Friday, May 20, 2016

She's baaaaaaack!

For those of you who have followed my past posts about the debates and Facebook conversations I've had with my overly Catholic sister-in-law, we got into it a bit again on Facebook this week. Every once in a while, she will post something that takes a jab at atheism or atheists or science. When she posts her religious crap I just ignore it, but when she posts false shit about the aforementioned topics, I come down from the high road and let her know I'm out here and she's wrong.

This week, she posted that stupid meme that has a header on top that says ATHEISM and below it there is this tripe about the belief that there once was absolutely nothing, and nothing happened to the nothing until the nothing magically exploded for no reason, creating everything, everywhere. And then dinosaurs ... yada, yada, yada. I'm sure you can find the meme somewhere but it's not worth posting here.

So, I thought about ignoring it, but then I saw a few people had liked it. On her FB page, she has in all likelihood, two atheists that follow her, that she knows of: me and my wife. That's when I decided I had to dive in and give her shit, because she knows basically we are the only two people she could be posting this for and the fact the people were liking it meant I couldn't just let it go. These people might actually now believe that is what atheism is. So here is our exchange.

ME: As always, you post something that is completely false. If we were debating, I would point out that this meme is full of fallacies. Good thing we don't debate anymore, huh?

HER: Ok, what are the fallacies? Have scientists figured it out? The how and why?

ME: Well, the biggest ignorance in this meme is that what it describes has NOTHING to do with atheism. After all these years, I thought you would have known that by now. What this childish meme attempts to do in a handful of pathetic unfunny sentences is describe the Big Bang and origin of life, both of which have NOTHING to do with atheism. Did I say that before? That's because it bears repeating. There are plenty of atheists who have no idea how everything began and are even skeptical of the Big Bang. You see, there is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" when you don't know. It's a much better way to live an honest life than to pretend the answer is a god, which is the God of the Gaps fallacy. The meme commits quite a few fallacies, but I think you get the point. NOTHING it says is true about atheism.

HER: Kind of like the science and religion fallacy. There are some Christian denominations that believe the two can't and don't coexist. There are also atheists who would and do argue the very point made above. I've watched them on YouTube. I am not one of those Christians who discount science and you are an atheist who admits he just doesn't know. Can you say that all atheists will answer that way?

ME: You never stay on point, especially when I show you how wrong what you post is. The point is, this entire meme is a joke and has nothing to do with atheism. It's wrong, 100 percent. While there are atheists that believe stuff like we came from "nothing" that still is not what atheism is. This meme conflates about three schools of thought, and gets all of them wrong. Would you like me to hold you accountable for the origin beliefs of all theists? Seems unfair, huh?

HER: It's absolutely unfair and is done all the time against Christians. However, I freely admit that there are Christians out there who's (sic) views I don't agree with. I also believe there are Athiests out there that you and I don't agree with and I believe this meme is directed at them.

ME: It's just a horribly ignorant overly simplistic meme that doesn't even understand the nomenclature, science or beliefs and couldn't be more wrong. There is no asterisk or disclaimer that says, "Some atheists think," it says Atheism, and that's the trouble with ignorance. It just spreads more ignorance so more people who are already ignorant have their ignorance reaffirmed. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Period.

At this point, she posts two memes in the comments, one is a picture of a cratered moon or planet and it says: "If natural disasters are the wrath of God, why does he keep punishing uninhabited planets and moons?" The other one is a picture of a handwritten note that says, "There is no problem too big for god to solve," with another pic below it of a starving, dying Ethiopian boy with his ribs showing that says, "Then WTF is this?"

Below these memes her comments continue...

HER: Talk about over simplifying, ignorantly.

ME: So, I'm not sure, are you combating these memes with YOUR ignorant memes as a way of striking some sort of social-media balance? Do you subscribe to the "Two wrongs make a right" philosophy? I've said my piece and we could do this forever. I just wanted to make it clear that the original meme is pure trash and it couldn't be more wrong. I only hope the people who see your feed and nodded at this ridiculous post will read these comments so they can be educated.

I wanted it to end here, as you can tell, but it was far from over.

HER: Oh stop! Stop thinking you're so much more intelligent than people who believe in God. Really, stop. There are just as many ignorant Athiests as there are Christians. That's my point.

ME: I wasn't the one who posted this meme, I merely pointed out its ignorance. Any interpretation you've read into it beyond that is completely on you.

HER: I was reacting to your comment that the people reading this needed to be educated. I think the friends liking this meme can make up their own minds about atheism on their own without you educating them. I don't think any of them appreciate your suggestion that they need to be educated

ME: What I meant by that was, if they had read that meme and agreed with it, they were agreeing with something that was completely false. So, if they read my comments correcting this meme, then they would have learned the truth, and that is the very definition of being educated on a subject. No insults on them at all and no assumption that I'm smarter than them.

HER: How can you say it's completely false? Do you speak for all atheists? You can find video after video on YouTube of atheists making these very claims and arguments. It's a meme regarding their ideas. I don't take memes regarding ignorant Christians personally because I know that's not me. I'm sure most of the likes on this post think the same.

ME: You're killing me, Smalls. The meme is NOT what atheism is. Not at all. How many times can I explain this? The meme is wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods and, in my case, the supernatural, too. That is it. The effluvium in this meme is a sarcastic attempt at humor regarding the Big Bang and the origin of life, neither of which has ANYTHING to do with atheism. Any statement to the contrary is just perpetuating a lie and promoting ignorance. I don't have to speak for all atheists, but when I'm telling you the definition of what atheism is, yes, I'm speaking for all atheists. Not one atheist says atheism is this idiotic meme. You will never find an atheist, or any educated person, say this meme defines what atheism is.

HER: It's a meme. QTIP (this means quit taking is personally). I get your lack of belief. For every believer there is a hint of doubt and for every nonbeliever there is a hint of doubt. That's a fact. Are you trying to say that there are no self described atheist out there who are just basically mad at religion and/or God? Hence the attacks against God and religion memes. If I remember correctly that's where you started. If it's ok to say you "just don't know" how can you be so sure there isn't a higher being, source, power, whatever you want to call it? Scientists haven't found a source or cause for why the universe came into existence. They haven't been able to disprove a higher whatever, so why not just say you don't know if there is a God or not? Is it because that would make you agnostic and it might look like your being swayed?  Don't worry, we won't bring holy water and incense to your house if you admit you're agnostic. LOL!

ME: There are so many things wrong with your last post I don't even know where to begin, and yes, your fallacies are showing. But since you posted this meme and thought THAT was atheism, it doesn't surprise me. Atheism and agnosticism are NOT mutually exclusive. In fact, agnosticism can pertain to any subject when used non-religiously. Theism is the belief that gods exists, atheism is the opposite. The word gnostic means knowledge as it pertains to a subject, so agnostic means the opposite. I am an agnostic atheist. You are an agnostic theist. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing. I don't think anyone could ever be gnostic about anything, to be honest.

It's like it's 2013 all over again and you've forgotten everything we discussed. You are still using classic yet poor apologetics. First of all, scientists don't try to disprove a higher power, nor will they EVER try. Why would anyone try to disprove something doesn't exist? Try to disprove there isn't an invisible dragon living in my Honda.

We've been over this before yet you still return to these same points. Just because scientists don't know something doesn't mean they should leave open the possibility that a god did it. How silly is that? If that were the attitude we had always taken, nothing would ever have gotten accomplished in science and we'd still be wondering where the rain and thunder come from. It's your textbook god of the gaps fallacy. It's also you trying to shift the burden of proof. It's not on science to disprove your god.

You know, your hypocrisy toward science is quite alarming. On the one hand, you'll give all kinds of credit to the RCC for being a major proponent of science in its infancy and say you're not one of those Christians who doesn't embrace science, while on the other hand you take swipes at science ALL of the time on here, including this trashy meme, and try to give the credit to some god that you freely admit you have a "hint of doubt" about.

And asking me to not take it personally is hilarious. In the beginning of this thread, I only told you the meme was ignorant, which it still is. You're the one who keeps adding other points to discuss. And every time you do that, I keep bringing the discussion back on point. Follow our comments, I never made it personal, you did. But then again, how can I not take it personally? How many friends do you have on Facebook who have told you they are an atheist? I can only assume it's just a few. And being one of those atheists, when you post something ridiculous about atheism, how can I not take that as being directed at us? So when you post ignorance about atheism, how can I not respond?

And no, my atheism didn't come from a place of anger. You're confusing my atheism with my anti-theism. While it's true I once had a sour religious experience, I never liked religion from Day 1. But my atheism has nothing to do with that. How can I be angry at something I don't believe exists? Are you angry at the dragon that lives in my Honda? It's just a silly ignorant statement. Just like your meme.

HER: Just for clarification, I have a high regard for science despite what you think comes across in my posts. If a person lives in a bubble and doesn't want to see other's point of view, that person will never see beyond what they want to see. It's true for everyone. Holocaust deniers are a good example. There is plenty of proof and witnesses, but they will never look at it or listen to the evidence. There would be no way to convince them of anything different from what they want to believe because they don't want to believe differently. I do have a hard time with scientists who have an agenda and will twist evidence and outcomes for money or glory or whatever. I don't think you can honestly say that's never happened or still doesn't happen. I think I have a healthy skepticism, but I'm always open to learning and looking at proof and listening to witnesses. I've changed my views on many subjects  because I keep an open mind.

Back to the meme. I apologize for posting it as it was offensive to you.

ME: Thanks. And it wasn't so much offensive as it was just wrong. Love you, see you Sunday.

Her last post was probably more comical than the others because if you knew her, you would know she is about as skeptical as a sheep. And don't listen to her, she bashes science every chance she gets and only when she tries to give her god and church the credit does she accept scientific discovery.

She really has no clue as to how clueless she really is.

Sunday, December 6, 2015

They always miss the point

When there's a problem so scary that our country's populace is afraid to leave home, we look to our leaders, the ones we elected/hired, to watch out for our safety. If you're seeking to BECOME one of those leaders in the very near future, then you need to let us know IMMEDIATELY what you plan to do to solve this problem. That if we put the well-being of our children and grandchildren in your hands someday soon, you will have a plan of action.

THIS is the point the religious right/conservatives so painfully missed when they cried foul after learning of their Republican presidential hopefuls getting lambasted for their social-media call for prayers for the San Bernardino victims.

These poor families and friends aren't reading Twitter feeds or Facebook posts. They are overwhelmed by grief and mourning. Anyone with common sense would know this, so if you're going to release a statement on social media about this tragedy, common sense would also dictate that these messages are for the rest of the country. And the rest of the country wants to know what you think the answer is, not that you want us to pray.

If I'm the type of person that prays when a tragedy strikes, then I don't need politicians, who only have their eyes on their poll numbers, reminding me to do so. On the flip side, if I'm the type of person who doesn't believe in prayer, I certainly don't need to hear from these candidates that prayer is all they have to offer in this time of crisis.

When a New York newspaper says, "God isn't fixing this," it CLEARLY isn't saying you shouldn't pray for these people (if that's your thing). You can pray to Thor, Apollo, Yahweh or the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I care, but if you somehow end up running my country, I would like to know you're going to address this issue with ACTUAL policies and do it in a timely manner. The Democratic leaders and candidates had no problem with this and none of what they said was rhetoric.

So, how many more people need to die before there's the call to action from the Republican side? Don't hold your breath. You'd have a better chance of finding Jimmy Hoffa's body than you would of finding a Republican who publicly wants to curb guns. No right-winger would ever dare come out for any type of gun control because they're deathly (and ironically) afraid of the NRA. Their comments were all-too-transparent and severely lacking.

You'll note I didn't result to name-calling here, because there is no need. The facts are clear for any rational person to see. And keep this in mind: As I wrote this, another shooting just happened in Michigan where a guy shot and killed a 7-year-old girl, put her mother in the hospital and then killed himself with a firearm.

Pray for them ... Or don't.

Monday, October 12, 2015

My thoughts on abortion

I can't really recall ever writing down my views on abortion, at least not in this blog. Many atheists are Pro Choice and I certainly side with this camp. That's not to say all atheists believe in abortion, or should I say the right to choose? Saying you believe in abortion sounds odd to me. But I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who think a woman should carry a baby to term regardless of beliefs or circumstances. I just don't happen to be one of them.

Pro Lifers tend to lean heavily on religion for their morals/beliefs/education so their default position is to believe a zygote or fetus is a baby, and a baby is a person and a person should be protected. But, scientifically speaking, a fetus isn't a baby, it's not a life. I can quote mountains of evidence that proves this fact, but this is a blog, not a thesis, so I'll just leave it at that.

Who am I, a man, to tell another woman what she should do with her body? Who am I to force ANY person to do something to their body? Who am I to force them to let something happen to their body?

Let's come at this from another direction. Would Pro Lifers want to pass a law requiring every citizen to donate spare organs when called upon? Their blood type and other bodily fluids could be categorized at birth and kept on record and the moment a need for an organ or specific type of blood comes up, they'll get a phone call. Sounds fair, right? Would they want to have one of their kidneys taken from their body without their consent? No? Why not? Oh, they don't like the idea of the government forcing them do something with their body they don't want to do? Don't like the risk required? Don't think someone else should be making their decisions?

Get the point? A woman puts her life on the line to have a baby. All sorts of complications can arise from child birth. It's also a huge financial strain. These are things I believe must be considered.

Some might say this isn't the same situation, that people choose to have sex knowing the consequences. I disagree with this uninformed and ignorant stance. First, not all pregnancies are a result of consensual sex. But mentioning rape and molestation is an easy rebuttal. Let's just ignore that for a second, even though it refutes the argument nicely. Broken condoms, failed IUDs and even botched vasectomies or tubal ligation can result in an obviously unwanted pregnancy. But again, I'll even let this argument slide.

The Pro Life stance seems to be: If you do something, you have no choice but to ride out the consequences, as in, you chose to have sex, and because a pregnancy was the result of your sexual congress, you must see this pregnancy to full term. Is that a fair enough assessment of their stance? That the pregnant woman has no choice to do anything about this, that she must have a baby in nine months?

Interesting. So, if someone chose to smoke cigarettes and it resulted in lung cancer, the smoker has no choice but to live with the cancer. You can't seek treatment for the cancer because you have to take responsibility for your actions and live with the consequences. Hey, you knew what could happen if you put carcinogenic materials in your body. It was your choice to smoke. Again, I'll ask, get the point?

Imagine Pro Choicers bombing chemo clinics. It's ludicrous.

I've actually pissed some people off, namely my family, when I posted a gut-wrenching story to my Facebook feed about a couple who aborted their pregnancy because the fetus would have been born with Down Syndrome. I posted the story because it was so sad that this couple tried for so long to have a child, using IVF to finally get pregnant only to get the news that the resulting baby would have Downs. Now, what pissed people off was their ignorance, not my intentions. They assumed I was saying all special-needs people would have been better off if they were aborted. I would in no way ever support that. It's such an abhorrent attitude to take, and I was thoroughly insulted that much of my family would even think I would feel that way.

And full disclosure, my nephew has cerebral palsy and it was my brother who took the most offense to my post. He also volunteers with a bunch of young boys who have Downs, so instead of talking it out with me to find out my true intentions, he just chose to unfriend me and not deal with it. Here is why I posted what I did. I believe in a woman's right to choose. In this couple's case, they had no other family to help with a special-needs child, they had exhausted their savings to try to have the child through surgeries and procedures so there would be no money to hire help and they just didn't have the resources to care for a child who would need life-long support as this was an older couple.

So there are always circumstances that could arise for abortion to make sense. Something like 90 percent of all pregnancies that would result in Downs are aborted for just such a reason. If you throw in other illnesses that would leave a child with a painful existence (Tay-Sachs comes to mind), then being forced to have that child is cruel and unusual punishment.

It all boils down to beliefs. Do you believe the "potential for life" is worth defending or do you believe a woman's actual life is worth defending? If it's the former, then where do you draw the line? Every male ejaculation could fall into the "potential" category, thus rendering masturbation to be a reckless murderous act. Silly, huh?

Me? I choose to defend a woman's life, and her choice.

Saturday, September 26, 2015

Stop praising this pope (UPDATE)

Imagine what it's like to be in an abusive relationship. You're miserable, you've been told incessantly that you're worthless, that nothing you ever do is good enough. But you stay in this relationship for years because it's all you know and after a while you start to believe you deserve this, that this is just the way life is. Then, one day, you encounter someone who treats you differently and you immediately are drawn to this person because this relationship is so, well, different.

But you'll notice I never said "better." This person isn't treating you better, just different. Maybe this person beats you, but you believe it's because they love you so much that they express their love this way. This is where the phrase "lesser of two evils" likely got its origin. Both people are detrimental to you and your life, but because you were so oppressed for so long, you choose the new one in your life who feels like the lesser of two evils. These days, that phrase has unique meaning in the world of religion.

With his recent tour of the Eastern United States, Pope Francis has been ubiquitous on media outlets and I'm already tired of the hero hyperbole. Why do you think so many people feel this guy is a great man? Well, I already gave you the answer.

When someone as horrible as Pope Benedict (and every pope before him) is replaced, his successor can only be seen as an improvement. But if you put on your rational glasses, you'll see him for what he really is, a deceptive wolf is sheep's clothing.

People call him progressive, but if you dig deeper, you'll learn he's still spewing the same insulting, repulsive, archaic doctrines the Vatican and Catholic Church have pushed for centuries.

He still supports the rejection of gay marriage because he can't free himself from Old Testament thinking, believing in a "traditional" marriage/family. Don't be fooled by his words from Rio when he said, "If a person is gay and seeks God and has good will, who am I to judge?" This doesn't mean he accepts and promotes the gay lifestyle; it means he's saying, "Feel free to bring your tithes to my church, gay people, because we need your money for our power and in the end god will judge you and send you to hell, not me."

Don't believe me? Here are his remarks just a few months later regarding gay adoption: “Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help them shape their identity."

Explaining further, he said, “It is often argued that a child would be better cared for by a same-sex couple rather than in an orphanage or an institution. Those two situations are not optimal. The problem is that the state does not do what it has to do."

Translation: Gay people should not be allowed to raise children, and governments that allow this aren't doing the "right" thing by passing legislation to stop this from happening. Does that sound progressive?

How about birth control? Certainly in the 21st century the Catholic Church could elect a leader who understands the importance of contraceptives, especially as it pertains to world health. But no, despite there being dozens of AIDS-ravaged countries that would benefit exponentially from having condoms, Pope "Frankie" is vehemently against safe sex. Again I ask, does that sound like someone who is progressive?

And don't get me started on his views regarding the transgender community. When someone compares trans persons to nuclear weapons because they would wreak havoc on the “natural order of creation," it's perfectly clear he is not progressive. To paraphrase the Who, "Meet the new bigot, same as the old bigot."

UPDATE: A couple of days after I published this, it surfaced that the pope met secretly with Kentucky bigot Kim Davis and he basically told her to keep up the good work. Any doubts about his true feelings toward gay people?

Thursday, September 3, 2015

Bigotry and religion

Bigotry is such an ugly side of people, especially when they hide behind their religion while practicing their hate. If you don't like my worldview by all means skip this post, but I'd like to offer a little perspective regarding Kentucky county clerk Kim Davis, who was deservedly thrown in jail today by a federal judge for ignoring court rulings and not issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

She cited her religious beliefs for her defiance, stating marriage is between one man and one woman. While that subject is for another day (and believe me that's bigotry, too) let's imagine for a moment what could happen if people were allowed to follow their religious beliefs so rigidly as to not perform the duties for which they are hired.

"I'm sorry, Mrs. Davis, I know you're bleeding to death but I'm a Jehovah's Witness nurse and I don't believe in blood transfusions so I can't help you. But I'll pray you stop bleeding and get better."

"You'd like to renew your driver's license, Mrs. Davis? I apologize but I'm a Saudi Arabian Muslim DMV worker and my religion forbids women from driving. It's against my beliefs to allow you to get your license."

Shall I go on?

"Your child is ill and dying of an easily treatable disease, Mrs. Davis? I only wish I could let you see the doctor. Like you I'm a Christian, except I belong to the Church of Christ and we forbid medical treatment of any kind, but I'd be happy to pray for your child's recovery."

And this last example is so ludicrous because why would someone get hired to do a job they aren't willing to do because of their beliefs? Oh, wait, isn't that what Kentucky did with this hypocrite, who was divorced three times and had children out of wedlock? Of course there is nothing wrong at all with being divorced or having children out of wedlock, but her religion doesn't accept it and neither does she now. How interesting. She is given a pass but she can't even comprehend basic empathy and equal rights when it comes to others. Makes me want to vomit.

You can put lipstick on a pig all you want, but in the end it's still ugly Mrs. Davis and her religious bigotry not doing her job and ignoring the Supreme Court. I'm glad she's in jail. As much as people want this country to be a Christian nation it's not, it never will be and no one is above the law.

Thursday, August 13, 2015

Thought crime translation

Every once in a while I'll think of something from the bible, a particular verse that is tied to some edict and try to relate it to other actions in life to see how it holds up for us.

What do I mean? I was thinking recently of Matthew 5:28 ... "But I say unto you, that whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

This is yet another example of thought crime, which is riddled throughout religion, especially Christianity. Of course it's directed at men because the entire bible was written with only men in mind, so I'll update it for the 21st century: Any married person who looks lustily at someone who isn't their spouse has already cheated on their betrothed.

Sound about right? And we all know adultery is one of the top 10 commandments (there are way more than 10 if you didn't know), and breaking one of these orders is tantamount to earning a one-way ticket to the eternal lake of fire.

So, like I mentioned earlier, this got me to thinking. If merely thinking something is equivalent to doing it, then (1) why not just do it since you're screwed anyway, and (2) does this logic (and I use that word very loosely here) pertain to the other commandments? For instance, someone gets very angry at another person and fantasizes about killing that person. Did he just commit murder? If he wishes he could tell his parents to go screw because they have mistreated him his whole life, has he stopped honoring his mother and father?

This is why thoughts can't be policed and the whole idea that some deity is listening to what we are thinking is just absolutely preposterous. It's also why we don't need the threat of eternal damnation to be good people. Our thoughts are our own and if we really believed what we thought could get us into trouble there would be a LOT more believers in confession or in jail.

Grow up, theists.

Friday, August 7, 2015

This guy scared me

Every once in a while on Omegle, I stumble across someone who scares the bejebus out of me. Last night was one of those times, so I just had to post this conversation. There are people out there who, when they have no idea about a given topic, merely make up whatever they think that topic is and that's good enough for them. I believe this guy fits into that camp quite nicely. There has yet to be an instrument invented that can measure the depths of delusion that this guy exuded. At first, I thought it was going to be promising, but it quickly eroded into a pit of ignorance. Here we go:

Him: Are you religious?
Me: Nope, Funny, huh?
Him: Funny?
Me: Well, it says I like religion, but it's ironic since I despise it.
Him: Oh! Ok, yea it is.
Me: U, religious?
Him: Idk I'm into a lot of different things
Me: Like?
Him: I'm kinda christian/pagan
Me: Aren't those conflicting ideologies?
Him: Christianity is rooted in paganism. The church pretty much jacked there shit and beliefs, and labeled pagan gods as demons so they could control people.
Me: Oh, I mostly agree.
Him: I have christian beliefs, like the existence of Jesus and God and apply His message of compassion to my life, but I don't practice my faith like Christians do.
I don't care for church, rituals/sacraments, or worship. I show my respect for him in other ways.
Me: By respecting others, right?
Him: Yes, all life. That's why I'm vegan. I try to respect living creatures. Sometimes easier said than done, especially people. Pretty much the things God has made, not the things humans made in his name.
Me: Let me ask u, do you believe in evolution? I have a very specific reason for asking.
Him: I think it's possible, but I personally don't. But I don't know.

I'll interject here for a minute. I was hoping he'd say he believed in evolution because I just wanted to chat about my concern with where we draw the line in our respect for life. Since we are related to all life, why is eating only vegetables any more moral or acceptable than eating cows? Vegetation can feel things; they are living things, we are related to them. But since he didn't believe in evolution I had to take this in a different direction.

Me: Ok, well that leads to other questions for me then. Were you taught evolution at all?
Him: I live in the south in US, so of course not, lol. I only know the little bit I've looked into myself. I understand the gist.
Me: Ok, so you understand the gist, but you don't believe it, why?
Him: I wasn't there.
Me: You weren't there? You weren't there for your conception, either, but it happened. You weren't there for the holocaust, but it happened. You weren't there when the technology was invented that led to Omegle, yet you are communicating with me.
Him: As in, I don't have first-hand experience watching our species evolve as mapped out in the theory.
Me: But you don't have first-hand experience in almost everything in your life's path.
Him: It just doesn't resonate with me.
Me: Hmmm... This is interesting. So, how old do you believe the human race is?
Him: I don't know.
Me: How can you say something like "it doesn't resonate" with you and then not have any idea how long humans have been on earth?
Him: Because I don't think about these things. All I know is I am here and I didn't ask to be, so I'm trying to find out what's behind my experiences that have lead me to believe in God.
Me: Ok, just answer me this, what do you think evolution is? You did some looking into it and you said you got the gist, so I'd like to know what the gist is for you.
Him: Humans evolved into a more rational, intelligent, less hairy species.
Me: What? Less hairy than what?
Him: Why are you interested in whether or not I believe in evolution?
Me: Well, my original reasoning was because you said you cherish all life, and so do I. But when you said you didn't believe in evolution, I had to pursue that line of questioning instead. If you believed in evolution I would have had a different question for you.
Him: What was the other question?
Me: Well, it's hard to ask it since you don't believe in the fact of evolution. You're not a creationist though, right? Or should I say young earth creationist?
Him: Creationist? Like if I believe life was create by God?
Me: Well, a YEC believes in a literal bible
Him: YEC?
Me: That the earth was made roughly 6K years ago. YEC = Young Earth Creationist
Him: Oh, well I don't know about all that. I think the earth is millions of years old.
Me: Cool. That's good. It's actually almost 5 billion years old, but at least you didn't say thousands. So what are those experiences you mentioned that led you to believe in a god?

Now this guy will make you laugh and cringe. Up until this point he was pretty harmless, but then he boarded the train to Delusion Junction and I just couldn't wait to read what he had to say next.

Him: Hauntings and other encounters with spirits. Some good some bad. It got me thinking that there's more out there.
Me: And what evidence do you have for these spirits? Just personal revelation?
Him: I saw them and heard them. So I started looking into it.
Me: Do you believe in other kinds of sightings, such as UFOs, are they legit?
Him: Yes, the universe is massive so I don't think it's far off to assume there's other life out there.
Me: Excellent. Can you tell me about these spirits? And why are these occurrences a sign of a god?
Him: Through the hauntings, I learned they fear Jesus, just the mention of his name makes them run. So those experiences strengthened my belief in God, among other things.
Me: Are you telling me you conversed with evil spirits and you physically saw them run at the mention of Jesus?
Him: Conversed no. I never carry on a conversation with them. And yes, they run.
Me: So they have a physical presence? If you didn't converse with them then how do you know it was a haunting? Did these spirits carry a sign? I'm a little confused.
Him: I knew is was a haunting because they came every night. They would say things to me, trying to get my attention but I'd ignore them. And I could see them watching me.
Me: Were you ever under the influence of any type of drug during any of these? Were you nearly asleep?
Him: No
Me: So they were talking to you and took a human form and you said "Jesus" and they ran?
Him: In human form no, demons and other evil spirits are low vibrational beings. They don't usually have the energy to appear in their true form. Plus some were once human, other never were. They look like a walking shadow. Have you ever heard of shadow people? A lot of people see and encounter them. But yes, they fear Jesus.
Me: This is fascinating. I just don't know what to say. Something such as evolution doesn't resonate with you but low vibrational beings that fear Jesus does. Incredible stuff right there. Where did you come up with that explanation?
Him: Well I believe my spirit is having a human experience. I'm not really concerned with scientific explanations as to why I'm here or how humans came to be. I want to know why am I having these experiences. There so much out there that's unexplained.
Me: I could talk to you forever. Unfortunately I have to get some sleep. It's killing me because this was a great conversation and I don't want it to end. I only wish you could embrace evolution/science the way you believe in woo.
Him: Neither have all the answers. Good night.

Some of the tripe this guy was typing was beyond hilarious. Less hairy species? Seriously? He never did say what he meant by that, even if it is obvious. Running spirits? Low vibrational beings? Jesus as an antidote? This guy had an extra helping of crazy and I'm so glad this conversation wasn't in person. I don't know if I would have been able to either keep a straight face or stop from slapping him.