Atheism vs. Christianity (Pro - Atheist, Con - Christian)

I am taking up this challenge a little blindly. There are also structural rules on claims with which I"m not familiar, so please pardon me if I inadvertently transgress. I will gradually come to grasp the parameters. I wondered, reading the challenge-as-posted, was why the "atheist" position is challenging Christianity specifically, rather than belief in God in general, since there are such a variety of "theist" positions to consider. It is thus a little unclear to me whether the main argument is to be for or against God in general, or for or against Christianity in particular. I am making that assumption that, actually, it is in fact both - and that I"m supposed to be arguing in general for the proposition that God exists, in some form, and that Christianity describes the specific nature, character, and actions of God most accurately. I will take up the more universal topic first, and then see where this all leads. If one looks across human societies in general, there is actually a reasonable amount of agreement on a basic sense of right and wrong; murder, theft, rape, incest, and a variety of other things are - generally - abhorred and punished. Not by all individuals, mind you, but usually by social groups in general, and by most individuals in those groups. Most religions teach, on some core level, many of the same general ethical principles. What in Western culture is typically called the "Golden Rule" appears with minor variation in many other cultures, and people worldwide, including people living relative isolation from diffusion, often share basic core values of right and wrong. To me, the general ethical/moral similarity among most people, peoples, and faiths - across history, not just at any one time - is a strong suggestion of some common spark within all humans - conscience? - that indicates to me a creator with a common design for humanity. The moral conscience that is reflected in most people and most faiths is, I believe, due to people having been created by God (and, I think, in His image - with at least a vestigial sense of His justice and goodness). Some might argue that these behaviors, rather than representing any moral sense, demonstrate only instinctive behaviors that provide evolutionary advantage: offering enhanced opportunities for the genetic material of a particular group or individual to be passed on. I find that argument inadequate to account for the breadth of similarity across cultures and environments, persisting through thousands of years of development in varying levels of isolation and contact. Moreover, that argument also ignores other aspects of humanity that are strikingly similar: a desire to make art - paintings, carvings, jewellery - to be visually creative, and to develop and enjoy music - neither of which offer any particular, material evolutionary advantage but which speak to some inner similarity that again crosses cultures and time periods. Similarly, the very existence of religion and religious faiths - not any specific religion, but religion in general - persisting across cultures, time, and through often savage persecution, speaks to the recognition by mankind of a creator, and the search by mankind to find and understand what the creator is. Arguing that religious faith is merely a tool of control from elites, or instead a societal convenience or crutch, doesn"t make particular sense given the many instances of people holding fast to faith when it was anything but convenient or when a controlling authority wished them to do otherwise. I would not turn specifically to Christianity, or any other single doctrine or belief system to explain the reason to believe in God; to do so would seem illogical and would invalidate as meaningful all of the other faiths that have reached the same general conclusion but with different particulars. On the contrary, that very diversity of particulars while agreeing on their being a God (or gods) is, in itself, evidence of people sensing and agreeing on the existence of some kind of creator. On a slight tangent, I do not think that the evolution/creation debate has any ultimate bearing on the question of the existence of God. How - and over how long a period - God created the universe and the world is far less relevant than whether or not He exists and created at all. Quibbles over the interpretation of specific lines of scripture are more relevant to the second part of the issue at hand; that is, assuming the existence of God, why should Christianity claim any particular legitimacy in describing Him? At this point I have elected only to attempt to wrestle in a general way with the "theism"/"atheism" side of the argument. The question of which particular faith represents the best window upon the nature of the creator and mankind"s relationship with that creator is a different topic, and I think it best - not knowing the exact intent of this debate - to wait and see how the topic"s own "creator" wishes to proceed. Update: Shortly after composing this, I checked my email and noted that "Pro" had posted. Much of the first argument specifically attacks the assumption of ANY god through criticism of specific points of Judeo-Christian theology (interpreted by the writer); as noted above I do not think that the initial question of the existence of God ought be approached through a singular lens. The writer also included a list of questions; I"m not sure that this is the proper point to take on those questions, but out of deference to the request and in the spirit of open discussion I"ll reply - though I expect further discussion on those points will be necessary, and I also expect that my answers will probably not prove satisfactory to the questioner. Do you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God? - Personally, yes, I do. Do you believe the Bible should be completely taken literally? If not, which sections would be taken literally and which should be taken figuratively? No, I do not believe every word of the Bible is to be taken "literally." Nor do I believe that there are "sections" that are limited to "literal" or "figurative" interpretation; the Bible is (to me) a divinely inspired and complex work which integrates literal description, figurative and metaphorical imagery, history, poetry and song, and which incorporates the work of many human authors striving to address specific audiences at specific times while still allowing themselves to be used by God to reveal eternal truths. So, from my perspective, the questioner"s binary categories are not appropriate. Do you believe abuse, racism, and slavery are moral? No - certainly not today. "Abuse" is a vague term, quite subject to interpretation. "Racism" is as well, but I will agree that in principle race ought not be the basis for our forming judgments of other people. Slavery is certainly immoral in the modern world, and was particularly abhorrent in the form in which it developed a racial connotation in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, but was universal in ancient societies and was, possibly, preferable to outright slaughter of defeated peoples. Is God all-knowing? Yes, when He so chooses. Is evolution a possible beginning for humankind? Yes, it is a possible beginning, although I do think that it would still be a planned beginning. Is God loving? Yes, but I don"t think our understanding can fully grasp what "loving" means from an eternal God - who is not only loving, but also Holy and Just. Is the eternal life\death literal. Yes, although I do not think we can fully understand the meaning of those terms in an eternal context; what is it like to "live" forever "with" God? Does "death" mean the end of existence altogether, some kind of eternal separation from other souls, or torment - or a combination of the latter two, or something else? I don"t think we can know that. Are claimed contacts or experiences of God or Jesus today real? I do not know. I am convinced that God does act in the world, but Jesus also warned of false teachers, prophets, and signs; the best we can do is apply our own best judgment and seek guidance from God in understanding. And why don't amputated limbs heal from prayer? I don"t guarantee that I know, nor do I presume my answer will be wholly or even a little satisfactory to some. In part, there might be a differing definitions of "heal;" "Heal" could mean "the wound heals and does not become septic;" in that case, to survive amputation might be answered prayer. "Heal" could mean psychologically - to accept and learn to function in the new condition. "Heal" could mean "eventually" - scripturally we are promised new bodies in the future. The ultimate answer really is that we don"t know. My understanding of "healing" may not be God"s understanding of "healing," and sometimes, I believe, God gives us other than what we ask if He knows it"s best for us. I think God always answers prayer, but the answers are not always what we wanted or expected, or when we wanted them. The larger answer to questions about suffering in general is that - from a Christian perspective, which is what the challenger is using - the entire experience of life, good and bad, is brief and pales in comparison with eternity; the loss of a limb, or the death of a person, is a real, genuine, painful tragedy to us, but it still is only temporary because there is a perfect world beyond - and while 10, 50, 60, or 90 years might seem like a long time to us, really it isn"t.