jamescross:
when you make statements like this and draw your conclusions from your assumption are you know a typical human claiming to know properly what he knows inaccurately - based on his own personal assumptions and self made theories

Which particular portions of the post are my personal assumptions? I challenge you to disprove any of the points I raised earlier with your own points. That is how to have an intellectual debate, and that was what I expected.

KingEbukasBlog:
Source: http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_logical_fallacies


A common and legitimate criticism of the atheist worldview is that atheism is illogical and irrational . Atheists claim to be logical while their arguments are suffused with logical fallacies

Below are a number of logical fallacies that atheists commonly commit.(Logical fallacy 1-5 and 9) were gotten from here

[size=14pt]1. Atheists and the fallacy of exclusion[/size]

The fallacy of exclusion is a logical fallacy where "Important evidence which would undermine an inductive argument is excluded from consideration. The requirement that all relevant information be included is called the 'principle of total evidence.

A . Fallacy of exclusion and the denial that Jesus existed

A classic use of the exclusion fallacy committed by many atheists is the denial that Jesus Christ ever existed.

Despite their being an abundance of historical evidence for Jesus Christ living in the first century, many atheists embarrassingly claim the Jesus never existed

In an article titled Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth, Christopher Price wrote concerning individuals who insist that Jesus Christ was merely a mythical figure:

I have often been asked why more academics do not take the time to respond to the Jesus Myth theory. After looking into this question, I discovered that most historians and New Testament scholars relevant to the topic have concluded that Jesus Mythers are beyond reason and therefore decide that they have better things to do with their time

B. Unreasonable and inconsistent evidential standards

Atheism, as defined by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and other philosophy reference works, is the denial of the existence of God.

Atheists demand proof and evidence for other worldviews, yet there is no proof and evidence that atheism is true. Also, despite the abundant evidence for Christianity and the lack of proof and evidence for atheism, atheist reject the truth of Christianity. Atheists refuse to go where the evidence clearly leads.

In addition, when atheist make claims related to naturalism, make personal claims or make accusations against theists, they often employ lax evidential standards instead of employing rigorous evidential standards.

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote a very revealing comment. It demonstrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation — regardless of whether or not the facts support it.

Lewtontin wrote:

“ Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that Miracles may happen.

”
The evolutionist and immunologist Dr. Scott Todd, an immunologist at Kansas State University, perfectly epitomized the irrational evolutionary denial of the evidence for creation in his correspondence to the science journal Nature. Dr. Scott wrote: "Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic


C. Atheism and extraordinary claims

Western Atheists often claim that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", yet they have no proof and evidence that the extraordinary claim of non-life becoming the first life solely through natural processes is true .

I bet if you ask any of these scientists to defend their statements non of them would deny that they uttered such statements. Although, you tried to present those statement as a bias for materialism by scientists. Yes men of science are biased in support of materialism but that is actually what science is about.

For anyone who cares to know; the bias for materialism in science was born out of human experience that animism as posited by religion had never been effective in satisfing human curiosity about the physical world. In this regard science/in-animism has done much better.

For that bias to die there will have to be an undisputed proof in support of animism, and that would be the death of a lot sciences, especially physics.

The bone of contention is the nature of ultimate reality. science has proven through its ability to make accurate predictions based on theoretical models, that the nature of ultimate reality is material. Religion is yet to prove the veracity of its own position on nature of ultimate reality; and I mean a rational proof.

Long story short materialism gives the best approximation to the truth. Also, no matter how hard certain groups like Jehovah Witnesses try to reconcile science with religion the fact remain that religion is anathema to science, especially physics.

Science does not claim to have the answer to every problem or question bordering the human mind. Only religion does that but reality is there to guide anyone who embraces rationality. But undoubtedly, science has yielded the nearest approximation to the true nature of reality compared to other methods, especially religion.

greiboy:
Wrong!!!

Christianity like most religion was developed in east. it is a religion based on the person and teaching of Jesus Christ , the west only adopted it just like we did

So why should we drop it now? is it Simply because the west no longer find it fashionable?

Adoption is distinct from development.

Christianity was actually developed by the west starting from Rome. Granted the movement started in the east but most of the traditions and doctrines were developed by western minds. Mind you most of these scholars or church fathers were pupils of Greek philosophers; Plato and Aristotle.Therefore, Christian traditions were greatly influenced by Greeco-Roman culture.
The most obvious evidences to substantiate the argument above;
1) Christian places of worship in the west are usually modeled after ancient greeco-roman temples.
2) There is no eastern nation that is a self acclaimed Christian state. Not even Israel. Whereas, western states are traditionally considered to be christian states. Although, seculiarism is on the rise.

Finally, Nigeria did not adopt Christianity or Islam. Both were forced on our ancestors. This is a fact but you may choose to believe otherwise.

greiboy:
So the west must always dictate our beliefs and the ways we live our life ?

Definitely no. Nevertheless, Christianity is a western belief system, and going by your statement isn't it high time we do away with another culture's beliefs about the most important aspects of reality?

jamescross:
first learn how to properly read and improve your poor understanding.

Even I reply you in simple terms you will not still understand if you didn't understand the simple points I made earlier. Good luck with your life

The guy asked you simple rational questions, your result to attacking his intellectual capacity shows that you're not willing to engage in a rational debate.

greiboy:
I have never really being to this section before, but I find your arguments intriguing

So in essence, you believe there is no spiritual entity in the world,? you believe everything can be explained with logic and science?

Are you a Nigerian?

So it's okay for Nigerians to cling to irrational beliefs which are in fact currently being discarded by their original creators (the west).