Any faith that demands I pretend to be inbred is patently false.

Well, a Christian who believes in "the Flood" will tell you either that God can do whatever he wants, or that he had no choice because people were so evil back then. (Strangely enough, despite God killing almost everyone, the Flood was remarkably unsuccessful at eliminating evil from the world.) A smart Christian will tell you that you're using an appeal to consequences.

I'm of the opinion that discussions of "Stalin killed a lot of people" vs. "Christians killed a lot of people" are usually unproductive, especially since they tend to be handled in a pretty clumsy fashion (by people on either side of the discussion.) There are one or two decent arguments that you can make against Christianity based on its history (even when Communist genocides are taken into consideration,) but you have to formulate your points very carefully, and it's a very, very easy discussion to derail.

/Oh, right: "Jesus was an extraterrestrial"

sprawl15: "To be fair, I've seen quite a few atheists who believe that no evidence proves a negative. They're also young, rebellious idiots who think drowning pool is totally rad to listen to while reading twilight. Morons, basically."

So what you're saying is that atheist teenagers behave like teenagers.

Britney Spear's Speculum: But keep in mind, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that the null hypothesis is that there is no god. The believer (in god) is obligated to provide evidence for the positive existence that there is a god.

The non-believer is not obligated to disprove the existence of a deity.

There isn't truly any physical evidence in support of or against an all powerful god. So extraordinary evidence would be defined by believers as so called "miracles" that have happened. Anecdotal evidence from people who want to believe. They believe the evidence is extraordinary, just as if you were to visit a primitive tribe that saw the change of seasons or the rise of the sun as an "act of God". The claims of evidence vary depending on belief, you call it a miracle cure; I call it placebo effect.

So often believers have met their obligation of extraordinary evidence, but the rest of us don't agree. All in all using simple logic or scientific method when discussing metaphysics is like playing hockey with a basketball.

I'll go on the (Internet/anoymous) record as saying I'm 100% certain there is no creator god. The concept itself is nonsensical when rationally examined, and there's absolutely no evidence for one anyway.

Of course, there's no way I'd ever voice that opinion without anonymity. There are too many theists who (because or inspite of their religion) would cause me a lot of trouble because of my opinion of their faith.

I am, however, lucky enough that pretty much everyone around me personally and professionally knows I'm an atheist, and I get along with them all just fine.

alaric3: Negatives can not be proven

that's a common misconception. many negatives can be proven. i can prove absolutely that there are no blue mugs on my desk. i can't prove that there are no incorporeal mugs on my desk, but an incorporeal mug wouldn't be blue.

Unsung_Hero: "I'll go on the (Internet/anoymous) record as saying I'm 100% certain there is no creator god. The concept itself is nonsensical when rationally examined, and there's absolutely no evidence for one anyway."

But absolute certainty is also nonsensical when rationally examined.

Martian_Astronomer:
I'm of the opinion that discussions of "Stalin killed a lot of people" vs. "Christians killed a lot of people" are usually unproductive, especially since they tend to be handled in a pretty clumsy fashion (by people on either side of the discussion.) There are one or two decent arguments that you can make against Christianity based on its history (even when Communist genocides are taken into consideration,) but you have to formulate your points very carefully, and it's a very, very easy discussion to derail.

I'd argue that it's irrelevant, since in those cases Christianity was merely the tool for hateful, violent people. People kill each other over power, and when religion is the power of the land, then people will kill for religion. When Stalin outlawed religion, people killed for their leader. In religious theocracies like a lot of the middle east, people kill for their god. If I had a magic 'what-if' machine and looked at the world where Christianity never happened, I wouldn't be very surprised to find out genocides still happened and people still murdered each other in the millions for stupid, petty reasons.

The only thing that really makes sense for me to argue about is stuff that is in the Bible, since fundamentalists (and to an extent anyone who believes in it) should be aware of the logical inconsistencies and the concept that the only source material for their beliefs is a horribly flawed document. That said, the new testament is a very good piece of moral guidance, if more people lived like Jesus the world would be a much happier, wholesome place (until they were wiped out by Scientologists).

drewkumo: Actually your argument is a good example of the logical fallacy you are presenting. A simple example would be the scientific world's initial rejection of bacteria as a cause of disease "I cannot see it to validate it, therefore it doesn't exist". They hypothesized that diseases were caused by miasma's because they could recognize the foul smell. Often these smells were caused by the bacteria that these scientists rejected.

You have no idea how burden of proof works.
The burden of proof is on the one making a claim. If someone claims anything, it is their job to offer evidence. Others can then support or try to counter this evidence. "God does not exist" is not a claim, it is a rejection of a claim.

Since there was evidence for bacteria causing illness, this is in no way related to what I am talking about. No one randomly claimed that bacteria caused disease, they had reason and evidence to believe that.

I'm discussing things for which there are no evidence at all, or for things where all their testable claims have been refuted. I.E. unfalsifiable things.

Read the Carl Sagan quote above for a good explanation.

Britney Spear's Speculum: Cool story below,

Well, before you bash Sullivan, keep in mind the 7 levels of belief

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

7 requires the same kind of 'faith' or understanding that a 1 takes. The problem is that we do not have proof for or against the existence of god. But keep in mind, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that the null hypothesis is that there is no god. The believer (in god) is obligated to provide evidence for the positive existence that there is a god.

The non-believer is not obligated to disprove the existence of a deity.

Guess I'm a 5.) , then.

/ trying to live my life by simple rules articulated by some other FARKER:
// Be nice to others.
/// Don't be a dick.

DamnYankees: The article is of course correct. To ever believe anything with complete knowledge is (1) impossible and (2) arrogant to the point of insanity.

The reality is that agnosticism is simply used as a sociological shield for people who don't want to say they are atheists.

I always thought of it more as a security blanket for those that didn't want to face their own mortality without some semblance of an afterlife myth, yet were fully too logical to accept religion in general.

Anyway, dying is scary. If you took away the "and then you go to Heaven/become reincarnated as a rich person" part of the mythology, I doubt nearly anyone would be religious at all - people generally aren't big on investing time into stuff unless they get something out of it.

Zamboro: Unsung_Hero: "I'll go on the (Internet/anoymous) record as saying I'm 100% certain there is no creator god. The concept itself is nonsensical when rationally examined, and there's absolutely no evidence for one anyway."

But absolute certainty is also nonsensical when rationally examined.

You'll have to try harder than that. I'm quite comfortable ignoring shroom-induced philosophical thoughts like 'I might just be imagining everything as part of a dream, so nothing is for sure'.

I am absolutely certain I exist... and I don't need the original expanded circular reasoning leading to God.

drewkumo: So extraordinary evidence would be defined by believers as so called "miracles" that have happened. Anecdotal evidence from people who want to believe. They believe the evidence is extraordinary, just as if you were to visit a primitive tribe that saw the change of seasons or the rise of the sun as an "act of God". The claims of evidence vary depending on belief, you call it a miracle cure; I call it placebo effect.

So often believers have met their obligation of extraordinary evidence, but the rest of us don't agree. All in all using simple logic or scientific method when discussing metaphysics is like playing hockey with a basketball.

Yes, this. We run into a problem when they think The Bible is sufficient evidence.

Although the Bible is written by humans and there are all sorts of problems with and within the bible. Even the fact that there are books left out of the bible when it was canonized is too much for them.

This is where the delusional don't have the Logos necessary to argue their point.

Is it weird to believe that the universe never had a starting point? That it has always existed and always will?

Banacek: Is it weird to believe that the universe never had a starting point? That it has always existed and always will?

What do you mean by 'weird'?