Both sides of the argument are presented and the reader is encouraged to weigh the evidence based on quality and quantity.

We qualify the evidence by limiting it to logical arguments based on facts and evidence, not emotions or feelings. In science there is no room for 'blind faith'. I literally mean none, zero. It's all about the facts. Understanding the facts separates faith from knowledge.

It should be pointed out that denial of the facts does not change the facts. For example: "Was the earth actually round while it was popular to believe that it was flat?" Of course it was round. Since popular wisdom has been proven wrong time and again, we must consider the possibility that God really does exist even while it may be popular to believe that He doesn't exist.

Because Jesus is an integral portion of the Bible and inseparable from the Christian religion on which the Bible is based, the scope of the evidence considered must include the deity of Jesus.

A portion of the doctrine of Christianity is that eternal life exists. If eternal life does in fact exist and we face a destiny in either heaven or hell then the stakes are very high indeed (life or death). Can you afford to be wrong?

Because our destiny of eternal life or death (heaven or hell) hangs in the balance, a very high level of evidence to be considered as proof is required. We will treat the topic of life after death as if it had real consequences. After all isn't that what reality is all about? Reality means knowing the truth, facing consequences, and living with them. Right?

Atheists apparently have more faith than many Christians. Because there is no real evidence and there are relatively few theories supporting atheism, it takes a lot of "blind faith" to be an atheist; especially when the large amount of evidence supporting the Bible is considered. It is interesting to note the hypocrisy of atheists who claim to oppose "blind faith". For this reason we can only rely on the facts and evidence.