₦airaland Forum

budaatum:
Its not easy to discuss without defining terms. Take my definition of science as the use of the supposed God given senses. If you were not meant to use the senses why would you even have them? Also see how I have presented "in the beginning" as an early scientific theory.

Now for atheism. It used to mean those who did not believe what was believed in Athens, the Land of the Gods. By Christ's time, it meant those who did not believe in the God of the community they are in.

If I told you Jesus was crucified for not believing what was believed in his community, I will expect you to argue that Jesus was not an atheist while I would state that he was clearly atheistic to the beliefs of the Pharisees and the Sadducees.

Religion and science do not clash as much as you claim. What clashes is those who (religiously) believe, with those who are willing to scientifically use their senses to ask and knock and seek so they may actually learn and know. Its like a battle between, willing to remain ignorant naked and enslaved Adam, and use her senses to gain wisdom and her own freedom from slavery Eve. A nation built by Adams will differ to one built by Eves, you'd find.

Please what is your worldview?
You aren’t arguing like an atheist.
Maybe I will comment further when I know your worldview. I am a Christian and I believe Christianity and science do not clash.I believe God and science are not alternatives.

HellVictorinho:
Who is 'we'?

We know Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Anthony Flew, Stephen Hawkings. Who are you? Your opinion doesn’t count really

budaatum:
The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model explaining the existence of the observable universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang?wprov=sfla1

You'd think the important word in the above is theory, but it actually is "prevailing". The prevailing theory used to be ”God said" until 'Jesus the Logos' opened eyes.

As for "assume the sun will always rise and set everyday", I think it is human beings who assume that based on the evidence so far witnessed which kind of makes one assume the sun will never take a day off. When the sun takes a eay of scientist will jettison always rise and set everyday, or be ridiculed like flat earthers are.

Science does not believe, is my point. It has prevailing theories which it assumes might be correct or found wanting in the future when more knowledge is acquired. That after all is the lesson of history, that science is not some religion that must be believed when evidence suggests otherwise.

Scientists are humans and form their theories from philosophical assumptions after SOME testing. There is no scientific law or theory that can be empirically proven. None. But if you have scientific proof for any scientific law or theory, pls share with us.

Again, science is practiced by human scientists and the human scientists make all the claims of science on behalf of science. If they fail when the sun stops rising and setting at the times known to humans and thus changing the scientific landscape, they will take the blame on behalf of science. Have the human scientists nig taken credits for all beautiful inventions of science?

So, science is based on beliefs and assumptions.
The assumptions are based on the predictability and intelligibility of nature made possible by fine-tuning.

Or are you already dichotomizing science from scientists? Are you saying the Big Bang, the scientific assumptions on origins, the scientific assumptions on origin of the laws of nature, the scientific assumptions on macroevolution etc aren’t part of science?

budaatum:
See what you describe as Science, lol, big bang, micro evolutuon, etc. Were they replicated in a lab too?

Science, the use of your senses, is a tool to seek understanding. A theory is first presented then further information is sought. An example is the world was flat until subsequent observation found it was not flat. Unfortunately, human senses are rarely and slowly used, so knowledge acquisition is gradual.

There was a time when 'Scientists' came up with a theory that states that, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light."

Subsequent observation and theories have come up with alternative ideas like when God supposedly said "Let there be Light", there was a big bang then there was light. But you need to learn to separate hypothesis and theories from the observed facts. A scientist would tell you big bang is a theory, one of many.

You might want to start by observing how many science produced products you use today to plot how right human use of science profits you. Without it, humans can not possibly fulfil the command to "Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth", and therefore be blessed, and go to Mars and Jupiter and Uranus too,

Just observe a country like Nigeria to see how a negative attitude towards science holds us back because we would rather believe than scientifically 'use our God given senses'. But as this thread shows, eyes are opening, thank the Gods.

Is the Big Bang science theory science or not? Does science not assume the sun will always rise and set everyday? Does science not believe and assume that the laws of gravity will always be there? Is macroevolution not science?

What exactly is your point here?

Workch:
If it doesn’t have evidence then it can’t be trusted.

You made the claim and you must provide the evidence that your imaginary sky friend exist else he exist only in your head and that of others who share your notion.

Don’t come here committing fallacy of complex questions, I am not going to follow you through that fallacious route. Why is it hard to give testable evidence for your god? Why?

It’s simple, you claim god exist, prove it. Else he’s another version of Flying Spaghetti Monster

If it doesn’t have evidence then it can’t be trusted.

Is that the truth? Is it a scientific truth? Can it be empirically tested? It cannot. So your speech here cannot be trusted. Make another attempt.

I doubt you exist and can be trusted cos I haven’t seen proof of your consciousness.
I doubt your logic here is valid and can be trusted. I haven’t seen it’s empirical proof.

In short, you don’t exist. Your logic don’t exist. They cannot be trusted. Because you don’t have empirical proof for them.
You are just like a spaghetti

budaatum:
I ignored the specifics of your quote because of it's absurdity. The person who made it likely made use of numerous tools developed from scientific discoveries like rode in a car, sat in a chair, used a microphone, shaved with electricity, then says how science is struggling against the supernatural, when the truth is supernaturalists and scientists are perhaps struggling against each other. And indeed they are. In Nigeria, supernaturalists are winning, which is why we have lots of temples in which to worship the supernatural, and a lack of science temples (hostels , factories etc) in which to worship science, and we can all see the result. 56% of Nigerian youths get to worship the supernatural while begging for their daily bread! I guess many don't understand that when God is written to have said "In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground", you are being told to use your senses (science) to make the ground more profitable for you.

Don’t you think this is an absurd response to Lewontin’s quote?

I don’t think you scratched it.

You maybe right to say religion and science keep clashing. But the clash of religion and science is just superficial compared to the gap between science and atheism.

Again, I don’t think you understand what that quote meant.

HellVictorinho:
Who were they to change anyone's mind concerning God?


Disproving the existence of God is not a meaningful exercise


It's like asking me to disprove fomarsin


When a word or a term doesn't have to be taken seriously
It's of no use to disprove anything because there's nothing to disprove



You will call this a claim when you don't know what else to say



If I call what you say nothing but claims

Will you agree?


Well

Based on your style

Anything anyone says is nothing but a claim

But that's just another claim!



There's more to what I mean


Spits on the grave......

Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawkins, Sam Harris, Anthony Flew ( who later jettisoned atheistic ideas and embraced theism) could not categorically say there is no God.

Who are you to say so?

You can’t disprove it. Just rest.

We don’t know you

HellVictorinho:
Your strength lies in needless questions

Simple questions too hard for you to answer.
I am yet to see a single meaningful comment you have ever made on nairaland.
Gibberish all the time!

If you think you are smart as you claim, attempt the questions so we pick up our discussion from there.

Workch:
I am not here to answer quotes, I don’t owe you answers when you have it provided evidence for your claims.

Asking me questions is a subtle way of shying away from providing evidence and I won’t play into that gallery. Stop asking needless questions and hiding under them because you can’t provide evidence for your blind faith in a god

This is your subtle way of saying “ I don’t know”.
Go back and read the Lewontin quote line by line and word for word and respond.

Were you the one who talked about logic and reason? I laughed and asked you to give me empirical proofs for existence of logic and numbers and consciousness. At least you claim all reality can be reduced to empirical data.

If you can’t provide them, then we can move ahead and discuss the timeless, spaceless and immaterial God.

I just need you to have a foundation on our discussion

Workch:
You made he claim, you will prove it.

I can’t prove there’s no Spider-Man. I don’t have to because it doesn’t exist. Same as god

Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawkins, Sam Harris, Anthony Flew ( who later jettisoned atheistic ideas and embraced theism) could not categorically say there is no God.

Who are you to say so?

You can’t disprove it. Just rest.

Workch:
Stop asking people questions here. You claim a god, provide evidence.

No quote is evidence. Give us evidence, let’s test it. It’s that simple

The problem with people like you.
If you can’t read that simple text, then you have no right to ask anyone for evidences or God.

Materialism/naturalism/scientism/verificationism do not have answers to all reality.

If you can provide empirical evidences for logic and reason, maths and numbers, consciousness, beauty, then we can start the discussion.

If you can’t, then just keep learning

Ammishaddai:
Can you prove that God does not exist ?

No one can. No atheist or skeptic or agnostic or anyone can ever prove that God doesn’t exist.
They only say “ your evidences for God provided aren’t sufficient to make me believe”.
That is the highest anyone can say.

“This leads me to a profound realization that there PROBABLY is no heaven and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe and for that, I am extremely grateful.”


“One CAN’T prove that God doesn’t exist. But science makes God unnecessary. … The laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator.”

Those quotes are from the renowned atheist and Physicist Stephen Hawkings.

“ I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.”- Richard Dawkins( a renowned biologist and atheist)


That is the best any atheist can say- probably etc.

Workch:
There is no evidence for supernatural.

There’s no way to say for sure that it exist. Supernatural only exist in the minds those who believe it. Outside of their minds, it can’t be seen or consequential.

People think of the supernatural when they are mentally bereaved of solutions and understanding to a phenomenon. It’s a mentally lazy option to answer questions and solve problems and most times it doesn’t really solve problems. People Just like that mentally strain-less options

Because the human mental strength is weak by default and it takes rigorous steps to empower it, an average human will readily think of supernatural means when he can’t figure solutions. But when you build your brain to reason and think, you can’t jump Or paranormality when you don’t have answers for problems, that’s w mentally weak option that cannot be proven.

This is why supernaturality cannot hold water in courts and sole climes where reason is required. People always have a way of frabricating bogus claims in the name of the supernatural, it’s way institution built on reason and logic can’t take them seriously.ites the and reason pastors scam members, because he knows that his multitude are people who are mentally bereaved of logic and reason to an extinct, they won’t ask him to provide evidence for anything. They will just believe him.

There’s no single problem we can’t point to and verify that has been solved by supernatural means, it’s because such doesn’t exist. It’s hoax and nonsense

It doesn’t matter if you quote Albert Einstein, if what you quote doesn’t have evidence then it’s just his opinion. Hope you get it?

This is why supernaturality cannot hold water in courts and sole climes where reason is required. People always have a way of frabricating bogus claims in the name of the supernatural, it’s way institution built on reason and logic can’t take them seriously.ites the and reason pastors scam members, because he knows that his multitude

First of all, you didn’t understand the Lewontin quote I put there. That exactly is the same mistake you make: a priori beliefs and assumptions and worldview caked in your mind that washes off any counter opinion.
Go back and read it and understand your position.

Secondly you talk about logic and reason. I just laughed. You have made so much claims about logic and reason. Do you have any empirical evidence that logic and reason exist?

Yet you employ logic and reason and claim to have used it to dismiss God and the supernatural. Pls show me an empirical proof of logic and reason or maths and numbers or even your consciousness?

Workch:
The existence of god has always been a debate because it doesn’t have evidence and we have 4200 of them claiming theirs is real.

All of them are deluded. None has evidence

Or sorry, we have 4201, Flying Spaghetti Monster included

It has always been a debate because people like you have failed repeatedly to prove there is no God. And people like you will always get obsessed with God and spend reasonable amount of their time debating God, studying God , researching God, building points and counter-points about God.

You may have 5,000 God claims, but we know you don’t expend any energy on spaghetti and the rest. Your energy is probably focused on Yahweh God. And you will still come out tomorrow to claim you don’t care about God but the rest of your waking moments are consumed in God thoughts.
Lol

budaatum:
This is funny. I'll explain.

"Acceptance of claims" means, to believe, and anyone who does that has not at all done science, which means, use your senses, which is why a true scientific claim must be testable and repeatable, as Workch claimed. What's funny is that you and he are arguing for the exact same approach to living but would never notice, I bet, which is, believe the right thing.

Science is not about belief. Science is about you using your own senses to test to determine the truth. Its why so much is written about Christ opening people's eyes so that they may see, and once you learn to use your eyes, your heart and soul and mind might work too. Christ, in that sense, was a scientist. And he wasn't scripturally the first. Presented in the story of the Garden of Eden is Adam believing that which was shown to be untrue by use her senses Eve

"Seek and you shall find", someone is once written to have said, and not "let someone else seek for you and you just believe what they tell you to". Only a mentally incapacitated individual, to borrow a phrase, and a slave, would believe what they are told instead of what they perceive with their own 'Jesus' opened eyes. Such people remain enslaved and naked in Eden as opposed to use her senses to free herself and her man from slavery Eve, whom we read did not "surely die" on the day that they ate, but went on to become self employed and populated the earth.

You said Scientifc claims being testable and repeatable. Lol!
Has the Big Bang been observed and repeated?
Who tested, observed and repeated the Big Bang? Why does science BELIEVE by faith that it happened?

Did any scientist test, observe and repeated micro evolution of larger animals and humans?
Did science not BELIEVE by faith that it happened and it’s true?

Did science create the laws of nature? Did science know the origin of the laws of gravity? But it believes by FAITH that it has always been there and will always behave the way it behaves to make mathematical and physical laws and relationships same?

Have you thought of what would happen if tomorrow the sun doesn’t rise or set as it always does for like a month? Would the scientific laws and theories hinged on solar energy remain same? But scientific relationships are built on the ASSUMPTIONS that everyday we wake up, we WOULD always see the sun rise and set and our laws work as we assumed. If the sun doesn’t come up, then the scientific laws would not work as we BELIEVE them to be.
Even when scientists conduct tests and come up with hypotheses, human wills, worldviews, biases and philosophy are applied to choose from alternative results to suit a particular intended result. Those often are not empirical methods.

You are wrong about science. And science having limitations in explaining things that are not materialistic in nature makes it weak and insufficient to discuss religion and the supernatural and God. Maybe you go back to the Lewontin quote and understand their a priori worldview and their avowed reason not to let the supernatural through the door.
Lol!

budaatum:
This is funny. I'll explain.

"Acceptance of claims" means, to believe, and anyone who does that has not at all done science, which means, use your senses, which is why a true scientific claim must be testable and repeatable, as Workch claimed. What's funny is that you and he are arguing for the exact same approach to living but would never notice, I bet, which is, believe the right thing.

Science is not about belief. Science is about you using your own senses to test to determine the truth. Its why so much is written about Christ opening people's eyes so that they may see, and once you learn to use your eyes, your heart and soul and mind might work too. Christ, in that sense, was a scientist. And he wasn't scripturally the first. Presented in the story of the Garden of Eden is Adam believing that which was shown to be untrue by use her senses Eve

"Seek and you shall find", someone is once written to have said, and not "let someone else seek for you and you just believe what they tell you to". Only a mentally incapacitated individual, to borrow a phrase, and a slave, would believe what they are told instead of what they perceive with their own 'Jesus' opened eyes. Such people remain enslaved and naked in Eden as opposed to use her senses to free herself and her man from slavery Eve, whom we read did not "surely die" on the day that they ate, but went on to become self employed and populated the earth.

I only wish you had read those 2 quotes and digested each word and line.
You said so much much did nothing to grasp and comment on what I posted there.
That really is the problem.
Please check the claims of each line of the Lewontin quote and respond on the finality of proofs employed in sciences and the materialists a priori stance on the supernatural.

Workch:
The Bible is not evidence, it’s a claim.

Miracles are not evidence, they are claims or products of ignorance.

Creatures are not evidence, we know how a lot of them got here.

Bible and Quran passages are full of lies and unsubstantiated claims. Their stories directly oppose reality and sometimes very laughable and can never be proven to be true, all lies and no single evidence.

There are no gods. All gods are fantasy creatures invented by humans. Gods can’t be detected with our human senses because gods don’t exist.

“Perceived mind telepathy”? Well, right, there’s no such thing as telepathy but sometimes people think they are receiving messages from some outside source. They are actually getting some sort of feedback from their own subconscious mind.

Materialism at its best!

“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.”
[Billions and Billions of Demons - JANUARY 9, 1997 ISSUE]
Richard C. Lewontin

“There is an old saying, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you will start treating all your problems like a nail.” This quote dates back to 1964 and Abraham Kaplan, whose first wording was actually, "Give a small boy a hammer and he will find that everything he encounters needs a pounding."

Once you view all existence through the prism of materialism, everything is reduced to what can be investigated by matter only.
We know that not all we know and believe in can be reduced to empirical analysis and yet we have come to belief in them by experience.

MaxInDHouse:
There are lots of INSANES in the Society but due to the fact that they put on fine clothes you will not suspect them.

Just imagine someone who keeps saying something doesn't exist yet he's always looking for people to convince himself over what he himself said doesn't exist!

The truth is he is really scared of what religious people are saying about unbelievers so out of his fearfulness he's seeking a way to assure himself that God doesn't exist as he's seeing billions living normal lives claiming they believe in God whereas he just wish everyone debunk the concept yet nobody takes his arguments serious.

So he's scared! Perhaps there's God and religionists are right, what will become of him?

That's why he can't just let go of the concept he wish is untrue!

Aptly stated.
Great mind

BJanta:
I love you. I'm always in love with Christians who have the Word.GOD expand and enlarge you even more so in the knowledge and wisdom of His Word, amen iJN.

Amen!
God bless you too and enlarge your coasts.
Cheers.

LordReed:
[img]https://c./Dv1u3wqjGfIAAAAC/boring-bored.gif[/img]

You aren’t even any different from the new online/internet atheists that always come with that air of bogus intellectual superiority.
Lol!

LordReed:
[img]https://c./Dv1u3wqjGfIAAAAC/boring-bored.gif[/img]

Hahaha!
E shock you abi?

On a lighter note, why do most atheists struggle with the definition of atheism?

LordReed:
Yep stuck up for sure. Give me a pass will you, not interested.

Hahaha!
Usual atheist banter. Not surprised a bit.
Pls stop getting angry unnecessarily.
You didn’t build up those arguments. Just keep learning as we all are.
I am a proud Christian.

LordReed:
I am not angry that you pointed out that i obviously acquired information. I am peeved because you are acting stuck up and prejudiced. I could have blown you off as "one of those bible defending apologist" with nothing new to say but I didn't. You on the other hand are acting like you know it all. You think I haven't heard anything you have to say?

I like you. But you actually got angry by that statement from the tone of your voice. That’s okay. You are free to label me anything. I believe in God. I believe in Jesus. I believe in the totality of the Bible. I believe in the afterlife. I believe in supernatural phenomena. I am a Christian.

You are an atheist ( even though most atheists don’t agree on what atheism is). It is okay for me to assume that most atheists don’t believe in most of the things I believe in. That makes me relaxed in my engagements with you. They are merely academic. The Holy Spirit is the sole agent for convictions and conversions. So don’t worry about me.

Just for your info. We have heard most of your objections too. And most of your objections have been successful rebuffed at the highest level of scholarship. Lol!

LordReed:
The question remains how do we distinguish between a god operating by faith and what comes naturally? This is the heart of the question.





Good, so nobody today has actually seen Jesus physically, they are referring instead to their particular subjective experiences. If you've never seen an animal, plant or being physically how are you able to attribute the term alive to them? Or is the word alive metaphorical?

Jesus is alive because he lived here in earth, did good works, taught about God and God’s kingdom, performed miracles, revealed God to us, talked about eternal life, heaven, hell and the after-life, taught about souls, spirits, angels, demons, was crucified, died , resurrected, ascended into heaven and was see by many and recorded in history.

He promised us the Holy Spirit who came some weeks after his ascension.

He lives in the hearts of all believers today

LordReed:
If you are of the opinion you've heard everything before then why bother having this conversation? I am not going to waste my time with someone with such an attitude.

Lol!

There is no prize for this discussion. Why should I be worried that you decline further comments on it? You weren’t born an atheist. You picked up certain info along the way as you grew up and formed your worldview right?

Did you know about the historical Jesus at birth? Did you know about the intellectual objections you are offering to Christianity and the validity of the Biblical claims?
How did you pick up your defenses against the gospels and their historical qualities? Where did you see the actors you believed existed in history? So why should you get angry that I pointed out a very simple and obvious fact that some atheists advised other atheists to concede that Jesus of Nazareth existed as described in the Bible and argue rather on his divinity claims?

Abeg no vex.

LordReed:
First off I don't revere anyone nor did someone ask me to argue about Jesus' supernatural claims. I don't appreciate people who when I am having a conversation start attributing other peoples motivations or reasoning to my conversation. You're having a discussion with me, keep your responses to what I say not what someone else said.



The gospels were never considered historical books, matter of fact their authors are considered anonymous except for Luke, who as you well know was not a disciple so had no first hand knowledge of any of the events especially with regard to Jesus' puported miraculous birth, his purported miraculous works or the claims of his resurrection. By necessity he was merely recording oral retelling which usually acquire narrative additions for effect. The lack of original manuscripts is another puzzling aspect. Here we have claims of a god desirous to spread a good news and yet can't be bother to ensure that the original written words were preserved. Instead we have like in the case of Luke manuscripts that have so many differences.

No historian will give credence to the supernatural claims of historical figures because they understand that in those times it was popular to exaggerate the feats of patrons in order to present them in more favourable light to the audience. Alexander, Julius Caeser and others have miracles attributed to them but we don't believe those so why should we believe the ones in the gospels. Fact remains many of those feats cannot be replicated in any way resembling the purported events, nobody has turned water to wine, nobody has multiplied food, nobody has walked on water. I asked you how you would demonstrate to me that Jesus is alive but you didn't respond.

Most of the arguments you make here, you read up somewhere. Your objections skills were honed because you read and listened to other skeptics criticizing the Bible and Christianity. So don’t get over-worker because I said some atheists started believing in the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. That knowledge did not come with you from birth. You gained it from your environment and from others. Please admit that. And the part about skeptics not accepting before now but doing a u-turn is also true. You can’t change that actually.

The 4 gospels are historical facts first before being added to the Bible. You don’t have to agree because of your worldview.

The gospel accounts recorded the supernatural feats of Jesus. There is no empirical analysis for testing supernatural phenomena. The disciples of Jesus and other Jews witnessed the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his ascension. That is how we know he lived, was killed and resurrected.

We also confirm that by our personal experiences and divine revelations. The Holy Spirit in-dwells every Christian as a confirmation that they are God’s. Jesus promised the Holy Spirit would come after his ascension physically. And the Holy Spirit did come and is still in operation as at date.
That is not an objective method but you cannot take those experiences from the Christians. Jesus did many miracles back then. God still perform miracles now. So many attest to that.

BJanta:
The Bible has no need to be proved true to a true believer by any evidence external to it.The proves it to be true everytime true believers gather to worship the LORD as GOD confirms His word in our midst.Anf it's not believing the Bible through extrabiblical evidence that would give you salvation,it is believing the Gospel when it's preached to you..

You are right. The Christian needs no further arguments to believe.

But a skeptic who doesn’t believe in the Bible could ask for evidences and put up intellectual objections. That is okay for any rational human to do. Even some believers whose faith are shaken at one time or another get encouraged when they have some of these background info. Of course the ultimate convictions lie with God through the Holy Spirit. That is incontestable.

“...and the Lord opened her heart to pay attention to what was said by Paul.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭16:14‬ ‭AMPC‬‬


See how Paul approached and reasoned and argued and preached in Acts 17.
He reasoned from the Scriptures with the Jews.
He reasoned from logic and philosophy with the Greeks and the philosophers.

“But when some became more and more stubborn (hardened and unbelieving), discrediting and reviling and speaking evil of the Way [of the Lord] before the congregation, he separated himself from them, taking the disciples with him, and went on holding daily discussions in the lecture room of Tyrannus from about ten o'clock till three.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭19:9‬ ‭AMPC‬‬

“This continued for two years, so that all the inhabitants of [the province of] Asia, Jews as well as Greeks, heard the Word of the Lord [concerning the attainment through Christ of eternal salvation in the kingdom of God]. And God did unusual and extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, So that handkerchiefs or towels or aprons which had touched his skin were carried away and put upon the sick, and their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭19:10-13

“Then Agrippa said to Paul, You think it a small task to make a Christian of me [just offhand to induce me with little ado and persuasion, at very short notice].”
‭‭Acts‬ ‭26:28‬ ‭AMPC‬‬

LordReed:
I would like you to state 1 well known atheist who was convinced by intellectual arguments. Well known so their history can be verified.

Oh sure intellectual arguments can strengthen a believer's faith, in fact I have had someone on NL tell me that I made them a better believer. The point is they strip away most of the gloss many people are unaware of. That stripping away doesn't need to lower whatever value you place on it but it does require you to face the question of why you believe more honestly.



The issue isn't the historicity of Jesus but of the supernatural claims. I can grant you that Jesus was a real person but what you will have to demonstrate is the supernatural claims. How can you demonstrate that he is actual still alive without pointing back at the Bible for instance.

I appreciate the fact that you acknowledge the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. That is a step. Most atheists didn’t even want to agree before now until their revered atheists started teaching them to accept that Jesus Christ of Nazareth existed as described in the Bible and in history but asked them to argue about his supernatural claims.

So it’s normal for more updated skeptics to agree that Jesus lived. The supernatural claims of Jesus are recorded in the Bible and the gospels were historical books first before being added as part of the Bible. Paul in 1 Corinthians 15:3-9 taught about the formula passed down by their tradition on the resurrection of Jesus Christ. History also recorded that there were even some people who performed supernatural actions within Jesus time. That gives credence to the fact that supernatural events can and did happen.

Edit

Atheists who converted to Hinduism Edit
John Dobson - became a believer in Vedanta – astronomer and telescope designer[1][2]
Sita Ram Goel - Indian commentator, writer and Hindu activist[3]
Atheists who became an unspecified/uncertain form of theism or deism Edit
Eben Alexander - neurosurgeon, author, teaching physician. Author of Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon's Journey into the Afterlife.[citation needed]
Plutarco Elías Calles former president of Mexico who was an atheist but became a spiritist later in life.[citation needed]
Gabrielle Carey - Australian co-author of Puberty Blues who was raised atheist, but converted to Catholicism and then explored other theologies.[4][5]
Antony Flew - philosopher and respected atheist thinker of the 20th century, became a deist.[6]
Moses Hess - Socialist philosopher and Left Hegelian who first influenced Karl Marx in his criticism of religion, but who later tried to combine the pantheism of Baruch Spinoza with Hegelianism.[7]
William Luther Pierce - American white supremacist and political activist who created Cosmotheism.[8]
Anne Rice - best-selling American author of Gothic and religious-themed books.[9] She returned to Catholicism, and remained as such for many years, but has since announced that although she still believes in God and in Christ she no longer considers herself a Christian.[10][11]
J. Neil Schulman - Libertarian science fiction writer who states he met, or experienced, God and that this ended his atheism. The first such experience would have occurred when he was 35. That stated he remains skeptical of "the church" and does not belong to any religion.[12]
Dave Sim - comics writer and anti-feminist. He converted to, or created, his own mixture of Abrahamic religions.[13][14]
Ted Turner - media mogul who stated that he is no longer an atheist or an agnostic. He has not embraced any specific religion.[15]
Mark Zuckerberg - Facebook founder and philanthropist.[16]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_former_atheists_and_agnostics

More prominent names in the link below

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_converts_to_Christianity_from_nontheism

Bacteriologist:
The stories mentioned there are from the OT.

Here's a full list of why your holy book is a poorly written piece of nonsensical fairytales:

https://www.answering-christianity.com/101_bible_contradictions.htm

We will take you seriously if you teach us about those passages and tell us why you think they invalidate the Bible message. I guess you never read for yourself. Possibly you gleaned through a link touted by others and copied verbatim.

What happened in those verses? And was the message passed across or not? I put it to you that what you pasted there cannot make the Bible fit into the narrative you have there.

Bacteriologist:
What is this central message that you speak about?

As far as I'm concerned, the Bible is one hell of a vague book that that be used to defend or attack anything, anything at all.

It seems to be the most confused and self-contradicting book I have ever set my eyes upon.

https://www.answering-christianity.com/101_bible_contradictions.htm

Refer to the above link for examples.





It would be interesting to know what central message you think this two/three-mouthed book is passing? So can you share?

Deep down in your heart, you know the Bible ( the New Testament specifically) is the most criticized and researched booked in the universe. I am just wondering why you guys give the Bible that much attention when you shouldn’t be paying it mine.

The central message of the Bible is the love of God for mankind and the salvation of man.
Those verses you listed there, do there say anything that destroys the Bible validity?

I like the fact that you said “as far as I am concerned” . That is your personal opinion.
We have a million critical scholars and Christians who think otherwise. Even a lot of skeptics acknowledge the Bible is difficult to wrap around but do not contest its validity. Yes they have issues with certain concepts in the Bible but they don’t dismiss it. If you are struggling with the Bible message and it’s comprehension, go to a theology school and ask the Holy Spirit to guide your quest.
But if you follow this stance, I doubt it will work out

Bacteriologist:
My point is that a confirmation of the locations and even perhaps characters of the Bible do nothing to justify that it came from god or that the book is non-fiction. Because fictional books have real locations too.

Obviously, the Bible was written by man and on top of that the book has undergone so much change in the hands of so many people it would not be wise to think it still has anything to do with a god, or the truth.

And of course, I have not begun to talk about the moral problems in the final versions that exist today.

Scholars at the highest level use history and archeology to confirm historical claims.
That’s the standard. That is how all other historical and even scientific assumptions are confirmed. That suffices today for Biblical claims too. That is what scholars and skeptics ask for. Unless you are developing new criteria.

No scholar claimed the Bible was literally written by God. They said the Bible writers were inspired by God through divine revelations to write. And the writers wrote in different locations and at different times but had a central theme despite not collaborating in their write ups. The old manuscripts discovered by archeologists confirm that.

Again, the central message of the Bible is same from the editions.
Do you have other objections?

[quote author=LordReed post=105979373]The Bible is the primary and only source for a foundation of belief in Jesus. On that point alone the Bible is unreliable on several key points nor can it be demonstrated to be true in several others. Learning academic facts will most likely strip away the veils Christian rhetoric usually drapes on its presentations of itself. Quite a few atheists were born that way.[Quote]

Conversely quite a few atheists had been converted to Christianity through the intellectual engagements on Christianity which the Christian does not even need.
Intellectual discussions on the Bible actually helps strengthen the belief of a believer and prepare him/her for engagements and evangelism. They do not strip Christianity of any value except for cutting down excesses from people who claim to be religious but deceiving others and benefiting from the deceits.

Of course you know there are also non-Christian sources attesting to the historicity of Jesus Christ. Even if the Bible is the only source of accounts for Jesus’ historical data, would that discountenance the Bible claims if found true? No it won’t.