More Arguments with Atheists

BCReason which seems to be Brian Crockett reasoning says:
"By the way please don't censor my comments. It's hardly fair that you give your readers only one side."

Charles: Brian I know I taught you science but obviously not logic. I am sure you are not taking my teasing as insults as I do not mean them that way. My teasing is good-natured to illustrate a point. 

It is ultimately fair that I give my readers one side as that is what YOU and DC are doing. Are you presenting both sides? NO! So of course I must give the other side which you are not cognizant of. That is what brings balance. Both sides.

BCReason says that we should substitute other words like "fairies" or "zeus" and the argument still works.

Charles: This argument of course simply avoids answering the question.

[Note: You will notice that there are at least two forms of argument that some use which are NOT actually arguments but RED HERRINGS. In other words there are AVOIDANCE  methods to try to change the subject.. The two main methods are below:

• Avoid answering the question. Both DC and BC have both demonstrated that remarkably well.
• Flame the individual [s] making the remarks. [It is admirable that neither DC nor BC have done that.] Emotionalizing an argument also AVOIDS answering the questions posed by pointing the finger at the individual making the argument.] However I have heard and seen Richard Dawkins stoop to mocking and am told Christopher Hitchens does the same even tho I have not seen his videos yet.

Substituting words does not answer the basic questions asked. Substituting words only serves to cloud the issue so the individual does not have to answer.

One can only say about substitutions is not that they exist but that they MAY exist. Unless one can prove they do not, then the reasonable mind says, maybe.

However believing in fairies or Zeus do not seem to have an enduring following today so is there any point in discussing them? I think not.  

However there IS an ENDURING following for those that believe in the Judaeo-Christian God. 

There are many particles which make up an atom. Years ago, scientists thought there were only 3: protons, neutrons, and electrons. Then science was able to discover that their knowledge was lacking and found other particles with the advent of electron microscopes and other measuring devices.

If any scientist had said, anything like "WE HAVE FOUND EXACTLY WHAT AN ATOM IS MADE OF AND THERE IS NOTHING MORE THAT CAN BE DISCOVERED ABOUT IT." he would have been absolutely arrogantly wrong!

Would that not have been an arrogant statement? It is also arrogant to say that NO GOD CAN EXIST when one does not have 100% knowledge.

There are many evidences FOR God existing. One of the main reasons would be the change that can develop in a person's life when he/she experiences God for the first time.

Two examples that come to mind are:

• John Newton who was a slave trader but experienced the knowledge and/or presence of God and quit slave-trading and spent the rest of his life trying to make up for the evil person that he was in his past life writing the well-known song Amazing Grace. See below.
• Amazing Grace: The Story of John Newton
    and 
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazing_Grace to mention only two links.
• Paul the apostle was a "Hebrew of the Hebrews", a top class Jew who was aiding and abetting in the killing of Christians. His amazing conversion by hearing the voice of God made him INTO the very THING that he HATED and persecuted.

In his blog called 

Pious Fabrications the author below explains why he is no longer an atheist.

Another fact that points to the existence of a God is found in this article by a former atheist telling why he changed his mind,  

However this blog is NOT about the existence of God. It is about the unreasonable non-answers of so-called atheists who claim there CAN BE NO GOD. How arrogant to assume that! The immediate question is WHY DO YOU THINK THAT? It may be hard for any atheist to even know that himself let alone explain it. 

However I have noticed a very sad fact related to this in 3 famous atheists:

• Madeline Murray O'hair who even Phil Donahue and her son William said was VERY unpleasant to be around. I saw her on the Phil Donahue show and she was angry and sarcastic and toxic toward anyone who had any belief in God. In fact she was so toxic that her son William became a Christian to get away from so much hate
• Richard Dawkins: I watched some videos of him talking about Christians in a sarcastic belittling way as if he was so smart and they were so dumb. If he actually WAS so smart, why did he not use logical argument rather than the emotional attack or sarcasm and belittling?.
• Christopher Hitchens whose brother I am told is a Christian apparently lashes out with hate at Christians as well instead of simple logical argument. Anyone that has to stoop to sarcasm and mocking has no valid argument or he would use it. 

I am sure there are reasons why each of these famous would-be atheists is so unkind, cruel, vitriolic and sarcastic, but they certainly can not convince reasonable people by stooping to the lowest forms of human social interaction.
[More later]

Which monkey is acting like an animal and which is acting more human?

The monkey that is mocking other monkeys is acting like an animal; the monkey acting human is listening and not mocking. I will leave you to decide who that may be.