It is already obvious that nairaland religion section constitute debate between christianity and atheism. Thanks to Seun, who allowed a level of freedom that accommodates both parties. I have seen things from both sides and therefore I want to clarify things with what I will call "an opinion".

Christianity is a religion which believes that there is a god and they call him/her (or whatever) God. The word “belief” is the tricky thing there. The fact that it is believed by a sect, does not make it true. If there was really a god, and everyone knew, there won’t be religions and there will be a different definition for atheist- someone who fails to accept god. When something is believed to be true, it means you have some conviction in you that makes you believe it. The reasons given by Christians are generally due to the intelligence and some level of perfections on this world, while ignoring the imperfections. There seems to be a sort of intelligent design in this world, but the point where one becomes religious is when he/she concludes a god(s) to have done it and the point when one becomes a Christian is when he makes a conclusion by attributing the god to the one which he/she believes by the bible. No one fully knows. It took me a while to think things through.
I have done what I will term “switching of sides”. This affects in a way but I have been able to understand both sides. I do that when I read posts to understand what makes people say what they actually say.
Atheism on the other hand is lack of belief in the existence of a god. This is also due to a lot of conviction that support their position. This definition is very tricky because there are a lot of meanings to this when people say that they are atheists. The basis of atheism is that no god created the world and there is no god in this world. Everything existing is due to a physical cause. Not all causes have been known and therefore we cannot assume anything to be a cause (what religions does).
The truth is that, the burden of proof lies on whoever that first made the assertion. It is just like telling someone that there are animals in pluto, but since people cannot get there, no one can know, but the burden of proof still lies on whoever that first made the claim.
But we have to be realistic. The issue on the origin of life/world is very delicate and must bring speculations.
I think we have reached a level, where science has done more than enough for this world, so everyone seems to be in line with science. The only difference is that atheists dont have anything restraining them from following what science says, which religious do. Both sides seem to jump to a level of conclusion, tho the burden of proof has to be on whoever that came up with the proposition(religious). so I will outline where science does not go hand in hand with them.
where science repudiates atheism;
Science cannot and will not say that something does not exist unless, there is a proof that it does not exist and cannot exist. Science does not completely disregard its possibility. A true scientist will not tell you that god does not exist because, there is yet to be, an evidence on the contrary.
Before the advent of the idea of imaginary numbers, if anyone said that there is an imaginary plane, different from the physical planes that we know without backup, he will be seen as delusioned. But now, we even do calculations with that and we have seen the importance.
The atheists are wrong as to scientific approach.
So, its why I think that the atheist point of view will never make sense to a Christian.

where science repudiates christianity.
Christianity is a religion which most assume they have the answers and that the bible is infallible and with answers to everything. Right now, the advent of the theory of evolution has even caused a shake in the understanding of the bible. The following are reasons why Christianity cannot be in line with science.
-Science cannot affirm that a human stayed in the belly of a whale for three days, without food and water.
-Science cannot affirm that a snake talked, human turned to salt,
-Science cannot affirm that there was a flood on the whole earth and someone who has been dead for three days came back to life by mere words.
-Science cannot affirm that a blind man can see, a lame walk and someone (or an amputee) can be healed, by mustard seed faith with prayers and its done. If not there will not be research into cure for illness.
-Science does not affirm that the world was created in 6 days. If not, there won’t be any more research on the origin of life.
-Above all, science cannot base its findings on a book written 2000 years ago which has unending questions on its credibility and infallibility.
This means that christianity is usually baseless when their doctrines are refuted by deists.
I tried applying the “switching of sides” and what I have come to realise is that the religious don’t accept being wrong. I am not saying that they are, but there is this feeling that they get to think that with science and Christianity, we will rule the world. Science gets to explain why and everything, but when our book says otherwise, there will be a compromise. The atheists will not agree with this.
The only thing Christianity adds to the society is morals. Not that they are the cause of good morals, but they give conviction to doing good and a certain form of guilt to the contrary (most especially when no one is watching). I think what is good and bad can be gotten from intuitivism. Atheism adds nothing in that aspect, but there should be non-theists, because when people take religion too far, they need to be corrected; the cause of the debates we are seeing.

#I am not an atheist.
#I used christianity because its the only one that I am familiar with and it is highly publicised.

Nice, I'm too stupid in regards to topic relating creationism and evolution and sadly, I can only hold back, fold my arms as intellectuals debate on this issue.

Nonso23: O.p, from your post can i safely assume that you are placing science as a JUDGE over religious beliefs such as deism and atheism?
In other words only SCIENCE can decide what belief(deism or atheism) is reasonable or not?

Try to get the message properly. It could seem that way, but its not what I intended. I will change the topic

I cant really get a better topic, so I am sticking to this one.

@OP makes a good attempt to analyze and present some critical views on the points of view of atheism vs christian doctrine. But @OP fails to grasp truths of christian doctrine(not blaming you though, almost all christians fail this insight too) and ultimately this writeup is a huge fail!! The failure is very basic, and if someone fails the basics of any theory or principle, then such a person cannot get to a correct conclusion.

The OP's mistake is to pit christian doctrine against science. There is no such position in christian claims. Christianity does not oppose science, rather it acknowledges and validates it. Christianity only goes further to transcend science. Note the difference between oppose and transcend. Christianity claims the miraculous, not anti-science. For a christian with true understanding, he knows that science is of/from God, he uses scientific observation to validate(witness) spiritual principles and vice versa.

Looking at the new testament, anywhere Paul talks about wisdom of man is a reference to scientific wisdom. Nowhere does he preach an opposition to it, rather he preaches a wisdom(of God) that transcends(goes beyond) the wisdom of man. So for you to transcend a matter means that you acknowledge and validate that matter first before you move beyond it. Every christian who believes that science is against God or vice versa is just simply silly and has no understanding of God's/spiritual principles. If you are conversant with the bible, you will observe that anywhere unbelievable claims are made comes with the caveats like: "With (the wisdom of)man, it is impossible.., but with (the wisdom of)God all things are possible...". Which clearly shows an acknowledgment and agreement with scientific wisdom.

So, Christian doctrine cannot possibly be against science. The christian God himself claims he is the founder of science.

okeyxyz: @OP makes a good attempt to analyze and present some critical views on the points of view of atheism vs christian doctrine. But @OP fails to grasp truths of christian doctrine(not blaming you though, almost all christians fail this insight too) and ultimately this writeup is a huge fail!! The failure is very basic, and if someone fails the basics of any theory or principle, then such a person cannot get to a correct conclusion.

The OP's mistake is to pit christian doctrine against science. There is no such position in christian claims. Christianity does not oppose science, rather it acknowledges and validates it. Christianity only goes further to transcend science. Note the difference between oppose and transcend. Christianity claims the miraculous, not anti-science. For a christian with true understanding, he knows that science is of/from God, he uses scientific observation to validate(witness) spiritual principles and vice versa.

Looking at the new testament, anywhere Paul talks about wisdom of man is a reference to scientific wisdom. Nowhere does he preach an opposition to it, rather he preaches a wisdom(of God) that transcends(goes beyond) the wisdom of man. So for you to transcend a matter means that you acknowledge and validate that matter first before you move beyond it. Every christian who believes that science is against God or vice versa is just simply silly and has no understanding of God's/spiritual principles. If you are conversant with the bible, you will observe where unbelievable claims are made comes with the caveats like: "With (the wisdom of)man, it is impossible.., but with (the wisdom of)God all things are possible...".

Christian doctrine cannot possibly be against science. God himself is the founder of science.

If science tells you that the big bang is where everything started from, will you believe it?.
Now I get the trick here. Its just like two friends; a (fine) girl and an ugly boy.
The fine girl does not like the ugly boy, but the ugly boy wants to like the fine girl.
Thats what you are doing. I thought I have made it clear that science repudiates christianity, while you are trying to show how christianity is in line with science. Its just not possible. Its because of people like you that I said this;

Christianity is a religion which most assume they have the answers and that the bible is infallible and with answers to everything. Right now, the advent of the theory of evolution has even caused a shake in the understanding of the bible. The following are reasons why Christianity cannot be in line with science.
-Science cannot that a human stayed in the belly of a whale for three days, without food and water.
-Science cannot affirm that a snake talked, human turned to salt,
-Science cannot affirm that there was a flood on the whole earth and someone who has been dead for three days came back to life by mere words.
-Science cannot affirm that a blind man can see, a lame walk and someone (or an amputee) can be healed, by mustard seed faith with prayers and its done. If not there will not be research into cure for illness.
-Science does not affirm that the world was created in 6 days. If not, there won’t be any more research on the origin of life.
-Above all, science cannot base its findings on a book written 2000 years ago which has unending questions on its credibility and infallibility.
This means that christianity is usually baseless when their doctrines are refuted by deists.
I tried applying the “switching of sides” and what I have come to realise is that the religious don’t accept being wrong. I am not saying that they are, but there is this feeling that they get to think that with science and Christianity, we will rule the world

Christianity is like a track and field hurdles race where athletes run and jump over hurdles. The hurdles is like the scientific challenge to limit or obstruct the progress of an athlete, but he musters efforts to jump over these hurdles. The fact that he jumps means that he acknowledges and validates the presence and effectiveness(as an obstacle/limit) of these barriers, but he is also able to jump above(transcend) them instead of just ramming through them(which will be a disregard/opposition for their presence).

okeyxyz: Christianity is like a track and field hurdles race where athletes run and jump over hurdles. The hurdles is like the scientific challenge to limit or obstruct the progress of an athlete, but he musters efforts to jump over these hurdles. The fact that he jumps means that he acknowledges and validates the presence and effectiveness(as an obstacle/limit) of these barriers, but he is also able to jump above(transcend) them instead of just ramming through them(which will be a disregard/opposition for their presence).

ok

nwuyag:
If science tells you that the big bang is where everything started from, will you believe it?.
Now I get the trick here. Its just like two friends; a (fine) girl and an ugly boy.
The fine girl does not like the ugly boy, but the ugly boy wants to like the fine girl.
Thats what you are doing. I thought I have made it clear that science repudiates christianity, while you are trying to show how christianity is in line with science. Its just not possible. Its because of people like you that I said this;

Science claims that the big-bang produced the universe out of nothing. Tell me: How's this different from christian claim that God created the universe out of nothing??

okeyxyz:

Science claims that the big-bang produced the universe out of nothing. Tell me: How's this different from christian claim that God created the universe out of nothing??

Then science repudiates christian beliefs.
Or will you say that God started the big bang.
I am not ready for those arguments, because it will bring assumptions and conclusions in the long run just as you have done.
What part of my post dont you understand.
Let me explain better
#shining teeth like you made any sense
*smh*