So going back to the original OP... can i first say that almost the entire first paragraph appears to be a cop out.

Also, It cannot convert via the scientific method because it doesn't support the premise.

The final point kind of implies that we are all ardent supporters of the scientific method which underpins of atheistic world view...

This isn't quite the case.

For me, my reasoning is probably very simplistic before I even get to considering science or the scientific method.

I use rational thought, my senses, common sense and probability to a degree... I think these offer reasonable scopes for at least a basic foundation to investigate a claim.

For example, let's take the claim Jesus was resurrected and ascended to heaven...

Rationally thinking I would surmise what is more likely, this is true or people lie and so fourth?

Let's answer that with probability and a small bit of common sense, what is the probability someone can be tortured and stabbed with a spear (most theologians believe to the heart causing death by cardiac shock), die six hours later and was risen from the dead 3 days later....

Ok now I would consider this rationally as being massively unlikely, but many would say we still cannot say 100% certain it's not true, so let's move on and accept this so far.

Now move to his disappearance from the tomb, no two books can agree on what happened.

So now I would consider this to be most likely hearsay, but hey who knows, let's move on.

And so 40 days later I believe, he ascends to heaven... up into the sky and hidden by clouds.

Ok so let's this whittle this down from an atheistic perspective using common sense, our senses, our interaction with reality, what we experience and so fourth...

Could he survive crucifixion - possibly but unlikely

Could he survive a spear to the heart - 99% no I would claim

Can anyone float into the sky unaided - no

So in closing, this is why I consider Christianity to be bollocks.

Same for Islam, with similar claims of flying on winged horses and many other apparent miracles.

From there we have a solid expectation that this claim is as unreasonable as it is unlikely, but we then take it to a next step and look for evidence.

Is there evidence to support the claims, yes from his followers! Ok so some respectability attained.

But how about not from potentially bias sources, well only really from the Roman Tacticus who wasn't even around at the time and was born roughly 20 years after the fact and mentioned him loosely by name once in all his works.

So not looking good!

We could go on and on but essentially it progressively gets worse.

I would then say we could move to the scientific method which albeit does not provide proof of anything, it is undeniably the best tool for modelling reality, testing it and understanding it...

In this case, the theological claims suffer quiet badly.

So in summery I think it's easy to dismiss the claims of religion.

I am still waiting for an apology, or that objectively and hard empirical evidence to convert us.

Apology Required: That he (calhais) intentionally started this thread for nothing else than click-bait to feed his narcissistic personality disorder.

rmfr