I am a Soft, Weak-minded Delusional Christian

Recently I was reading some articles on the problems with Christianity and reasons to abandon the Christian faith and I realized something. I am viewed by many atheists, agnostics and secularists to be soft, weak-minded and delusional. I have faith in a religion that I believe in for many reasons that I did not know. I act and think in ways that I did not realize until several authors were kind enough to inform me of them. Below are several of the reasons that they listed:

Christians believe in God out of Fear

 I had no idea that is why I had become a Christian. In fact, I can honestly say that Hell and fear had nothing to do with it. I became a Christian because I was hopeless and found hope. I had lived a life that was filled with anger and violence. I associated with psychopaths and was actually diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder as well as a masochist and sadomasochist.

Trust me, fear and cowardice are the very last reasons that I would have become a Christian. I would argue that I was agnostic out of fear and cowardice. The thought that I might have to pay for my transgressions or be held accountable for the lives I destroyed and the carnage I left behind kept me mired in addiction. As a Christian I live my life knowing one day I will stand before God and be held accountable for everything. Accountability is a huge part of a Christian's life.

Christianity Prays on Innocent People

I had no idea that I was innocent and prayed upon. Instead, I was a violent criminal addicted to drugs and alcohol that manipulated and used everybody that I came into contact with. I have done things in my life that make me the dregs of society and I did it all knowingly. I used to jokingly say, "If only the good die young, I will probably live forever."

Christianity, instead of praying on the innocent, gives hope to the hopeless and feeds and clothes the needy. They do attempt to give hope and faith to those who have been abused and taken advantage of, by funding homeless shelters and homes for abused women. How dare them!!

Christians Witness Too Much

This one cracks me up. Everybody witnesses too much. Pro-Choice people wax on about it being a women's body, and Pro-Life people say it's a life.. Those for guns constantly preach about their need while those for gun control witness about the damage they do in society. Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Anarchists, etc all witness on and on about their form of government/non-government being the best and why. 

Secularists, humanists, agnostics and atheists recently had a Reason Rally where the leaders in their fields witnessed about their beliefs and were encouraged those in attendance to destroy Christianity by mocking and ridiculing Christians. That sounds a lot like witnessing to me. It actually sounds more like hate mongering. The difference is that when I witness about my faith, I do so to give people hope not to destroy what hope they have. 

Christians are Arrogant

Christians believe that they and only they have the right answer. I really cannot argue there. Life is kind of that way as well, but we have become very politically correct and moved away from it. There is some gray in our world, but it is mostly a black and white world. We are fooling ourselves and due to that we have grown soft as a society.

Some schools are no longer giving failing grades, and the students can answer as many times as they need to in order to finally obtain the correct answer. Wait until they hit real life, and they see that in most situations there is a right and a wrong thing to do. If I play a round of golf and I say I shot a 82 and my partner says I shot an 86, one of us is right and the other is wrong. We cannot both be right. The same is true of our beliefs. 

Christians Believe Out of Ignorance/Blind Faith in a Delusional God

Actually, most Christians I know who were saved later in life believe in God due to a personal experience they have had. That is why I have faith there is a God, because of the changes in my life since my transformation from dealing dope to dealing hope.

I am also an analytical person. I need proof of things before I can say I believe in them. Apologetics has done that for me. I now can argue Christianty using history, science and philosophy among other things. Look up fine tuning and cosmological theory to find out more.

Christianity is Cruel and Violent

There have been many killed under the guise of Christianity. There have been many times over that number killed by atheists under the guise of communism. From Pol Pot to Mao to Stalin atheists have slaughtered millions. Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn said, "the main cause of the ruinous revolution that swallowed up some 60 million of our (Russian) people, Men have forgotten God; that's why all this has happened."

I would ignore all of that and recommend that you go to any natural disaster the world over and see the outpouring from the Christian community. Go to many food pantries and see where the bulk of their contributions come from. In fact, most of them were started by Christians as individuals, their organizations or their churches. What a bunch of bullies! 

Christianity is anti-scientific and anti-intellectual

I will only defend this one with a small list of names: Allesandro Volta, Georg Ohm, James Prescott Joule, Lord Kelvin (Volt, Ohm, Joule and Kelvin units named after them), Louis Pasteur (Invented Pasteurization ), Gregor Mendel (father of modern genetics), Francis Collins (director of the National Human Genome Research Institute), Gerhard Ertl (Nobel Prize winner in Chemistry) and William Daniel Phillips (Nobel Prize Laureate in Physics).

Most of the books that I read once I got saved (and trust me going from where I was a decade ago to where I am now I was SAVED!) looked at science, history and philosophy to prove Christianity and they made valid points. I have listed several of them at the bottom. 

Christianity Causes Sexual Frustration

As an agnostic I slept with hundreds of women, literally. I am not bragging, simply being honest. I was in one short term relationship after another, frequently having multiple girlfriends at the same time. I tried to define myself by conquests, as I had no identity otherwise that I was fulfilled through.

I met a women a few months after I got saved, and we dated for over a year before we were married. We did not have sex until our wedding night, and it was amazing. I have been faithful to her and we have an amazing relationship based on more than our carnal desires because we instead focused on our friendship and developed respect for each other. I see her as my mate and not as an object. I am so much more fulfilled sexually now than when I was when I was agnostic. 

Christianity has a Narrow, Legalistic View of Morality

I agree, such a narrow view of morality. We are commanded to do two things above all other, love God and love our neighbors and treat them as we would wish to be treated. That is pretty narrow. Can you believe the concept of people treating everyone with the love and respect they themselves would like to be treated with. If people were to actually live their lives based on what is commonly known as "The Golden Rule" the world would be a much better place. 

In Closing

I am a reasonably intelligent person. I got clean after 20 years of substance abuse and more concussions than I can count on one hand. Before I started college I went to see a neuropsychologist and was told that I had an IQ of 129. I have since gotten an Associates, a double Bachelors in Psychology and Sociology and a Masters in Social Work all while maintaining a 3.79 GPA.

I had a thirst for knowledge most of my life, even in my addictions. I read voraciously because I wanted the religion that my parents believed in to be wrong due to the judgmental and hypocritical attitudes that I had seen from Christians. I was searching for something, though. I reached a point where I was completely drained of hope and knew that I would never stop abusing drugs and living my life the way I did. There was no point in living life by rules if I didn't have to, and as an agnostic I didn't have to. What was the worst thing that would happen? 

So I continue to live my life as an agnostic who was clinically depressed, overcome with the urge to fight while stealing and sleeping from and with anyone and everyone. I was hopeless and hurting and the best that I could hope for was to be numb and not feel and I found that I could do that through my various addictions. 

I tried everything at one point or another to overcome my addictions and my past: residential/outpatient treatment, psychotropic medication, counseling (LPC, psychiatrist, psychologist), jail, prison, house arrest, 12 Step meetings and eventually suicide all to no avail. The day I turned to prayer was the last day I: drank, took drugs other than those prescribed as prescribed, smoked a cigarette, had premarital sex and got into a fight outside of a ring. It was life changing. 

Yet I still had questions. I still had questions and doubts so I have continued to read and study. Here are some of the books I would recommend to you if you have doubts about what to believe:

1. The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel
2. The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel
3. Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
4. What's So Amazing About Grace by Philip Yancey
5. Where is God When it Hurts by Philip Yancey 
6. Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics by Doug Powell

All I know is that I used to destroy families and lives through the distribution and manufacturing of methamphetamine while reveling in breaking the law and using as many people as I came into contact with. Today I have found happiness in the form of hope. If that makes me a soft, delusional person than I am fine with that. This soft, delusional person has helped countless people get off of drugs, encouraged those who were living criminal lifestyles to get their GEDs and go to college by sharing what I have now with them.

Hi my name is David and I am a grateful believer in Jesus Christ who has struggled in the past from the effects of being sexually, emotionally and physically abused as a youth, depression, anxiety, isolation, low self-esteem as well as addictions to drugs, alcohol, sex, violence, criminality, power and food. I have found a Better Life in Recovery and a better life through Christ and so can you.

Holman Quicksource Guide to Christian Apologetics Chapter 5: Which God Exists?

I often hear people say this, "Basically, all religions are the same" and "Isn't it possible you are all right?" First, all religions are not the same. We will cover that in the rest of the blog today, as that is what this chapter is about. Secondly, if I play a game of golf with you and you say that scored a 78 and I say I scored an 80 on the course, are we both right? That would be impossible. We may not be that far apart in our beliefs about what I scored, but that closeness does not make us both right. Either I am right, you are right or we are both wrong. Those are the only options we have to chose from!

As we have seen, the cosmological and design arguments show that "God is necessary, powerful, transcendent, non-contingent, intelligent and personal. The moral argument shows that God has a moral will, a purpose for how we are to live, that he is engaged in the world and that the motives and actions of human beings matter to Him. Lastly, God is unique. If God as described above does exist, then there is nothing outside of Himself that He did not create; no other God could exist."

So now we are left with a glass slipper to fill. We have the requirements, and if a religious view does not fit one of these requirements than it gets cast out.

Atheism

Atheism posits that God does not exist. All that exists is the physical universe. The problem here is that there are no good explanations for how the appearance of design in the universe exists or how/why said universe came into existence to begin with. Atheism also lacks a reason for why morality exists. There is only one religion that really has aspects of atheism in it, and that is Buddhism, where God is really irrelevant. The hardest concept to prove in atheism is that God does not exist. To know something does not exist requires exhaustive and complete knowledge of everything that exists. To get around this some atheists say that if God were to exist we could know nothing about Him. This again, knowing for certainty that we could not know anything about Him, requires that someone know without certainty that there might exist an unknowable thing.

Agnosticism

Agnostic simply means lacking/having no knowledge. This view basically states that an individual does not currently have the knowledge to know whether or not a God exists or they have some knowledge but not enough to actually make a decision one way or another. I was an agnostic for most of my life, and my premise was that you could not empirically prove or disprove the existence of a God to me so therefore I would not commit either way.

Pantheism

In Pantheism, there are no opposites. Things either exist or they do not exist. That translates to there being no good or evil, no right or wrong and no true or false. There is no difference between malevolence and benevolence. Reason and logic don't exist, because they too deal with things that are either true or false. Pantheism also believes the universe to be eternal and unchanging, without an end or a beginning. That requires actual infinites, which are false based on the Kalam cosmological argument we looked at in Chapter 2.

Pantheism says when we die, we are all taken back into the impersonal whole. Everyone shares the same fate, Adolph Hitler and Mother Teresa. Further, we are all part of God, and God is unchanging. Yet if we realize we are part of God, is that not a change? To answer this, pantheism states that we cannot know because logic and reason don't exist. Of course, that could not be known without the use of logic and reason so it refutes itself.

Panentheism

Panentheism sees God as both distinct from and dependent on the world at the same time. God comes from the world and the world comes from God. It says that the universe/God has always existed will always exist, but it is always changing. If it is always changing, then moral values are also changing or they can change. There are  no grounds for morality given by Panentheism. If morals change, then there is no reason to have moral behavior because the laws could change and make the moral behavior immoral. Bottom line, panentheism does not account for the reality found in the design, moral and cosmological arguments.

Finite Godism

Finite Godism sees God as loving, personal and good but says that since evil exists, God must not be able to control or destroy it. With that being seen as true, God cannot be all-powerful. It further looks at the imperfections in the universe and reasons that God must be imperfect. God therefore is finite so we do not know where God comes from or what the source of morality is. And if God is the source of morality then morals are limited because God is limited.

Polytheism

Polytheism is the view that there are more than one god. Said gods either came from nature or where at one time men and women who became gods. Gods are thus finite and contingent. Polytheism states that the universe has always existed. In the case of Mormonism, there has to be infinites since gods came from gods that came from previous gods. In polytheism there is no accounting for the creation of the universe. All things come from the  universe, even Gods. Gods don't exist apart from the universe, and the beings that do exist all have limited power which causes polytheism to not meet all the requirements.

Deism

Deism basically asserts that God cannot be known through religion because the only way to know God is through nature and reason. Because we can only know God through nature and reason there is no miracles. The only way God has revealed Himself is through what He has created. Because there are no miracles we are missing the creation of the world, which was a miraculous act. If the world was able to exist without God, God would not be all-powerful since He could not step it, He would not be necessary and He would have no moral authority since there could be no  purpose for what He didn't create.

Monotheism

  Monotheism sees God as the creator and sustainor of all things. He interacts with creation numerous ways and reveals Himself to us through reason, nature, morality, etc. Thus, monotheism fulfills every part of the requirements stated at the top.This in turn would reduce our search to three religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

All three of these religions believe in the same God. Islam says the Old Testament is now corrupted. Christianity sees the promises of the Old Tesament fulfilled in Jesus. Judaism says that both of these stances are false. All 3 also believe Jesus existed. Judaism sees Him as a pretender, claiming to be the Messiah. Islam believes Him to be a great prophet, and  the gospels are corrupted accounts. Christians believe Christ to be the Messiah.

To begin seeing which of these claims is the correct one, we need to see whether or not the New Testament is trustworthy and accurate. If the New Testament is not reliable, then we can narrow down the choices to Judaism and Islam. If it is reliable, then we can discount Islam and narrow it down to Christianity and Judaism. From there we can look at the Old Testament and its veracity. If it is trustworthy, then we look at what it says about Jesus and see whether we embrace Christianity or Judaism.  In chapter 6 we will begin to investigate the New Testament.

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 9: Sibling Rivalry and Infanticide

Ther are many reasons that someone point of view can self-destruct. So far, you have covered two of them: Formal suicide and Practical Suicide. Today we will talk about two more self-defeating views: Sibling Rivalry and Infanticide. When someone has two objections that conflict, you have the Sibling Rivalry. If, on the other hand, someone's view is built upon a previous concept that disqualifies their view, then you have Infanticide.

In conversation sometimes, you will hear something that sounds strange. You will hear objections used by the same person that are not consistent with each other. Since they cannot both be valid, you only have to do half the work. A reasonable person will concede on at least one of their arguments, when they are pointed out to them. Sometimes they will silence both of their arguments when they are shown to be in conflict.

An example of Sibling Rivalry would be someone who looks at the world today and is angered. They read about someone who has abused children or a dictator killing innocent people and say, "A good, loving God would never let this happen." Yet when those same people hear that some will be judged by God say, "A good, loving God would never send anyone to hell." By their very arguments, if God does not act against evil, He cannot be good and loving. Yet when he does act to punish sin, his goodness and love are put into question.

Sibling Rivalry is also the issue moral relativists run into when objecting to evil. A relativist will argue that we all have our own morality. Right and wrong are the business of the individual, who are we to judge. Therefore, they cannot really define evil. Evil only means that something is wrong for them to do. If you label something as evil, that means that it is not the way it is supposed to be. Unless things are meant to be different, this is a senseless word. If the world is unjust, than there must be a higher justice.

What the moral relativist is saying is, "If God were really good and loving, He would only allow things that I like and wouldn't allow things I find displeasing." Gregory says, "The belief that objective good and evil do not exist (relativism) is i conflict (rivalry) with a rejection of God based on the existence of objective evil."
Infanticide is harder to understand. Imagine a father ending a letter with; "Son, if you didn't get this letter, please let me know, and I'll send you another. I made a copy." This is illogical because the son would have to receive the letter if he knew to ask for a copy, but if he got the letter he would not need the copy. There is a dependency here that is the very heart of Infanticide. Another example is saying "vocal chords do not exist." That statement in and of itself is not contradictory internally, but it requires vocal chords to speak the statement. So the parent concept (vocal chords) invalidates the child (claim there is no vocal chords).

The best example of Infanticide is when objectivists argue that God cannot exist because of evil. The atheist must first answer the question, "What do you mean by evil?" They will probably give examples: rape, murder, racism, child abuse. Those are good answers, but they miss the point. Where does their concept of evil come from. Before you can give examples of evil, you must know what evil is.

So, how do you know the difference between good and bad? Let's look at bowling. In bowling, good and bad can be measured by pin count. A 300 is supremely good, and rolling all gutter balls is supremely bad. Even in sports that you cannot be perfect in, such as golf, we still keep score. When we use the word evil we have a moral scoring system that we depend on. Evil means that when put on the goodness scale, we are on the low end. C.S. Lewis saw this same problem:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call something crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.

This is the problem atheists will run into. Where have they gotten their concept of good that allows them to label something as evil? How can there be a moral scoring system if morals are nothing more than a product of chance. In fact, why obey them at all if that is the case. Who is it that establishes how things are supposed to be? In the movie The Quarrel, Rabbi Hersh says:

If there's nothing in the universe that's higher than human beings, then what's morality? Well, it's a matter of opinion. I like milk; you like meat. Hitler likes to kill people; I like to save them. Who's to say which is better? Do you begin to see the horror of this? If there's no master of the universe, then who's to say that Hitler did anything wrong? If there is no God, then the people that murdered your wife and children did nothing wrong.

So why do we need a God? What purpose does God serve in the argument about morals and morality? A morally perfect God is the only plausible standard for a moral scoring system that contains at the bottom end evil. If God's existence makes evil intelligible, then evil cannot be evidence against God. In fact, it is great evidence for God. So morals actually prove that God exists!

When it comes to morals, sometimes people think that atheists can't be moral. That is very untrue. They can be very moral, but they generally canot make sense of morality without God. Just because you can't explain gravity does not mean it does not work. The question for them is what grounds morality? Atheism creates a physicalist universe and morality is a nonphysical thing.

I would get into scientism as he does and how it commits suicide now, but that will take an entire blog. Look for a blog entitled Scientism Self-Destructs coming in the next week or so. See you next time when we look at Chapter 10!

The Reason Rally: Atheists, Agnostics and Secularists Oh My

I just felt that with the upcoming gathering called the Reason Rally I should put in my .02 worth. After all, they are having it on my birthday. It is amazing that we both have chosen the 24th as the day to have a celebratory gathering. There will be much talking, laughing and music on my birthday. In that the two events will be very similar. That is where the similarities will probably end. We will both be celebrating on the same day, but for a very different reason.

I am having a gathering to celebrate something that I have knowledge of. I know for a fact that the day I exited my mother's womb and took my first breath of fresh air was on March 24th. I have knowledge of what happened. There is no uncertainty or disbelief in my birth or the date that it happened, therefore the gathering of like-minded individuals to celebrate my creation.

The Reason Rally, on the other hand, is gathering to celebrate several things. If atheist, then by definition they are rallying around lack of belief that there is a God. If agnostic, they are gathering to celebrate lacking the knowledge to prove (or disprove) something exists. If secularist they believe that public education and politics should be without religious influence.

I can actually see the gathering of secularists based on the definition. They have an agenda. I cannot for the life of me understand the gathering of atheists and agnostics, and I was for 25 years of my life an agnostic. I would get together with fellow atheists and agnostics to make ourselves feel intellectually superior and to point out the evils of Christians, but not to celebrate all the good that we did. We never really rallied around our beliefs, but instead used our time together to belittle those of "faith."

Hopefully that's not the reason for Reason Rally. According to their site, it will not be. In fact, on the about page the question is raised, "Are we just going to use this opportunity to trash religion?" With the answer given being, "No. This will be a positive experience, focusing on all non-theists have achieved in the past several years."  I wish that were the truth, but I have trouble believing that for several reasons.

For starters, look at the list of speakers they are featuring. Among those speaking are Bill Maher, Paul Provenza  and Richard Dawkins. I dare say that they have hate for Christians. That would be based on the vulgarities they use as well as the names they call Christians. How can you have a positive experience focusing on all that non-theists achieve when you have people featured who use their bully pulpit to call Christians idiots and worse?

Secondly, how is one of your sponsors formally inviting Westboro Baptist Church to the Rally fit in to your expressed agenda? You are claiming that you want to have fun and talk about what non-theists have achieved. Those are mutually exclusive goals. That is sensationalism and media seeking at it's very worst.

Imagine my brother in the Army died in combat. I let everyone know the funeral is a celebration of his life and we want to recognize his service to country. Later that day I send an invitation to WBC asking them to join us in showing our respect to the deceased. It would appear that the expressed purpose in inviting everyone to the funeral was dishonest based on the invitation extended to WBC. Just like the expressed reason for the Reason Rally is sullied with the invite to WBC.

I feel this was done so that the Rally can film two segments. First, here are the non-theists. See how we are polite and speak nicely to each other. We are kind, loving people. Now look at the Christians, how they shout hate speech and wish us ill. We are so maligned by Christianity. Poor us, we are so mistreated and the Christians are so mean.

That is sad! Pointing to WBC and saying that is how Christians are is like me pointing at Mao Zedong, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Benito Mussolini  or Jeffrey Dahmer and saying that is how non-theists are. It would be completely unfair of me to make that blanket accusation. Hope to see those who claim to have reason actually show it at the rally and in the subsequent discussions that they have after it is over.

I truly hope that the Rally helps non-theists figure out ways to improve living conditions around the world. I hope that they discuss all of the humanitarian efforts that they are involved in, and how they can come together for relief efforts and to provide services and basic needs after natural disasters and in areas of high poverty. I would have loved to see tents and semi-trailers from non-theist instituations manned by non-theist volunteers giving out supplies when I was giving psychological first aid in Joplin, but I did not.

Hopefully, that is what Reason Rally is about: helping those less fortunate, struggling with physical and mental illnesses, funding/staffing humanitarian efforts and showing love for their fellow man. Unfortunately, based on the speakers that are there and  the invitation to WBC that was made I am led to believe that they have a completely different agenda.

The Art of Intelligently Speaking or Why We Fight so Often

I feel that far too often the discussions people have with each other suffer because they are done poorly. The more strongly we feel or passionate we are about the subject, the more the discussion is affected by two problems. I know that I am at fault when it comes to this, too. I am not as bad as I used to be, because I have become aware of the problem and I am trying to stop doing them. Wonder what they are? We do not listen and respond well! What do I mean by this? Let us look at this in the realm of what we believe in.

Let's assume we are talking to someone that has a completely different belief than we do. We will be more than willing to share our view point, but when it comes to the other person sharing we will check out. We will ignore what they are saying. Our eyes glaze over, and it becomes apparent that we are unwilling to listen to them but demand that they hear us. That is simply rude and highly condescending behavior. "My view is important, yours.......not so much," we are seen as saying.

What I am learning is that in order to have an informed discussion and not sound like an idiot, I need to know both sides. How can I defend my position if I do not know theirs? How can I expect you to respect me when I do not show you the same accord. Like my Big Book says, we reap what we sow. I should hear you out if I expect you to hear me out. I should hear you out even if I expect you not to listen to me. Furthermore, I should never stoop to the level of someone who is treating me rudely.

Another way that we show we are not listening is by interrupting the other speaker. I will get angry if they attempted to interrupt me while I am speaking. Yet let them speak, and before 5 words are out of their mouth I am already talking over them. This is disrespectful and shows a lack regard for other people. Some times it appears that we are playing a form of verbal double-dutch, just waiting for the first open spot to jump in to. That is not conducive to a discussion.

In the book "Chicken Soup for the Soul" they talk about breathing. I have found that to be a good practice. When someone finishes speaking, I take a deep breath before I talk. This does a couple of things. One, it allows the person speaking to continue speaking if they were not done i.e. they were taking a breath or collecting their own thoughts. Two, it allows me to fully process all of what they just said and then speak a coherent thought instead of jumping right in and showing our disrespect. Third, it gives them the impression that I was listening to what they were saying, which makes them more likely to listen to me.

Next we have those who get angry, cuss or call the other person an idiot. This may not be the case, but it makes it appear that you are either fearful or uninformed about your own belief system. We will have someone call our belief into question and instantly we react poorly. I have seen people professing Christianity cussing at an Atheist. That proves the Atheist's point. We tend to get angry when we either are unsure of our own belief system, we cannot defend it well enough to the person we are discussing it with or we lack compassion. I often have conversations with people who do not understand what I am saying or how I am explaining things. That is not something to belittle someone over. Those who do are cruel and pretentious.

In order to not get angry I have had to do several things. First, I have had to learn more about my belief system. Then I had to learn more about others belief systems and their theories on creation, how we are here and why we are here. I also had to remember that I could not expect someone to listen to me or respect me if I was yelling at them or belittling them. I was disrespecting myself, them and Christ by the way I was talking to them. 


I had a philosophy professor who defined intelligence as the ability to know both sides equally. The more I know about other beliefs, the more firmly I believe in my own belief. That is where apologetics comes into play. It allows me to know not only my side but also the other side. How can I possibly hope to not only explain myself well, but possibly convert someone else if I have no clue about their beliefs. So in closing I remind you to do a couple of things. 

1. Become an Apologist and study Christianity as well as the belief systems of others
2. Hear others out (Listen when they speak)
3. Don't forget to breathe 
4. Don't take it personally
5. Maintain proper decorum (don't yell, cuss, name call or belittle the others beliefs)

Why Apologetics is Important pt 1

This is the message I got the other day from one of my friends from high school:

    "we've been friends for years...and I know you already posted a blog about going from educated atheist to converted christian..but I can't seem to make sense of the transition. I would love an opportunity to sit down and talk to you about it, as I feel I might be searching, as we all are. I'm super proud of you and ecstatic for your new found happiness. Let me know if we can meet within your busy schedule. Thanks"


I want to let you know why I feel that apologetics is of vital importance in every Christians life. For starters, believing in something without looking into it is irrational at best, and closer to lunacy. To all of those who tell you, "All you need is faith" I take issue with. They don't truly understand what faith is. Faith is defined as something that you have complete confidence in. I cannot blindly have complete confidence in anything. Therefore we research things and then we think on them. Only then can we begin to intelligently share with others what we know to be true.

We need to be able to intelligently articulate why we believe what we believe. There are three major reasons for this. One of those reasons it to make our own faith stronger. Another reason it is of importance is that we can strengthen the faith of fellow believers by giving them answers to their questions. We can reassure someone who is having doubts about their faith by giving them the answers they are searching for. How awesome to be able to help those who are having doubts or are just coming to believe in Christ.

Last but not least, the final reason is so that we can have intelligent discussions with nonbelievers. This is the reason that I will talk about today for it is very important. It can be the difference between someone converting to Christianity and someone continuing to be an atheist or agnostic. That is a big deal, for we are to bring people to Christ. We are to witness to the world around us. We need to do this out of compassion and kindness, or we will not be heard. That can only come from having a firm foundation and understanding of what we believe and why we believe it.

Have you ever seen the person, whether Christian or atheist, who gets angry when someone does not believe in what they believe in. They resort to name calling, shouting, even cursing at the person to get their point across. "How can you be such an idiot. You are wrong," and then they storm off. That is what happens when we do not have knowledge and a firm foundation to speak from, we get mad. That foundation allows us to be informed and relevant.

It is the difference between sharing your personal knowledge and research with someone instead of simply hitting them over the head with the Bible. I should know, that method was tried on me a time or two to no avail. "But it says so right here in the Bible," my roommate would yell at me. If they do not believe in God, they will definitely not believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God. If they do not believe that the Bible is an inspired work, they will believe that the Bible is a work of fiction. For some reason, using a book that people believe is a work of fiction to prove your point is insufficient to intelligent people.

Also apologetics can simply be the difference between telling someone that this is what your pastor says, so it is true. Man is fallible, so he can and will be wrong. Even your pastor can and will be wrong on occasion. That means we should not take everything he says at face value. We need to research so that we ourselves know. That is for us, for discussion with others this is even more of an issue. Using a man who teaches something that the person you are talking to does not even believe in will never make your point valid.

So, where do we go from here? I am going to use what brought me to Christianity as the speaking points when I meet with my friend. I will discuss those points briefly in my next post.

I Have an Enquiring Mind, I Want to Know

I recently had a conversation that was very short with an atheist. He asked why I was a theist, and I told him that after several decades of being agnostic I had realized that it would take me too much faith to be an atheist. I only had enough faith to be a Christian.

He said, "Nobody knows enough to be a theist. Atheism is default. It makes no claim to knowledge, only disbelief."

I could concede that point. If it makes no claim, that is one thing. But that was simply not enough for me. I had a thirst that had to be quenched. I had a lifestyle that I wanted to find a way out of and could not. What was the answer?

I told him that as an agnostic (and here is why the National Enquirer slogan kicked into my head) I wanted to know. I actually felt compelled to know, and that was where we were different. He said that he did not need to know how we got here to be happy. Fair enough, but I did. I needed to know how we got here. Due to that, I had to have an answer to that question, "How are we here!"

When I looked at science, there were multiple leaps of faith. For one, we had to have a Big Bang. We had to have an explosion that created structure and order? That has never been done. I have never seen an explosion build a perfectly functioning house. Therefore I could not believe in an explosion that created a much more complex universe.

Now we have to believe that something caused the Big Bang. What created the mechanism that created the Big Bang?  I think they call it the uncaused cause? Even that name was just confusing, uncaused cause. Here we have another unknown. It too calls for a lot of faith in something never observed.

The Big Bang also goes against the first law of thermodynamics, which states that you cannot create or destroy matter. Yet to have occurred, the Big Bang created something (the universe) from nothing.
Then I had to believe that non-living matter created living matter. That has never been recreated in controlled environments, let alone on it's own. So now we also have to add the spontaneous generation of living matter from nonliving matter. To believe this takes faith.

Next we have macroevolution. That is the changing of one species to another. Think two cats mate and produce a dog. That has also never been done. We have microevolution which happens all of the time. That is adaptation, and it is seen. Micro I could believe, macro took faith.

I will end this with irreducible complexity. We have discovered "micromachines" in the human body that are irreducibly complex. This means that they need all of their parts to function, and if even one part is taken from them then they no longer work. We have to believe either that they spontaneously generated or that they where kept by a species when it had no function. Once again, I need faith in order to believe this.

I could go on and on about the things I need to have faith in, but I will not. There is the complexity of a cell, the coding of DNA much more complex than the best man made computer, the law of entrophy, etc. I will suffice in saying that I did not have enough faith to believe in evolution and the Big Bang.

For me to have faith in Christianity all that I had to believe in was an eternal God. That is all! I only need have faith in one thing and all other things are possible based on my belief in Him. If He is eternal, all powerful and all knowing than that answers every question. How are we here, why are we are, what happens after we die? Those are all answered through belief in Him.

Combine that with what I do know. I know that I spent 23 years in addiction, trying everything: rehabs, psychiatrists, psychologists, counselors, 12 step programs, medication, probation, house arrest, prison, overdosing and being brought back to life and even suicide to try to quit. Nothing worked. I tried prayer one night and I have not used since. It has been almost 3 years now, and I have not had a relapse. That is all of the proof that I need!!

So What if I Believe God Exists

I have been following several blogs as well as the comments that they elicit recently. I must admit that the comments and even the blogs are at times a little beyond my comprehension, but I guess that is okay. I have tried to follow them to the best of my ability. I have ordered several things to read to increase my knowledge of the various arguments. There are philosophy professors, quantum physicists and a lot of other highly educated people who are having these day long dialogues on these blogs, and I want to understand a little better. I for one wonder how they can have so much time, because I see them on multiple blogs and they post all day and night. Some of the comments are questions or dialogue, and that is informative and interesting to read. Other comments are malicious, and that I have never understood.

For example, I am a Chicago Cubs fan. I am occasionally on Cubs blogs and Cubs sites. I want to stay informed about the team that I follow. I am often astounded at the number of Cardinal fans who comment about how much the Cubs suck and how stupid their fans are. I see the exact thing on the blogs I have been reading recently on evolution, creationism, and the cosmological argument. Someone who believes differently comes onto one of these blogs just to slam the people who believe differently. Do not get me wrong, there are some good discussions in the comments section. But........there are also those who just want to hop on the blog and tell everyone how much smarter than them they are because they hold different views and how stupid they must be because of what they believe in. How is that helpful?

I do not need petty people to confuse me more. I get confused enough by all the talk about the four different types of causes and how they are metaphysically proven. I am lost how we get from "since things appear to come out of nothing based on the "fact" that the model used in quantum physics field cannot explain it, then they come from nothing" and how that is even a valid argument. I don't know, so it must be from nothing???

I see that there is a lot of good in using science, logic and philosophy to explain things, because there are those who need that explanation. My issue is with using the same arguments over and over again on one side, and on using the lack of knowledge argument on the other side. Just because your model cannot explain it, then it must not exist or can't have a cause? That is like saying that since I cannot explain the illusion, the magician must have made the girl appear out of thin air intact after he apparently sawed her in half. I do not know how he did it, so it must be magic or in this case ex nihilo........right? And everyone accuses everyone of using straw man arguments, or tautology, etc. etc. ad nauseum.

Secondly, why is it that all I hear are people who are explaining other's research or other's experiences for why they believe how they do? If I am to truly believe a certain way and claim to be educated, than I must have first-hand knowledge or experience in order to have that belief. Is it a proven fact if I have never first hand seen the proof? If I believed everything in writing, then the National Enquirer has totally proven that God does not exist and in another issue that the Garden of Eden have been found. I did not read about it, but I saw it on the cover as I was in the line at Wal-Mart. Call me Thomas, but I need proof.

If I am a scientist, than I must have first-hand experience myself. It is called the scientific method, and it consists of knowing through your own experimentation using an open mind. Instead many people rest on the laurels of others, not even their own, to make their point. Furthermore, the open mind has been closed for so long that there are cobwebs growing. My question to all of you is simple, How do YOU know? How have you been impacted, or what experiments have you done, that give validity to your argument? Here are three Dilbert comics that comically address my point:





Here is my question to all of you - So because your model does not contain God then you discount him no matter the experiences of others? What are you doing to make the world a better place? What are you doing to truly help others? What time are you donating, what money, what emotion do you give to help those in need? How has being agnostic or atheist made your life any better, and why are you so sure that you are right? I will not talk about why I believe there is a God now after being agnostic for two plus decades because I have already done that at: http://spiritualspackle.blogspot.com/2011/07/jonah-and-big-fish.html. What I will do is ask several more questions.

For starters, so what if I believe in God? How does that hurt you or anyone else? How does anyone who truly believes in Christ and tries to be Christ-like hurt anyone? Not the fundamentalists that bastardize the Word, but those who truly follow the teachings of Christ. You can come on here and attack this blog if you want, but I really only want these questions answered:

1. Instead of being self-righteous and trying to belittle those that you feel smarter and better off than, what are you doing to truly help those in need?

2. When was the last time that you heard about a group of atheists opening up houses for children to get them out of the sex slave trade, educate them, then allow them to become advocates against the trade and go back to their villages to combat it happening to others?

3. When was the last time that you heard of a bunch of agnostics gathering together to go and dig wells and teach irrigation and conservation to African tribes?

4. When have you heard of multiple groups of non-believers going into prisons and working to reform inmates and teach them better ways to live their lives upon their release?

5. How many atheist and agnostic organizations have homeless shelters and transitional homes for battered and abused women that they support by volunteering their time and money?

6. How many atheist and agnostic organizations have support teams on call 24-7 to help those in crisis/disaster situations (think tornadoes, monsoons and floods) all over the world?

7. When was the last time that you thought of someone other than yourself, your friends or your family?

8. When was the last time that you did something that made you uncomfortable financially for the good of people who you do not even know, but that needed the help?

9. How many hours each week do you spend helping those who are in need by donating your time to give them the basic needs of life: food, water, shelter, etc.? Pretty easy to write a check, so I am asking about donating your free time!

So I guess in ending this blog, all I want to say is that I am trying to read more about why people who hold other beliefs than mine believe as they do. I may even go on sites and blogs and ask questions as I read and the need arises. The truth is, no matter what, based on my own personal experiences I will never not believe in Christ. That said, I promise I will never go bash others for what they believe. If you want to be agnostic or atheist, that is your choice. Why do you have to belittle those that do not believe as you do? Yeah, pick on the evil Christians who are ignorant enough to be compassionate, genuine and empathetic. How dare they be ignorant enough to care about people other than themselves. Finally, I ask you to think of others out there who are in need.

I think that is one of the safeties of being a non-believer! You do not have to think outside of your personal circle and give to those in need on a regular basis. You might write a check out of your abundance to make yourself feel better, or to brag about later, or register for some drawing/free food, or so that others see you. The real question is when do you go without because of the tragedies that are occurring elsewhere? When do you think about the welfare of others? I guess that you do not have to worry about how you act in this life, because this life is all that there is for you.

Wow, that has to be depressing. Come to think of it, maybe I do see why you spend all that time ridiculing others. They have hope in something more, and this mundane existence is all that you will ever know. I would be hypercritical too, I guess. After all, misery loves company. If you want to have some hope, just shoot me an email or leave a comment on this blog and we can talk about why this life cannot be all that there is and how I have seen miracles occur. I was once living a miserable existence, and since Christ found me my life has been immeasurably better. Yours can be too!

Another Discussion with an Evolutionist pt. 1

ME: Had a discussion with an atheist on youtube, and this is how it went:http://spiritualspackle.blogsp​ot.com/2011/07/atheismwhy-so-s​erious.html

HE: First, I'd like to see the video where this conversation happened. Second, and I don't mean to say this harshly, but you are clearly uneducated about how science works (and that extends to evolutionary theory).

ME:  

It was not in a video, it was comments to a video. I have never live debated evolution versus creation. I have discussions, but my forte is motivational and inspirational speech. The kind that let's drug addicts and criminals step into new ways of life through the power of the Holy Spirit. I know that power, and how a life of addiction and crime can be instantly reversed through faith. 

 

HE: 1) Chance is a part of evolution, but only in the form of mutations. You ignore natural selection, which is the exact opposite of chance. Mutations change genes and create variety. These changes are fed into the mechanism of natural selection, and those that are successful (or even neutral) get passed on, whereas those that are detrimental are weeded out and removed.

2) With an understanding of evolutionary processes I think it's easy to see how a small, simple brain can evolve into a larger, more complex one. I think you're trying to make some irreducible complexity argument, but ignoring the known and understood evolutionary history of life on earth. There's a reason why we use mice to study the human brain. It's because we share a common ancestor and most of the working parts are the same (albeit on a different scale). It's why biologists, anthropologists, and primatologists study apes and monkeys to learn about their behavior and social interactions to help figure out what makes us tick. 

‎3) The watch argument fails on several levels. First, the watch is not living. That's all there is to it. You cannot try to apply biological processes to inanimate objects. Second, it fails a reduction test. If a complex watch required an intelligence to make, then whatever made the watch must also be complex. So, what made the maker of the watch?

ME: ‎1) Natural selection is tautology at its finest. Some dwindle and die out while others multiply because some multiply while others dwindle and die out. When have we ever been able to breed and form a whole new species, though? And that would be on purpose, yet you believe that natural selection could do that? There is a limit due to the DNA barrier that insures only so much change can occur. How did natural selection create life out of non-living material? When have we ever created or observed living matter from nonliving matter? When have we ever seen offspring from the animal kingdom create new species? Changes within species happen all of the time, that is observable. 

2) Since when is there a known and understood evolutionary process? It has never been observed. I fall back to my last answer. Since when has a rabbit been observed to become a mountain lion? A rose turning another color or a variation in brain sizes is simply that, a variation in the species. Evolutionary theory, on the other hand, teaches that those changes will cross from one species to another and produce new and different species. Since it has never been observed, an evolutionist must rest on his belief that it is true.

3) In the watchmaker analogy, you say that a reduction test states that it takes something complex in order to make something complex, yet you believe in evolution? Where is the reduction test for an atheist when it comes to the universe, let alone mankind? Or is neither man or the universe complex? If they are complex and based on your reduction test they had to have a creator, who was that creator of the universe and of man?

HE: In most cases, speciation over time can be represented by a gradient. I hate using analogies, but here goes: If you look at a rainbow, where does red stop and yellow begin? By your argument, you would say there is only red and only yellow...there is no orange, and that is nonsensical. Orange clearly exists, we can see it with our eyes. We can see these gradients not only in the fossil record, but with living organisms. We can measure these gradients through measurements, statistics, and DNA. Your fixation and insistence that new species suddenly appear shows your limited knowledge and/or understanding. Bluntly, you're doing yourself (and your readers) a disservice by making an argument against a topic you don't have a solid grasp on. That, and your toolkit of arguments are old-hat and have been debunked and explained-away by many people who are a lot more eloquent than I, and I recommend you do some Googling. Generally speaking, your arguments will work on people who are less-educated than you, but will be found as straw-men to anyone who has greater understanding. If you find people getting angry or frustrated with you, it's probably because you are re-hashing these old anti-evolution arguments. Some just handle it better than others. I personally love educating people and would be happy to provide you with some book recommendations and other reading if you would like.

And somewhat of a thought exercise, how would you explain ring species? http://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/Ring_species an example: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/ev​olution/library/05/2/l_052​_05.html

ME: The amazing thing is that if you look at the strata you will find that species suddenly exist. Why has the coelacanth, once thought to been a missing link for fish becoming amphibians that lived 380 million years ago based on fossil records, now been found still living off the coast of Indonesia. Why has it not evolved in 380 million years! Or is 380 million years not gradual enough for change. We have never truly evolved. At our simplest, we are still made up of DNA, which is both sophisticated and complex. How did that evolve?

Secondly, microevolution does occur, but what we need to see is macroevolution for evolution to have occurred. If we all came from one set of parents, then how are we all so different? That is microevolution, or adaptation. Macroevolution is one cell evolving to man over time. That is not based on the scientific method at all. Scientific method involves:

Define a question
Gather information and resources (observe)
Form an explanatory hypothesis
Perform an experiment and collect data, testing the hypothesis
Analyze the data
Interpret the data and draw conclusions that serve as a starting point for new hypothesis
Publish results
Retest (frequently done by other scientists)

Since evolution has yet to be duplicated no matter how hard evolutionists have tried, there is no true scientific method at use. It is based on untestable science. Do evolutionists come to their conclusions with an open mind? No, so instead they make proclamations based on faith and belief!

HE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/E._coli_long-term_evolu​tion_experiment

ME: That is a great argument for adaptation, not evolution. Is it still E. coli? 50,000 generations in and it has yet to become a completely different organism. I said that micro does occur, this is an experiment that proves that. Where is macro change in this experiment?

‎"However, although this mutation increased fitness under these conditions, it also increased the bacteria's sensitivity to osmotic stress and decreased their ability to survive long periods in stationary phase cultures, so the phenotype of this adaptation depends on the environment of the cells."

So we can cause change in a controlled, scientific environment.....survival of the fittest is not shown here. The bacteria has become more sensitive to stress as well as developed a decreased ability to survive! Thanks for backing my point up.

HE: Coelocanths were once a wide-spread and highly-varied group of fish. The group Coelocanth is a taxonomic Order (Order->Family->Genus->Spe​cies) Last I heard, there have been three different Coelocanth species discovered in the past century.

"adaptation" is evolution :/

Check this out, a pretty big list of observed speciation: http://www.scienceforums.n​et/topic/13511-observed-sp​eciation/

ME: Adaptation is microevolution. Adaptation is not change from one species to another. If corn adapts to where it lives, does that make it no longer corn? Of course not. It is genetic variety, or genetic drift. How about a dog, when it breeds over and over again to create different breeds, does it change species? A hound and a labrador and a beagle are still dogs.

HE: Drosophila paulistorum and Brassica (http://en.wikipedia.org/wi​ki/Brassica) are the classical examples of observed speciation, as are ring species.

Sorry about link bombs, haha. Here's another:http://evolutionwiki.org/w​iki/Observed_speciation

ME: http://creation.com/refuti​ng-evolution-2-chapter-4-a​rgument-natural-selection-​leads-to-speciation:

"The biblical creation/Fall/Flood/migrat​ion model would also predict rapid formation of new varieties and even species. This is because all the modern varieties of land vertebrates must have descended from comparatively few animals that disembarked from the ark only around 4,500 years ago. In contrast, Darwin thought that this process would normally take eons. It turns out that the very evidence claimed by evolutionists to support their theory supports the biblical model.

Biologists have identified several instances of rapid adaptation, including guppies on Trinidad, lizards in the Bahamas, daisies on the islands of British Columbia, and house mice on Madeira.6 Another good example is a new ‘species’ of mosquito that can’t interbreed with the parent population, arising in the London Underground train system (the ‘Tube’) in only 100 years. The rapid change has ‘astonished’ evolutionists, but should delight creationists.7 Scientific American admits as much.

These days even most creationists acknowledge that microevolution has been upheld by tests in the laboratory (as in studies of cells, plants and fruit flies) and in the field (as in Grant’s studies of evolving beak shapes among Galápagos finches)

Again, do these profound changes increase information? No populations are seen losing information, and adapting within the constraints of the information they already have. In contrast, goo-to-you evolution requires something quite different—the progressive addition of massive amounts of genetic information that is novel not only to that population, but to the entire biosphere."

HE: The creationist "information" argument makes my head explode. It's just another argument built upon not understanding what evolution is. The argument is only really ever discussed between Creationists. DNA is not information, it is a molecule with chemical properties that follow the laws of chemistry and physics. If you hear a biologist use the word 'information' in reference to DNA, it is being used as an easy way to describe what's contained in it. It's not being treated as a book. Sometimes scientific terminologies are misunderstood and used improperly, and it causes conflict. Think about the colloquial use of the word 'theory' vs what scientists mean it to be.

Gene and/or chromosomal duplication kinda nullifies the ID "information" argument, as well.

 

As for science, other than a meager education with Chemistry and Biology that I got at MSU, you are probably correct. Unfortunately, I did not go to a top tier college. I only have 3 degrees, and none of them are terminal degrees.

I have however read the presumptions that are made in evolutionary theory, like a bird came from a reptile. Yet how did 100 million minute hooks evolve and from where? Furthermore, how can you mathematically explain our brain with 100 billion neurons. If each neuron were to be placed end to end the line would be 600 miles wide, yet they all fit inside of our head. Or the 1 quadrillion synapses (that is a 1 followed by 15 zeros) or 60,000 miles of arteries, veins and capillaries in our body.

Sorry, I just cannot leave that to chance. A watch is so much less complex than we are, but when you find one on the ground do you wonder who made it or do you wonder what it evolved from?

Youtube Atheist.........Why So Serious?

I watched a video on youtube that stated it had questions for Christians. I figured that I would watch the video. The video ended by saying that God is 100% imaginary and stated that people who believe in imaginary people are delusional. It stated that we live with fantasies and that relying on faith was a childish thing to do. People of faith needed to grow up and think rationally. After it was over I left a comment.

The comment was as follows, "I would say that due to the breaking of laws of physics and thermodynamics as well as the statistical "miracles" that had to occur in order for the Big Bang to be successful that this route is also delusional. So how are we here? That is the question that you have to answer? I would argue that both Christians and scientific answers rely on faith. The only difference is that the Christian will truthfully tell you that faith is part of their answer. There are proofs, but faith is needed."

I immediately got a reply, "You would say that, you expletive expletive." I asked why the profanity, and the reply was, "It's how I talk to retards, morons, cretins, idiots, imbeciles, deluded losers and mental spastics."

By this time, I was of course impressed by the intellect of my speaker, so I replied in kind, "Oh, so it was self-directed. At first I thought that it was directed at me, but I am the one talking intelligently. Or is vulgarity what passes for intelligence with you?"

To which he retorted, " It's obviously directed at you, you lying expletive expletive expletive."

I replied, "Wow, I have to stop replying. I refuse to stoop to your intellectual level. Food for thought: Why is it when someone disagrees with the view point of the unschooled/unintelligent, they automatically resort to profanities and insults? Is it the lack of vocabulary that stops you from being able to elucidate your view without them?"

His reply was, " I have a 2:1 honours degree in English Literature, but I found that theists are too stupid to understand complex arguments so I have to gear down to your level just to be understood, and even then you won't get it, as you have sold out to a superstition/delusion that is inherently irrational. I could tell you are an idiot by your assumption that science requires 'faith' which is trying to pretend that everyone is really just as deluded as you are, which is wrong and offensive."

My reply was, "So there is proof of evolution.........let me have it. Show where we have ever seen a species evolve into another species. We can adapt to enviroment, but never change into another species. Nonliving matter has never created living matter. The universe creating itself refutes the first two laws of thermodynamics. And if believing in God makes me stupid, than I will proudly sit in the company of Einstein, Hawking and Schrodinger who believe that there is a God and are "stupid."

He says,  Christians love "authority" figures within Christianity so you should really check out the work of FRANCIS COLLINS, Director of the National Center for Human Genome Research. He is openly Christian and his work in the field of Human Genomes has led him to conclusively accept that evolution is real."

My turn, "And Francis believes in God. If you want to use him as an example, he is a Christian. I have read his book. So are you arguing that he is right because he is a Christian, or because he believes in evolution? He says that statistically it is impossible for evolution to occur without the hand of God to stir the pot. I disagree with what he says. My point was that if I am stupid for my beliefs, then I share that title with some people that changed the face of science."

His reply, " "So are you arguing that he is right because he's a Christian or because he believes in evolution?"

"No, I am just suggesting him because Christians pander to other Christians as authority figures.
Personally, I couldn't care less what he "BELIEVES IN". Evolution is a fact. It doesn't require belief."

I replied, "If evolution is a fact, then you are right. It does not require belief. A fact is verified through observation or experience. When has nonliving matter been observed turning into living matter? Where is the link between bird and reptile? What did the platypus evolve from? When have we observed something, especially infinite something (galaxies and planets), created from nothing?"

His reply, "You know what, I can't even expletive talk to you. Evolution is a fact and I am done here."

Why so serious? I only figured that since evolution was a fact that he would have a lot of evidence to back it up. I have factual basis for my beliefs. They are backed up by extreme faith, but I have facts to back it up. I know that I am right, but I can also have an intelligent discussion with someone who believes otherwise. I just find it sad that there are those out there that cannot have a discussion that goes against their beliefs without anger and expletives.

What is an atheist? I had one tell me that an atheist was the default position for rational thinkers not to believe the unbelievable.Yet he believed evolution and did not feel that evolution was unbelievable. How is that rational? I do not know what to think about other people sometimes. I just wish that they would rely on reasoning and honesty instead of their emotions.

I do know that I have faith that God is real. I have this faith based on rational thoughts, factual evidence and being intellectually honest with myself. If my beliefs were based on blind, emotional faith than I would get angry, cuss and shout names at the people who disagreed with me. But I do not.

Why so serious? I am not serious, I am simply right!