Former Dawkins’ Follower Becomes Christian; Partly Due to Atheist Rudeness

Richard Morgan was an atheist whose views were driven by Richard Dawkins’ book The Blind Watchmaker. Read the following article about how he became a Christian.

You can read the article here.

It has been my experience that atheist arguments have a large amount of ad hominem (personal attacks). This story supports those findings. But what a difference Christian charity can make! Author David Robertson wrote a response to Dawkins titled The Dawkins Letters. This information plus Robertson’s loving manner won the day.


About humblesmith

Christian Apologist & Philosopher
This entry was posted in Atheism. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to Former Dawkins’ Follower Becomes Christian; Partly Due to Atheist Rudeness

  1. me says:

    Hey Thomistic,

    I swear I’ll get to the earlier stuff soon. But this kinda grabbed me, so now this.

    I hardly ever use ad hominems. 1. because they’re fallacies and 2. because they’re not nice. I say “hardly ever” because I have been guilty, but it was usually when someone was really ticking me off.

    I was sincerely curious to see Morgan’s story. I’m always fascinated when people claim to be atheists who then found the light (or whatever). Unfortunately, I found this just as disappointing as all the other re-conversion stories I’ve read.

    “At that moment, Morgan’s instinctive response conjured up to his memory, probably from his previous Mormon days, the verse, ‘We love because he first loved us.’ And in that instant, Morgan understood the expression ‘amazing grace.’

    “‘I was certain without having any rational explanation that God existed, that he loved me without waiting for me to love him, that he loved me unconditionally without waiting for me to deserve it.'”

    I can’t read Morgan’s mind, but this looks like nothing more than an emotional appeal. Morgan offers no reason, explanation, or evidence. He just declares that he’s “certain.” How? Why? Because he “felt” it? If an emotional appeal was all it took, then why was he ever an atheist to begin with? Why didn’t this approach convince him earlier in his purported atheism? Not like it’s a revolutionary or novel idea. Had he not heard of it? He must have as he’d been a Mormon. And why was it Christianity, as opposed to any other theistic faith, that drew him?

    “‘Science and philosophy are wonderful manifestations of the enormous capacities of the human mind, but the Word of God is truth, and truth is what it took to set me free,’ Morgan stated.”

    How did he arrive at these broken-record conclusions? What truth is it that set him free? How did it set him free?

    “‘Only a personal relationship with God can bring us to any kind of meaningful, personal, transcendental truth.'”

    How exactly is a “personal relationship with God” defined and what does he mean by “meaningful, personal, transcendental truth”? Is this great truth that Jesus died for sins? How does that examine the human condition? How is that transcendental?

    “Stunned by the level of inhumanity, Morgan wondered how any civilized person could say they wanted to see anybody die.”

    But he finds it perfectly acceptable to believe that millions upon millions of people will suffer eternal torment in Hell either because they were not exposed to Jesus or because they saw no reason to believe in him? How is this doctrine any more humane than the one he found so wretched? Does he now believe that it’s acceptable to in the least deny homosexuals equal rights or at most kill them? How about witches? How about apostates? How is any of this more reasonable, humane, or justifiable than that which he rejected?

    I’ll end with this. I’m an atheist for one reason. No evidence. Threats of Hell and promises of Heaven don’t matter a whit without any reason to believe them. What evidence do I want? I don’t know. When I experience something that could only come from an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent god which can be objectively verified, then I’ll tell you. Otherwise, I might as well believe in leprechauns. At least they leave pots of gold.



  2. humblesmith says:

    As for the first comment, there is a branch of apologetics/philosophy called “reformed epistemology.” If you’re interested, see the work of Alvin Plantinga. I generally don’t use this approach, but just going from the general comments in the article, I’d guess this man’s experience lines up with reformed epistemology.

    I hold a position similar to what you were driving at……..people believe things for a reason.

    As for what is more inhuman, atheism or the biblical doctrine of hell, that is another question entirely. I’m working from memory again, but I think I posted on that, too. Search for “hell.” If not, I’ll do one eventually.

  3. humblesmith says:

    Oh, and btw, if you’re interested in people who have journeyed from atheism to faith, have you read the story of Lee Stobel? He was a strong atheist who was also an investigative reporter. He turned his journalism skills on the problem of evidence & faith, and spent quite a bit of time looking into the issue. He describes his story in one of his books……I think it might be “the case for christ.”

    There are plenty of stories of people moving the other direction.

    • me says:

      I’m very well aware of Strobel. I’ve never read a quote of his in which he directly and clearly stated 1. why he was an atheist and 2. why he became a Christian. I’ve not read his book, which may contain such quotes. Journalism skills are simply researching and (hopefully) objectively reporting. But there are plenty of terrible journalists out there. Regardless, I’ve seen many of his lectures in which he regularly employs logical fallacies including argument from ignorance, correlation without causation, and appeals to history, authority, and emotion. I have no specific examples in front of me, so feel free to not believe me.

      I have no doubt that there are thousands, even millions of stories of people moving from atheism to theism. What I doubt is that any one of them has a reason based on evidence as opposed to emotional appeal or any other fallacy.

      In fact, a (former?) good friend converted to Christianity shortly before her marriage to a preacher’s kid. One of her stated reasons was that “Christianity is the most logical of all religions.” She’s never backed up that claim, but has expressed doubt as to the doctrine that God is omnipotent. Why she chooses to praise a, by her own admission, possibly non-omnipotent God, I have no idea.

      If you’re curious, you can read all about my above-referenced friend in my article “Keeping Religious Friends” on

      • humblesmith says:

        I can’t comment on what Strobel says in lectures. As a general rule, books are a better explanation of a person’s opinion, for theoretically at least, they thought through what they wrote and there’s more space to explain things than in the limited space of a lecture. It’s been a while, but I seem to recall his book going into a bit of detail on his beliefs before, during, and after his conversion.

        As for hell, the word the bible uses is “torment” not “torture.” Sometimes people equate the two, but they mean different things. A drug addict is often tormented by his own doings, while torture has a different implication.

        As for this guy Morgan, I guess I would submit that regardless of what he says, he did indeed have some reason. No one, theist, atheist, or otherwise, makes decisions for absolutely no reason at all. I’m not even sure how that would work mentally. But in any case, the point of the article was something different entirely: namely, what his impressions were of atheist response to the guy who wrote against Dawkins. That part of his claim seemed fairly clear.

        As for whether atheism takes a position on anything or not, I’ve dealt with that in a recent post:

        Surely you don’t truly believe that “thousands, even millions” of people convert from atheism to theism for no solid reasons. That no one ever converted for any valid reason is difficult to believe……even for a theist. 😉

        • me says:


          I’ve wanted to get to this for a while. Some things here were still swimming around in my noggin.

          I agree with your point on Strobel. My only point is in the material of his I’ve seen, he’s never gone into evidence behind his conversion, but rather appeals to popularity, history, and emotion.

          Let’s simplify Hell to be “not much fun.” Your claims on what words the Bible uses are irrelevant as I’ve met Christians who have claimed you to be wrong and, without an objective standard, I have no more reason to trust you than them. The point is that Hell ain’t fun, Christian doctrine claims that most people will go there for arguably unjust reasons, Morgan’s okay with that, and yet he wasn’t okay with atheists being rude. If he sincerely believes the former to be acceptable and the latter not to be, then I suggest he’s a sociopath.

          Maybe I should’ve suggested that Morgan doesn’t seem to have had a valid or provable reason. An external person such as myself sees no reason to see any merit in his conversion than I do in neo-Paganism. Yet he claims the truth (actually, so do they).

          As to the point of the article, I guess I don’t see the point. Atheists can be rude. So what? So can tons of other people. Yet you don’t see flocks of Republicans becoming Democrats based solely on perceived Republican rudeness (or the other way around).

          I understand your sentiment behind atheism taking a position. We can certainly have that discussion.

          I have an issue with equating atheism with inhumanity as it’s a demonstrable non-sequitur.

          People convert for what they believe to be “solid” reasons. Their reasons aren’t necessarily valid just because they claim them to be. In every single case of a Christian converting that I’ve ever talked to, it’s always amounted to an appeal to emotion, an appeal to fear, an appeal to popularity, an appeal to authority, or an appeal to tradition. I’ve never met a single Christian who’s had any more objectively verifiable evidence for his claims or conversion than any other person from any other faith.

          If you have objectively verifiable evidence of your conversion (assuming you did convert), feel free to send me your testimony (if that’s the correct word).

          • humblesmith says:

            Regarding what the bible says about hell, it would be easy to determine for yourself. Just read it. It’s not difficult, and it doesn’t bite.

            As for your point about conversions, I’m not sure what “objective evidence” you’re looking for. People change their minds based on many reasons….I’m not sure how many decisions of the mind can be verified externally. I converted because when I learned what the bible says, it objectively lined up with what I observed in the world, and what I objectively knew about myself.

            Perhaps you’ve not read Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. In it, he goes through a good bit of his thought processes when he started out as an atheist and how he worked through the questions and problems he encountered. It’s an interesting read.

  4. me says:


    I have to admit I’m not particularly interested in reformed epistemology probably for the same reason I’m not interested in intelligent design. Morgan stated, “I was certain without any rational explanation that God existed…” I can’t state that I’m certain that leprechauns don’t exist. I’m very, very sure. The reason? No evidence (so far). Morgan’s claim by his own admission, has no reason. In essence, what he’s saying is “I believe because I believe.” As much as he has every right to do so, it begs the question, why? Since you posted the link to the article, I’d have to posit the same thing to you. Great that someone claims to have been a former atheist. I’m sure that sounds like a profound shift in worldview to your fellow apologists, but without any reason behind it, his “witnessing” (not sure if I’m using that word correctly) is meaningless.

    “As for what is more inhuman, atheism or the biblical doctrine of hell, that is another question entirely.”

    And not even the question that was suggested. Morgan never made the claim that atheism itself was inhuman. He said, “Stunned by the level of inhumanity, Morgan wondered how any civilized person could say they wanted to see anybody die.” The notion of wanting someone to die is not equivalent to atheism, which is simply and only a lack of theism. To suggest otherwise is a dishonest straw man and no different from stating that evolution says that humans come from monkeys.

    Atheism is not a philosophy, moral position, or political ideology. Yes, there are often intersections between philosophies, moral positions, political ideologies and atheism, but atheism doesn’t necessitate any particular other position. And you know that. People who are atheists tend to be politically liberal, but they by no means are necessarily. I am. I’ve met plenty of fellow atheists who absolutely are not. Given that atheism takes no philosophical, moral, or political position, it can’t be classified as “humane” or “inhumane” as it says nothing about either, just as economics says nothing about music.

    Hell, on the other hand, has been described to me, by figurative and literalist Christians, as anything from an emotional state where one is aware of the lack of God’s presence (which makes no sense given God’s supposed omnipresence) or a physical place in which people are eternally tortured. Before anyone claims that the latter is ridiculous and hyperbolic, keep in mind that the words were spoken by those who claimed to be “true” Christians relying on inerrant Biblical verse and doctrine. If anyone is to claim other than what they did, I’d have to know what the evidence is and why I should trust one stripe of Christian over any other.

    Thus, Morgan’s revulsion at what he calls inhumane suggestions, yet his acceptance of, by the same standard, inhumane doctrines, is simply incongruent.



  5. randyhardman says:

    Good article!!

  6. me says:


    This has taken me far too long to get to.

    “Regarding what the bible says about hell, it would be easy to determine for yourself. Just read it. It’s not difficult, and it doesn’t bite.”

    Ha ha! That’s true (about the biting.) Lemme see if I can find something easily. I found this:

    “Matthew 13:41-42
    The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”

    And this:

    “Revelation 20:14-15
    And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”

    And much more (especially with the “gnashing of teeth”–Geez, God, we get it; Hell ain’t fun, as the creator of the universe, one would think you could find another way to describe it). So, what was your evidence of Hell and what its nature is said to be? Are you a literalist or one of those leftie Christians who thinks it’s just absence of God and no torment or fire?

    “As for your point about conversions, I’m not sure what ‘objective evidence’ you’re looking for. People change their minds based on many reasons….I’m not sure how many decisions of the mind can be verified externally.”

    I agree that mind stuff likely can’t be verified externally, thus why should I ever believe someone who claims to “feel” that God is real?

    “I converted because when I learned what the bible says, it objectively lined up with what I observed in the world, and what I objectively knew about myself.”

    I can’t verify what you “objectively knew about” yourself, so I’ll ignore that. What had you “objectively” lined up with what you observed with the world and what the Bible says, and how?

    “Perhaps you’ve not read Mere Christianity by C. S. Lewis. In it, he goes through a good bit of his thought processes when he started out as an atheist and how he worked through the questions and problems he encountered. It’s an interesting read.”

    I haven’t read it, but I’ll endeavor to learn more about it. Though as far as I know, Lewis was never a self-identified atheist. I think he merely didn’t practice a religion. There’s a difference between not being religious in practice and being specifically atheist.



    • humblesmith says:

      I think this conversation was dealing with the idea of “objectively verifiable claims of a conversion” of which you listed a series of reasons why you dismiss them. You dismiss emotion, popularity, authority, and tradition, saying that you are looking for something objective.

      I’m not sure exactly what you are looking for. Conversion is an internal state, something done on the inside of me. It’s a different type of thing than measuring pressure, temperature, or friction. I’m not sure what an “objectively verifiable conversion” would look like. Presumably you’re looking for some sort of external reason for an internal change that happens to someone. In your construct, what would be an example of what would qualify as objectively verifiable?

      I suspect that you have defined the problem so that there is no acceptable solution. If so, then your problem is a category mistake, something similar to saying ‘No one can prove to me what blue smells like, so none of the claims that people make are valid.’

  7. Anton A. Hill says:

    Hi Humble,

    When someone makes a claim such as “I know Jesus saved me”, that statement contains any number of presuppositions. How does this person know? Who is Jesus? What is “saved”? From what? And how does this person know that Jesus saved him from whatever Jesus saved him from? If all I’m to expect is this person’s testimony on the matter, then I ask why should I believe this person?

    For any claim made, there must be evidence. For any extraordinary claim made, there must be extraordinary evidence. One claim seems to be that Jesus lived. Great. Show me the evidence. Another seems to be that he died and rose from the dead. Awesome. Why should I believe that?

    You make the claim. As the claimant and, specifically, the apologist, or defender of the faith, it is your job to provide evidence of your claims. You haven’t because you can’t.

    To your point that “Conversion is an internal state…” so why should I or anyone else believe you? You claim to be an apologist and yet cop-out of your self-inflicted defense obligations by relying on the appeal that it’s an “internal state.” So what’s the point of being an apologist if you’re either unwilling or incapable of proving the reasons behind your own conversion?

    An example of what would qualify as objectively verifiable would be any evidence at all that Jesus resurrected. And please don’t cite the Bible as if that were enough, I would’ve converted long ago. Also, please don’t cite other apologists because a bunch of guys deciding through confirmation bias that their initial conclusion has been confirmed by hearsay accounts is also not evidence.

    To be fair, I’ll let you make the claim. I won’t define it at all so you won’t have to rely on your “category mistake” accusation (another baseless cop-out tactic to shirk responsibility of providing evidence for your claims).

    You have made the claim. You must provide evidence.



    • humblesmith says:

      Several very different issues are brought up in this question. I’ll do my best at dealing with them.

      First, if my memory is correct, the original article was dealing with what this man was thinking at the time he made a decision to become a Christian. My point was merely that what a person is thinking is in their mind, and no one else can say “you’re not thinking that.” If the man says he is happy or sad, how can we ask “show me proof that you are feeling this way.” Such a request is illegitimate, for it would question all self-knowledge. If I know anything, I know what I’m thinking. If I don’t know what I’m thinking without proof, I’m insane or absurd.

      Second, it appears that what you are now questioning is whether someone else can know whether Jesus saved a person, which is an entirely different issue. The original post did not pretend to give an epistemology lesson, defining every aspect of how we know things. Nor did it pretend to give an explanation of the gospel and a detailed theology, which is what you are asking. If you are genuinely interested in knowing who is Jesus, what salvation means, and from what we are saved, I, or any other Christian, would be more than happy to tell you. You can start by looking at the “How do people get to heaven?” link on this blog’s home page.

      Third, as to how this person knows Jesus saved him from eternal separation from God due to sin, I cannot speak for the man in the article. But in general, people know things because the truth statement in their mind aligns with the external reality in the world. We believe things either by demonstration or by accepting the statements of an authority. Christians in general have a mixture of both in coming to faith in Jesus. But again, I will not present an epistemology lesson here, especially when I’ve spoken on this issue previously in this blog.

      Fourth, as for the oft-repeated claim that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, this originated with David Hume, the great skeptic. I have written about him and his claims several times in this blog, this question specifically here:
      and more here:

      Fifth, as for the resurrection of Jesus: By dismissing the Biblical accounts, you are in effect saying “I won’t accept those nine eyewitnesses. You’ll have to come up with other evidence.” You see, the bible is made up of a group of eyewitnesses, and cannot logically be dismissed with a wave of the hand. But there is indeed more evidence from outside the bible. I have made several posts about the writings of Hemer and Habermas, two authors which specifically deal with extra-biblical, secular sources (outside the bible) that show the validity of the things inside the bible. These are not statements made by Christian apologists; quite the contrary, these authors are merely pointing out the secular sources. If you dismiss the primary source evidence because it is quoted by a Christian, then you are guilty of a genetic fallacy. I could just as easily dismiss any evidence made by an atheist merely because an atheist is quoting it.

      If you are interested in the sources outside the bible that show the same things inside the bible. There are many, but a few are these:
      For more, do a search on my blog for Hemer.

      Category mistakes must be avoided if one is to have a logical conversation. They are not “cop outs.”

      And as long as you are giving challenges to me, I’ll give a challenge to you:

      • Anton A. Hill says:

        Hey Humble,

        A lot of great stuff to consider. As such, it’ll take me a while to get to it. ‘Til then, happy posting.



  8. Shane Jones says:

    If you look at this site you can see how this conversion was easily influenced by an emotional response and not any factual evidence for god.

    As Zachary Moore implied, we can all be dicks, but that doesn’t make a case for or against our position on the belief or existence of god.

    Seems more like Morgan had been (no offence) dishonest about his continued search for a social support group. He found a group that was snide and condescending towards religion and the religious and didn’t like it, as soon as someone came around who was kind and objective as Morgan had been searching for and it flared up an emotional eureka response to the experience. That is fine and dandy, but the information for and against the arguments on god for Morgan didn’t really change as he said we as disinterested in the debate for god in the first place.

    Morgan was and probably still is quite ignorant to the arguments for and against god. This is why I find this story rather mundane and not inspirational on the topic it presents. It seems as though he needed something, he found it. Well good for you my fellow human that is really great, and I truly hope that you are happy in what you have found. Some of us can survive without god, without social support systems, without constant external emotional support outside of our relationships with our families; some of us cannot, and admitting to either does not make one weaker or stronger than the other. It just shows that we are all different people.

    I don’t need social support, I don’t need emotional strengthening, I am different than Morgan and so are many others. There are however, alternatives to religious services and fellowships that one can partake in and gain the same or similar support that Morgan was searching for. Sadly this topic seems to be about a man who left atheism and is rubbing it in the faces of others, instead of a story about a man who was in search of emotional support and found it. It pains me to see such a story that could have been beautifully written to inspire people to find their own desires in life be tossed out in a “IN YOUR FACE ATHEISM” way. It has effectively poisoned the story for me, and I’d wager it has done so for many others.

    Now let me explain the objections to this story so that you can see where one might explain the reasoning behind certain points.

    //Morgan was excited to communicate with scientists and philosophers who could offer more insight into evolution.//

    Richard Dawkins is known for his opposition to religion and uses his knowledge in science to discredit opposing religious ideas. Morgan could have easily gone to a Evolution forum that explicitly sticks to the science rather than go to the forum of one of the “four horsemen of atheism”. I would say it was naive of him to assume that Dawkins forum would have directly concentrated solely on the science and not included religion with it, since that is what Richard Dawkins and his books are mostly famous for in the first place.

    ///After witnessing the discussions firsthand, the newly minted evolutionist agreed that the Internet was more a place where people could hide behind their anonymity and say rude things as a kind of therapy.///

    Seems Morgan was aware that from face value that this particular forum was more for venting than it was for objective information.

    ///“Yes, David Robertson was seeking attention but it wasn’t for David Robertson. We all know for whom he was seeking attention,” expressed the now Christian Morgan.///

    One could argue that the more a pastor proselytizes the more money his church can earn regardless of what the man says his purpose is.

    ///Stunned by the level of inhumanity, Morgan wondered how any civilized person could say they wanted to see anybody die. ///

    This question fails to notice the human condition of fallibility to remain objective 100% of the time. It seems he was already set in a mentality that desired a way to mitigate the fallibility of humanity instead of accepting that humans are actually imperfect and he was now judging them on this bias need for the ability to repent instead of accept.

    ///It was then that Morgan realized he did not want to be a part of these people. “I’m not condemning all atheists,” he clarified in the interview. “I’m talking about anonymous atheists on internet discussion boards and the messages they express which are extremely negative, puerile, [and] full of hate…”///

    This is the most ironic bit as it is a poisoning the well fallacy by associating his decision to leave atheism due to a percentage of lets face it they were being condescending assholes. Instead of standing on his own as Richard Dawkins usually tells everyone he is talking to. I don’t want anyone to follow me dogmatically, I just want them to take my example of skepticism and apply it to their own lives. If you are following them without question then you are contradicting the things Dawkins, Hitches, or Harris are even talking about.

    ///In his confused state, without God or a community of atheists to turn to, Morgan started to post on The Free Church of Scotland’s forum, which the Scottish pastor was a part of.///

    Finding his support group was rather easy don’t you think? It seems that this was influenced by fear of being criticized by others because of the experiences he had in the forum. Not all Atheist groups are like that, not most of them. It would have been just as easy to ask someone a one on one question by personal message to a person in the forum whom Morgan felt was more objective and less offensive or not offensive at all, but he chose to seek out the church.

    ////“I’m not an atheist because I want to be an atheist. I’m not a happy atheist. I’m an atheist because I can’t believe in God.

    In response to Morgan’s post, Robertson, the “resident fruitcake” at the Dawkins’ forums, asked him two questions which subsequently changed his life: 1) Why don’t you believe in God? 2) What could make you believe in God?

    Dismissing the first question as dumb, Robertson’s initial reaction to the second question was “certainly not proof and evidence.”.////

    This is first an obvious emotional issue, and second the next bit is inconsistent. It seems someone has made a writing error and put Robertson where it should have said Morgan otherwise this makes no sense at all. Regardless of the error in publishing. The reaction of “certainly not proof and evidence” means close minded thinking or atheism. Now, how he got from that to an epiphany of gods love is a far stretch with zero inferential explanation. It is completely inconsistent.

    ///“I was certain without having any rational explanation that God existed, that he loved me without waiting for me to love him, that he loved me unconditionally without waiting for me to deserve it.”///

    “without having any rational explanation” translates to I was “irrationally” certain that God existed.

    ///“Science and philosophy are wonderful manifestations of the enormous capacities of the human mind, but the Word of God is truth, and truth is what it took to set me free,” Morgan stated. “Only a personal relationship with God can bring us to any kind of meaningful, personal, transcendental truth.”///

    Unsupported claim based on an irrational emotional response. Transcendental truth would imply outside of logic or realty and literally translates to illogical and unreality truth. Seemingly making the claim unrealistic for human definition at all contradicting the claim itself.

    ///In his renewed experience with God, he went back on the Dawkins site and posted about his newfound faith to which many replied with vile insults and commented, “You need counseling” and “This is a temporary brain infraction.”////

    Assuming that this would have been received as anything other than an in your face proclamation in attempt to offend them was simply naive and the knee jerk responses were by imperfect humans (for me at least) were understandable. I wouldn’t have made these comments, but I do understand why some people with less maturity or personal strength would be quick to respond with a “dickish” response.

    ///“I didn’t cease to know everything I knew before and I didn’t forget everything I learned about evolution or all of a sudden lose interest. I was [just] aware of how limited it was, how it could not answer man’s deepest needs.///

    Correct, evolution does not answer the needs of humanity, but the idea that it ever could have was ignorant. One has to strengthen his/her own understanding of his needs, how to communicate those needs, and how to properly fulfill them. One single science could never do that and I am sorrowful that Morgan thought that evolution or even the evolutionary community of Atheists could have done that for him. It is again I must reiterate that he needed a social and emotional support system that he earlier said he dismissed to validate his confirmation of a objection to the forum experience.

    ////Advising believers to speak to people in their language and maintain open lines of communication as Robertson had before in the forums, Morgan noted, “There’s no point speaking the truth if you are speaking a language that the person in front of you can’t understand.”////

    I couldn’t agree more, the same goes for Atheists trying to explain to Theists about the nature of a discussion and logical laws. If one uses a faulty line of logic to explain something, and then the objector explains how it was wrong, how is the person with a faulty line of logic supposed to understand anything logical if they are utilizing that faulty line of logic to asses the explanation? Atheists speak about reality, logic, and rational reason. By definition and proof in this very article. Theists are talking in a language outside of that. So the arguments are all arbitrary don’t you think?

    //“Science and philosophy do not have the answer to everything. If you are willing to listen with an open mind and an open heart and just say ‘perhaps I do not possess all the truth,’ that is an act of humility and I know that God never rejects or ignores acts of humility.”

    Referring to Revelation 3 where Jesus spoke, “I stand at the door and knock,” Morgan concluded, “Jesus hasn’t invited you to come and knock on his door. He says, ‘I am here, I am standing at the door, and knock.’ All you have to do is open the door and invite [him] in.”//

    “Open heart”; bringing in emotion to logic rarely ever offers an objective solution, it brings in bias to the personal needs of yourself. Regardless of accepting jesus or god if you make your decision solely on emotion you are going to find yourself in trouble the first time someone makes you angry, because after all, we are imperfect humans and we do get angry at times.


    Please next time just make the article about a man who found what he was searching for and not a man who against the odds of atheism found god. This is trying to be proof that the concept of god is better and more kind than Atheism and Atheist communities are, it has poisoned the story of a man who ultimately just found a way to live a happy life. I take no quarrel with your faith, I take no issue with your lifestyle, do what you have to do in order to live happily. However, if you can do it in a way so you’re not forcing others to think this is the only way it would be appreciated, because its not the only way. Even if I wasn’t an Atheist, the probability that I would be the same denomination as Morgan is very little, and then we would be disagreeing on who worships god better and how that makes our lives better than yours. Does it really make a difference if I live happily as a buddhist or a Shintu over a Christian? You should worry about happiness not who’s worshiping or not worshiping who’s god, that’s humility, that’s peace, that’s intelligence.

    • humblesmith says:

      I find the atheist response to the man in this article interesting. It seems to have struck an emotional cord. Whatever the man’s thought process, it was his thoughts, and the atheist position seems to constantly be trying to show that he should not have been thinking that way. The implication is that this man, and by implication all who become Christian, somehow have not based their decisions on pure logic, as if all decisions are made this way, and anyone who does not think like a computer has muddled thinking.

      Well, many decisions are made for a variety of reasons that may or may not make sense to others. I have a mild fear of heights and make decisions about where I go and what I do according to what makes me comfortable.They are my decisions, thank you very much. The blog post was instead about the rudeness of atheists which drove this one person into Christianity. Similarly, I find the emotional, gut-level vitriol and continual use of ad-hominem on the atheist web boards to be anything but logical. But the decisions they make are thier decisons.

      The article was not an exhaustive, logical explanation of why atheists would make a trip to Christianity. If one wants to find such a thing, see C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity, or see the works of Lee Strobel or J. Budziszewski, all of whom were committed atheists, quite intelligent, and made decisions to leave atheism and become Christians.

      • Humble,
        You seem to be the only reasonable person on this thread. Atheists don’t seem to understand that human reasoning has to come with emotion to even make sense of anything. Richard Morgan made the rational decision to come to Christ and that gave him joy. What most atheists try to ignore is the fact that God exists by changing their definition of what ‘evidence’ is. I saw another comment by an atheist (Anton, I believe) about how Lee Strobel was a ‘terrible journalist.’ If Strobel was a terrible journalist, he probably wouldn’t have been the Legal editor for the Chicago Tribune. Their ignorance makes me sick along with their fallacious thinking. As Paul said in Romans 1:20, God has revealed Himself and His existence to the entire creation so people are without excuse. Most atheists simply don’t want to think about such things, thus they attempt to explain God away in order to escape the questions of God.
        God Bless You!

        • humblesmith says:

          Further, just off the top of my head, I know of the following published accounts by people who were atheists who describe their thought process in becoming Christian:
          C. S. Lewis
          J. Budziszewski
          Lee Stroebel
          Anthony Flew

          Now, that these men made their choices does not prove theism true, just as the atheists’ decisions do not prove atheism true. But I find it increasingly untenable to believe that all these men made their choices out of irrational emotionalism or preconceived brainwashing. Especially in the case of Flew, who literally wrote standard textbooks supporting atheism. If anyone thought through his position, it was Flew.

  9. Ryan says:

    If you are willing to read and learn please consider reading:

    A Confession by Leo Tolstoy

    His work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published before January 1, 1923. It may be copyrighted outside the U.S.

    You can read this for free through:

    I found this book to be very interesting self reflection on faith

  10. Ryan says:

    sorry, that last sentence made no sense

    What I am trying to say is that:

    I found this book to be a very interesting reflection on faith

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s