So, I decided to consult the considered source for an explanation of the religion with which I felt most compatible – Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, yes that C.S. Lewis. Lewis himself was an atheist at one time in his life and does a marvelous job in describing the source of Christian beliefs. So if you want to make a ‘rational’ decision on the matter, I would recommend reading the book (it took me a couple of times) and then come back to this site and see if your thoughts are the same…Like I said do the research.

Nobody. Not even Jesus, except metaphorically. And to be specific, the belief is ACTUALLY, that a vengeful God manifested in the flesh as Jesus so his own torture and murder could appease himself, which is downright silly. Why not just forgive without the silly charade? Unless of course, the meaning of the story is something else entirely than its details . . . . perhaps?

)

Tara: Fair enough

El: it’s interesting that atheists simply MUST argue against the existence of God. Why can’t they just ignore people of faith and the existence of religion? Something to think about.

Although the Bible does state that the physical environment is evidence of the Creator (e.g., “For the invisible things of Him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, His everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse” Romans 1:20, ASV), one might go through life, living in and with this physical environment, and still not deduce the existence of a Creator or deity, because this is actually a third type of evidence: anecdotal. (Anecdotal evidence is what says that zinc helps prevent colds, protein increases the metabolism, and drinking 8 glasses of water keeps a body hydrated.) And it seems that the more one is “educated” the less one accepts anecdotal evidence as true evidence, as true “science.” (As a nerd wanna-be myself, I do not consider this skepticism necessarily a bad thing, and I personally go on “crusades” against quackery all the time!)

I would posit that, rather than never deducing the existence of a creator, one actually loses that very deduction somewhere along life’s journey. (I could add to my argument something like “who heard thunder as a child and didn’t wonder if it was really the angels dancing in heaven.” Since children also have imaginary friends and wish upon stars, I will not enter this.) Suffice it to say that a child’s imagination is borne on the wonderment concerning the mysteries, the hidden stories, of the world. Education taps that imagination (at least it is supposed to) so that critical thinking, creativity, analysis, and conclusion propel the mind forward into maturity and productivity. I believe it is unfortunate, therefore, that instead of sparking the sense of wonder, much of our education hinges on “this is the fact; memorize this; that is wrong.”

I further believe that as the student incorporates not only the very limited facts but also the extremely limited attitude of our educational system, some part of the imagination ceases to be. Here’s some anecdotal evidence for you: ask a kindergartner to tell you a story, any story, and you’re likely to be occupied the rest of the afternoon in the student’s fantasy land; ask the same of a high school valedictorian, and you’re likely to get an account of some event if anything at all. Only the rare, the “gifted,” even the “disabled,” will retain the ability to tap into that deepest level of humanity which is beyond anything physical or any kind of observable evidence.

For a scientific explanation, one could delve into synapses and neurotransmitters and the dreams of REM sleep. To me, those answers merely open new avenues of questioning: how does a person who loses part of their brain to disease or injury recover functioning by employing entirely new areas of the brain? If memories and personality and language are simply a pattern of neuronal firing, then halting or removing those neurons should erase those memories and personality and language. Sometimes it does, but in seemingly miraculous cases, sometimes it doesn’t. One must conclude that neuronal patterns are, at the very least, not the whole story. [Further, on a slightly political note, if there is absolutely nothing more to the function of the mind and emotions than physiological processes, why does so-called modern medicine consider "mental health," a.k.a. behavioral health, entirely different than "medical (physical) health," as if someone can control mental conditions simply with behavioral choices and nothing more?]

I offer neither concrete evidence nor circumstantial evidence regarding the existence or non-existence of God. In this case I also do not offer anecdotal evidence. Rather, I appeal to the considerations of the undamaged, “ungrown,” uneducated child which we once were, and some believe still resides within us. The most conclusive statement in the Bible is this: “Human nature (lit., the human mind) and the human heart are a mystery*!” (Psalm 64:6 GWT- *some translations say “deep” or “cunning;” lit., “concealed”). Because we humans are a mystery and by nature wonder at mysteries, some humans find the revelation of the mystery in faith, while some choose to ignore the mystery altogether, or to narrowly funnel their wonderment into non-mysterious things such as mere physical evidence.

The distillation of the debate is this, not whether God exists or not, but rather, what choice do you make with regard to the inescapable mystery which is the human condition? I believe that this is what Pascal referred to: “this infinite abyss can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object.” It goes far beyond happiness, even “meaning,” but perhaps Pascal was speaking to a simpler audience.

“The mystery which has been hidden from the ages and from the generations but has now been manifested to His saints; To whom God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Colossians 1:26-27, RcV).