science vs religion
Atheism MUST deny the existence of the immaterial self (the soul) because if consciousness can exist independent of matter (referring, of course, to the matter that makes up the human brain), then there is no reason to disbelieve in an immaterial, disembodied conscious being such as God.
But, unfortunately for atheism, there are very powerful scientific and philosophical reasons to believe in immaterial conscious beings.
The psychiatric definition of “delusion” associates “delusion” with poor mental health. And a vast amount of research demonstrates that theistic belief is BENEFICIAL to one’s mental (and physical) health…whereas disbelief is HARMFUL. Utilizing the psychiatric definition of “delusion,” then, it is clearly atheists who are more deluded.
Atheism claims to be scientifically based but demands exemptions from accepted methods of scientific reasoning and from scientific laws.
What atheists present as “science” supporting their views is actually extremely shoddy philosophy posturing or posing as science…a posing and posturing that would make Elvis impersonators proud.
The biblical claims about the divinity and resurrection of Jesus only violate common-sense when viewed from the lens of materialism (which says that only the world of material things is real). But materialism is a scientifically unsupportable stance.
Atheists have been very successful in duping the general public into believing that the question of God’s existence amounts to a debate between science and religion. But the God debate is a conflict of religion versus religion, or philosophy versus philosophy…not of science versus religion. “The so called warfare between science and religion,” writes the eminent historian Jacques Barzun, should actually “be seen as the warfare between two philosophies and perhaps two faiths.”