The part I don't understand is, how you know that the Bible explains how to become saved and not, let's say, the Koran.
Oh I see. An example off the top of my head, is does it contradict itself. The bible does not, the koran does. Of all the books of the bible, none of them contradict each other. They all are in harmony with each other. What is more amazing is they are all written in different time periods and still do not contradict.
The koran is based upon one mans testimony that contradicts and has flaws. The koran is about the same as Mormonism, off one mans testimony and creation of their own "gospel", full of flaws.
There is tons of information of comparisons online and too much information to post here except for my small example. I apologize if it is too broad/vague.
I think calling atheism a belief is a common misconception. A lack of belief is not the same thing as believing the opposite.
Atheists try to only base their opinions on facts, on what they know. Knowing and believing are essentially different things, although a person can be just as sure of his case when he knows as when he believes.
I understand what you are trying to say. However, think of it this way:
1. It takes faith to believe that everything came from nothing (Big Bang theory).
2. It takes faith to believe that life came from non-living material (abiogenesis).
3. It takes faith to believe in molecules-to-man evolution.
These are the three pillars of the atheists' view of origins, and yet none of these can be observed, tested, repeated or proven by scientists today.
Also, take into consideration, Laws which Atheists agree to accept as science:
Law of Causality
Law of Biogenesis
1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
#1- Law of Causality : In essence, it states there must be an adequate cause for every effect. This principle is the basis of scientific inquiry. Natural science deals with the material universe and correctly looks for natural causes to natural events. Scientists properly attribute an earthquake to the movement of tectonic plates. Whether the hand of God is behind it is not their business as scientists.
But natural causes can only explain so much. Eventually, one is forced back to the uncaused First Cause. It is the ageless question, "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" The backward chain of events must come to rest somewhere.
#2 One of the basic principles of biology is The Law of Biogenesis: "Thus far, life seems to come only from prior life in an unbroken chain, at least under conditions that prevail at present on earth". The fact is, there is no compelling evidence that life can possibly come from non life under any conditions, and the evidence is against the existence in ancient times of the imagined conditions under which life might supposedly have evolved by natural means. The consistent result of hundreds of years of experimentation about the origin of life has been and continues to be that life comes only from prior life.
Either life exists on the earth, or it does not. Again, to be rational, we accept the existence of life on Earth.
Further, either life has always existed on earth, or it had a beginning. Since life and the earth are parts of the universe, which had to have a beginning, life had to have begun here sometime.
Finally, either life came from natural causes or supernatural. The consistent experience of science is that life does not naturally arise from non life, nor has any experiment ever been conducted under any conditions, which demonstrates that it can. Thus, if we are reasonable, we must accept a supernatural origin of life on earth.
#3 The First Law of Thermodynamics. This law "states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed but can be changed in form". High school chemistry students learn to balance chemical equations. Everything that goes into the chemical process must be accounted for in the product. Nothing comes out of a chemical process that was not put into it, and whatever is put into the process comes out in one form or another.
The First Law precludes the reasonable possibility that energy came into being by natural causes; since, in the natural world, "energy can neither be created nor destroyed."
The second law of Thermodynamics. This important principle of physics holds that energy tends to dissipate itself ... In other words, the second law relates energy changes in a system to the organization of that system. Placed in this context, it states that there is an increase in entropy (disorder or randomness) - that is, a decrease in organization. Since useful energy is organized energy, an increase in entropy means a decrease in useful energy.
According to the Second Law, usable energy in a closed system tends to decrease. Things tend to disorder, not to order. As we drive our cars down the highway, we don't stop to let gasoline (the energy source) out; rather, we must stop to put more in. The usable energy is converted to motion and heat.
Either the material universe does exist, or it does not. Of course, to be rational, we must accept its real existence. Otherwise, there is no such thing as science, the study of the material universe; and our senses, upon which we depend to gain all accurate information, are totally untrustworthy.
Further, either the physical universe has always existed, or it had a beginning. The cosmos has an immeasurably huge amount of usable energy. Our sun, one small star among numberless stars that compose the Milky Way galaxy, itself one of myriads of galaxies, converts 4,700,000 tons of its own mass into radiant energy each second. If the universe were infinitely old, all usable energy would have dissipated in the infinite past. Thus, the cosmos had a beginning.
Atheists once looked to matter and energy as the uncaused first causes. Recent research in nuclear physics has further revealed the very essence of matter. Physicists now describe energy particles which compose electrons, protons, and neutrons; which, in turn, are the components of the atom. In other words, behind all matter is energy. Before there was matter, there was energy. The only prime mover Atheists can propose is mindless energy.
The question, then, is: Is mindless energy an adequate first cause? Either energy is the uncaused first cause; or there must be a supernatural, i.e., outside and above the realm of the natural, uncaused first cause. But, since energy cannot be infinitely old (Second Law, i.e., entropy), energy cannot be the uncaused first cause. Therefore, we must look for a supernatural origin of the universe.
How does one explain such order in diversity (ie our solar system, galaxy, etc)? Energy is the only answer available to the Atheist. The universe as a whole must be viewed as a closed system, and energy in a closed system tends to disorder, not order (Second Law). Thus, again we are forced to look for a supernatural beginning of the cosmos.
So, if Atheist were to base their "belief" on facts of things known, then these laws of science, among others, conflict with which they believe.
However, I believe I am getting ahead of myself and too bold in my approach. I do not wish to cause you any offense. Tell me if I am, as I wish to keep good relations with one so kind in this discussion.
I must go for now, but I wish you a wonderful day/night my dear friend.
.
