From atheism to Christianity? How so?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Regarding the "evidence". Might I remind you that you're talking about a book that has not been vouched for by archaeology. That is as good as fiction or legendary tales, where maybe the person existed but other deeds were added to them. So those doesn't qualify as evidence, if you have any other evidence, please present them or link them. Otherwise this is completely circular. I believe god is real because the bible is real > The bible is real because god is real > I believe god is real because the bible is real .... etc.

The bible has been extensively verified by archaeology; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology

Jesus Christ is a real person and so therefore His existence is a matter of historical record. The bible gives eye witnesses accounts of what Jesus said and did. Have you ever studied the evidence for the resurrection? If you are interested this book gives a detailed account of what the evidence is:

http://www.amazon.com/Assessing-Testamen...0889466165

Actually it hasn't. There was no worldwide flood. There was no exodus from Egypt. It hasn't been shown that Jesus existed as the bible described.

And You just linked me a William Lane Craig book. That guy is a dumbass, he's a creationist. He has no respect for evidence or the scientific method.

As for your supernatural rebirth, that's just your own personal experience which we cannot decide whether is satanic or not. So it doesn't make sense to say personal experiences may be satanic, but I know mine aren't because of personal experiences.

It is simply evidence of the validity of what Jesus said, but my claim hinges on whether Jesus was resurrected or not.

So your claim has yet to be proven.

Again about circular logic when using the bible both as evidence and as the claim. Do you notice that every time you try to justify or explain your beliefs, you end up making more claims about what you believe in?

The bible gives evidence, and there is evidence from other sources. Whether the bible is the only source we have on the life of Jesus or not does not discredit the idea at all. The eye witness accounts themselves must be examined to see whether they are valid or not. Historians validate eye witness accounts in a much different manner than most skeptics seem to assume they do, and most of our historical records are based on eye witness accounts.

GIVE ME the evidence from other sources regarding the resurrection. It's quite simple, I've already explained why you cannot use the same thing as claim and evidence. It does discredit the idea a lot. Do you not understand the concept of legends? If you look at history, every prominent ruler has a mystical story tied to them, usually a prophetic dream or a miraculous occurrence at birth. Am I to believe all of that just because someone had the audacity to come up with it? Actually history is constantly being verified by looking at multiple sources and archaeological findings, both of which you have admitted the resurrection does not have.

Well if you have anything else to show for the resurrection besides biblical claims then feel free. At the meantime, keep in mind that plenty of other mythologies involve resurrection. So if all it takes a for a mythology to claim resurrection for you to believe it happened .... welll ...

The bible is the main source of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus; if you are going to reject it out of hand you have to explain why it isn't a valid source of eye witness testimony, and you haven't established that. You have made the claim it simply talks about legends when it actually talks about people who are known to have existed and places which have been verified by archaeology and historical records.

I have explained that. Your not understanding the standard of evidence required to claim something has happened in history is not the same as my not explaining it.

Verified places is hardly the same thing as all the events that claimed to happen in this space are also verified. Or are you saying that because New York exists, King Kong exists as well?