How not to Answer a Direct Question

For your amusement today. Enjoy the insecurity and evasiveness. It’s all Kabuki Theater to some people.

— mike


  1. Many people who have different gods from yours, who live according the dictates of them, also say that objective morality comes from their god/gods. Must one be Christian or even theistic to be moral?

    • I’m going to assume you’re a decent person asking a question out of actual curiosity.

      “Must one be Christian or theistic to be moral?”

      Please define “moral.”

      • Moral for me would be good and not evil or harmful to others or myself

      • Thank you for answering so concisely.

        You said that morality is essentially not to do harm to yourself or others.

        Question. Is that “morality” personal to yourself (subjective)? or is it a set rule that all must live by (objective)?

      • This is not an interogation of my morality. I asked you the question. What I believe about or define as moral isn’t relevant to your answering the question. Please answer.

      • What you believe and who you are is important to how I choose to deal with your question. You’re a stranger to me and I don’t just dish out quick answers to strangers. I have no idea about your motivations, your stage of mental or emotional growth or your stance on truth. Each of these are factors in how I should deal with the question. Personally, I don’t just dish out to strangers on demand. “Hey, dude, I’m the one who asked the question, so you don’t get to examine me, just answer please.” No.

        It may be that you don’t appreciate my way of dealing with people. That’s ok. To each their own. We can just go back to exactly what we were a few moments before you chose to post a question on my blog. Absolute strangers totally irrelevant to the life of the other.

      • Wasn’t asking based on what I believe. I was asking based on what you believe. No worries. Answer or not. Your choice.

        Comment below. Thx again -mike

Simply Kalam-itous

Shutting down a dishonest use of Kalam to “prove” the Existance of God

The Kalam Cosmological Argument

  • Whatever begins to exist had a cause
  • The Universe began to exist
  • The Universe had a cause.

That’s it. All the Kalam says it that the Universe ‘must’ have had a cause. It says nothing whatever about that cause, whether it was personal, impersonal, accidental or intentional. Nothing.

Personal Disclaimer:

I am neither a scientist or a philosopher. And although I believed, read, studied and even taught the bible for decades as a Christian, I don’t claim to be a Theologian or biblical scholar either.

Bait and Switch

But people try to use this simple syllogism that only speaks to the Beginning of the Universe to “leapfrog” to ‘God therefore exists… prove me wrong’. It’s just not honest.

But to be Honest…

Issues with the premeses and conclusion aside, neither God or a ‘Creation’ of everything there “Now” is from a state of absolute Nothingness “Before” is proven, demonstrated or even implied by The Kalam. And by the flipside, to state or try to imply otherwise is disingenuous at best… and Intentionally Dishonest at worst.

And to do so for the agenda of Apologetics to “smuggle in” a God who you can’t actually demonstrate or prove to actually exist in Reality and ultimately to shift the “Burden of Proof” onto those who would disbelieve you… well, that’s just deceptive, dishonest, arrogant and rude. And you know it, or you should.

And… The response to Craig’s response…

As I said, I’m not a theologian, scientist or a philosopher so I won’t be ‘arguing this out’ with anyone… Especially not With others who aren’t professionally trained theologians, scientists or philosophers… that means YOU amateur internet apologists. Just watch the videos and if you are really trying to understand, seek out others and more information that disagrees with your positions than that which just confirms what you already believe.

Confirmation bias can be a real B -word. It takes courage and integrity to be willing to hear, understand and if necessary accept information when it disagrees with your current model of reality. Be courageous. Be Honest.


Explanations that don’t Explain

The problem is mainly that it’s a circular argument that doesn’t support the actual existence in reality of the God you are trying to prove. It also can be made support anything creating the universe:

His argument goes like this:

(1) – Everything that exists has an explanation for its existence.

(2) – If the universe has an explanation of its existence, then that explanation is a purple dragon.

(3) – The universe exists.

(4) – The universe has an explanation for its existence.

THEREFORE – a purple dragon is the explanation of the universe.

It assumes the answer it’s trying to demonstrate. Circular.

When StrawMen are All you have

Why go to all this trouble NOT to support what YOU are claiming and to attack the opposite, hoping that it helps your case?

This meme was on the post but has been subsequently removed when I called him on his assertion that he got it from an “atheist website”.

((Correction: it wasn’t removed. I just didn’t see it. Mea culpa))

I searched the wording and didn’t find the meme or the wording anywhere, not even on the no gods no masters site listed on the bottom right of the pic.

There actually was an ad campaign by American Atheists awhile ago with similar wording “There’s probably no God…” And the rest was exactly the same.

(The “probably” matters because they weren’t claiming to know or believe, just that the question is irrelevant to their lives).

None of the memes found on the NGNM website match the wording that shows on this pic. So the meme with this wording on the post didn’t come from that website or any other website I could find.

And I got silence in response when I asked the blogger where he found it.

My guess is that it’s a doctored version of the ad or a meme avail from that website. Either way, this blogger or someone he got it from fabricated the meme here to match what they wanted to convey as the Atheist position.

Either way, it’s dishonest to missrepresent someone else’s position purely for Apologetics/Polemical purposes. If you want to be honest, you can do better.

A comment I left this morning on a Post that isn’t even trying to be fair or respectful of the other side of the conversation. Please read the post yourself for your own review. Sadly, it’s not a unique problem on wordpress with amateur internet apologists.

So many straw men in this post. Doesn’t even look like you’re trying to be objective here. I’m not atheist, but you should at least be fair with their actual positions.

His answer?


Thank you again for commenting.

Could you please show me a straw man in my post?

Could you please tell me what the atheist position is on cursing someone out?


  • To start with, the meme pic you chose for a header. Atheist don’t claim “There is no God”, not do they “believe” there is no God.
    The rest of your post is an assertion that without belief in God, one cannot have a basis for moral behaviour or personal conduct.


  • As for the atheist position on cursing people out? Not sure there is a general one. I’m not Atheist but I would suspect it’s individual and situational. For more than that you’d have to ask an atheist, rather than just make bold assertions. You clearly had no intention of doing anything but insulting them.

The point is, atheists don’t claim to know or even believe That God or Gods don’t exist. They just don’t believe.

The job of the evangelist or apologist is to demonstrate their claim that God exists and give evidence and reasons for others believing too. Not attack people for not believing.

If you want people to believe you… Do better and stop with the StrawMen.


Christians On Social Media

Great encouragement for amateur internet apologists everywhere. -mike

Navigating by Faith

Peter said, “but in your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense [apologia; apologetics] to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.” (1 Peter 3:15)


I encourage you to read it. I put it here that people would read it, and that I would be reminded of it and read it again myself.

It’s far to easy to say things on social media that we wouldn’t think of saying face to face with someone in conversation. If we are not responding to people with gentleness and respect, as Peter urges us, we are not responding in love. We might as well not respond at all.


View original post 486 more words

Updated: When comments disappear…

You know you’ve struck a chord.

I recently commented with a question regarding a Father’s POST on the Catholic abuse issue. His post was in answer or refutation of someone’s rather rude and profane comment from a previous post (perhaps?)

From the title of his post

Militant atheist: “F*** religious rights!” He asks about Jesus. Look Pope Francis!

Obviously, the person felt strongly, and so did the Father who wrote the Post in response.

My questions were more to where was/is God when the abuse was happening? I can’t copy and paste to show the exact wording, my two comments were deleted without explanation, so I will do my best to duplicate them here, opening the floor for discussion.

I first asked where God was and was He interested in stopping the abuse and protecting the children, rathe than just punishing the perps after death.

I guess both were very similar questions about whethr God was interested, willing or able to prevent the abuse in the first place.

I can understand why no answer. I would have been uncomfortable with the question myself when I was still a Christian. But the comments deleted… As if they were never asked… On a blog supposedly dedicated to… Answering questions and representing God’s mind on these things.

Of course I did ask, in two other deleted comments, why my two previous were deleted. They were not rude nor were they profane. They were just questions that the Father not only didn’t want to answer, but he also didn’t even want to acknowledge their being asked.

So… What would the answer be to my question? From both a Christian and a non-christian theist point of view.

Update 9/26/19

I was able to grab the comments still in moderation from 9/24

  1. My question would be where is god when all this abuse was (is) happening? Is He interested in stopping it, and protecting the children so it doesn’t happen, or just punishing the perps after death?

  2. If I saw someone being abused, especially a child, and could do something about it to stop the abuse in the first place, I would. Free will of the perp be darned. I’d stop it to protect the child. Why does God not seem able or willing to do the same?

He thought he’d be smart and post a separate POST without actually answering an of my previous questions.

Here are my comments to his second post.

  1. My comments didn’t go into moderation. You deleted them after they showed up on your post. I saw them one by one post, then I saw them one by one disappear. You should be honest.

  2. Oh. Now I see you didn’t fully delete them, you just took them to moderation. Where they still are on your original post. Days ago, your not holding them because you haven’t got to them. You’re just holding them. Be honest.

  3. Release the other comments to others can make a fair evaluation of both sides of the conversation

Here’s the deal with both posts

The Father is not being honest with my questions, he’s still not being honest with his answers, he’s not being honest in how he’s charachterized my questions or my posts and he hasn’t even been honest in how he hs labeled me an Atheist. He hasn’t asked, I didn’t offer, but he assumed that I am because I am no longer Christian, as if all non christians or former Christians are automatically in the Atheist bin.

By the way Father, I’m not an Atheist. Just no longer Christian, partly because of the type of responses I have received in the past like yous from Christians, ministers and apolgists like you to honest questions.


He’s still hiding my comments, and the second post received a comment from an “Aussiemom” that again misses the point. She an his readers should be allowed to see the whole story, but I guess he’s not really into that. I responded to the Aussiemom but again, its in moderation to hide me and my side. I post my response here as well.

“It’s not kind of you or the father to lable me as atheist when I’m not. Please visit my blog for the other side of the story on our ‘conversation'”

I encourage all to read the posts he did with my comments. What do you all think?

Update again 9/27/19

And now apparantly he’s removed the both the second and the first post altogether.

I get a page not found when I go there. How about you?

Down in the bucket. You know what to do.

Two Believers Arguing about the Bible

Sadly, this could have been me. I was every bit as stubborn, foolish and ignorant in the face of intelligent, thoughtful and kind people who just disagreed with me.

I was a KJV, 6 days/6000yrs (certainly not more than ten), evolution denying bible totin’, chapter and verse spoutin’… arrogant S.O. a… God. They both understand and accept that they use circular reasoning about the belief that the Bible is the Word of God. The fact that Steven goes further down the Rabbit Hole to include the KJV Translation in his reasoning doesn’t negate that both are admitting and justifying their circular reasoning about the Bible in general.

If only James could take the logical consequences one step further… like I did.


Just a hint on Evidence…

Passing on what previous generations have said or believed is not Evidence. It’s a Claim… Hearsay.

They may indeed have said it. They may have believed it. Neither makes it automatically true. And the fact that they said it and/or believed doesn’t constitute Evidence for you to believe or say that it’s true either.


What is Truth?

“My loyalty lies with truth. Truth is that which conforms to reality and what can demonstrate to have the quality of truthfulness. If it’s not True, then it can not and should not be regarded as Truth.” -mike

I once thought I knew what Truth was.

I once thought… now there’s a funny one. In actually thinking, I discovered that What and even Who I thought Truth was… was not really Truth or True at all.

In thinking for myself and allowing myself the Freedom to question outside the lines and find answers that might equally be “out of bounds” I discovered that I had been hunkered down and comfortably chained of my own volition in a type of Plato’s Cave, interpreting the shadows on the walls within the framework of the traditions and worldviews of people who haven’t lived for centuries. Those who didn’t have access to the Evidence and means of searching for and obtaining that Evidence that we do today.

I walked away not only when I discovered these things, but after seeking out, listening to and considering what the best Apologists from “our side” had to answer about the questions and answers I was finding out. What I heard from “our side” was excuses, arrogant and rude dismissiveness, logical fallacies and misdirections, outright lies and misrepresentations. A “Whatever it takes” mentality and attitude at pushing the Evidence now being discovered away from me and those like me, and a condescending and personally insulting attempt to bully me back into the Cave, lest I suffer the consequences of Apostasy.

You see, in the final analysis… it wasn’t primarily Truth that finally made me willing to leave the comfort of the Cave. That of course provided the reasons. But in the final analysis, it was the Apologists and their dishonety in defending what they mus have known to be the indefensible, given the lengths they were willing to go, even to intentionally distorting and misrepresenting both the Truth and the Opposition, who pushed me out even as their efforts were dessigned to keep me in.

My Loyalty is to Truth, not just The Truth ™.