Why Are Christians So Stupid?

It doesn’t take too long for anyone to notice that religion in general is mocked and remarked as a belief for the unintelligent. Atheists are thought as the Rick and Morty TV show level higher intellect while the Christian is the normie causal.

However, contrary to the atheistic rhetoric regarding Christianity and the Bible’s teachings, the Bible actually does not support blind faith or questioning. The Bible has a prescriptive command in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 and I wish it were the motto of everyone today. It is actually fairly similar to the motto of many atheists, who use “question everything” as a sort of slogan for their free-thinking campaigns. The Bible tells Christians to “Test Everything”, you can probably see the similarities by now.

The Bible also encourages people to gain knowledge (Proverbs 18:15). You see, the only way to characterize Christianity as inherently illogical is to admit your a priori assumption is that all faith is illogical. However, In my opinion and in my experience, many atheists don’t even try to attempt to validate this assumption. Once an atheist does in fact provide some reasoning for why faith is inherently irrational, without separating faith and confidence (Con Fide = With Faith and is a synonym of faith) I’ll be happy to consider this argument instead of brushing it off as rhetoric.

When you drink water, you have confidence/faith that it’s not poisoned, you make that assumption based on the surrounding facts, but you do not check those facts every single time you drink a glass. We assume a lot of things in our life, we all have properly basic beliefs.

So, if you’re going to come out with “Christians are dumb lolz” rhetoric, at least do me a favor and validate your epistemology with argumentation.

Thoughts and Prayers: Helpful or Hateful?

After any serious incident that befalls mankind, many turn to social media to show their support, whether they say “thoughts and prayers” or change their profile picture to the flag of the country in need. Both of these methods have rightly been criticized, but in one instance, I think they’re throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Is “Thoughts and Prayers” really that bad of a thing to say? Sure, someone could merely be virtue-signaling, wanting everyone to see that they somehow care about this bad event that happened to people they don’t know, but it’s highly improbable that’s the case for everyone who says it.

When someone says they were thinking about you, you interpret that within the context of your relationship to that person. Because of this, I can understand why someone would be confused by some stranger thinking about them during a hard time. The problem is that this assumes that the mere thought implies inaction. The conclusion in this assumption simply doesn’t follow.

Many on social media will scoff and mock at the idea that someone is offering thoughts and prayers to victims, but if we were to use their logic, their complaining about thoughts and prayers are just as inefficient. You can scream “help people instead of praying” as much as you want, but if you aren’t helping them yourself, what does your whining do?

Before you object, yes, I agree that thoughts and prayers from people who obviously don’t  mean it or are not religious and are just using it to virtue signal are wrong for doing so. Christian Apologist Richard Bushey makes this excellent point regarding prayers vs. legislation

If you are completely motivated by a political agenda, it might surprise you to learn that people actually appreciate being told that they are prayed for and thought of. This is true even when nothing is going on. It is a reminder that somebody is there and cares for you, even if you do not know that person well. When somebody literally loses their entire family, all of the sudden, in an act of violence, it will lead to anger, despair and loneliness. If I approach them and say, “Don’t worry; my political agenda will prevent this from happening again,” guess what? They are hardly going to be consoled. But if I tell them that I am praying for them, then they know that I am there for them.

There is also this strange idea that if prayer worked, evil acts wouldn’t happen. No discussion of theodicy needed, just a tweet with some rhetoric and assumptions about a whole system of belief. Do they think we believe in a God who is just as surprised when evil acts occur as we are? Do you really want God to be like us? As Douglas Wilson so aptly puts

The more guilt-ridden we are, the more we experience a different kind of compulsive lust—the lust to not be seen for what we actually are. This is why our leading role models and heroes now are no longer admirals, explorers, poets, and astronauts, but rather celebrities and actors. They tell lies for a living, and they represent us well.

If person X and person Y both help person Z, but person X also adds “I’m praying for you” does that make his work null? When a football player wins a Superbowl and says “All Glory belongs to God” does that mean the player didn’t work hard to win the game? Prayer has never been a way to give up personal responsibility.

They’re also some benefits to prayer that have been examined by psychology. For example, Jesse Bering, a psychologist for Queens University stated

Whether it’s a dead ancestor or God, whatever supernatural agent it is, if you think they’re watching you, your behavior is going to be affected.

PsychologyToday counts 5 reasons why prayer could be beneficial to someone. The five reasons being It can teach self-control, It could make you nicer, It could make you more forgiving, could increase trust, and can offset negative effects from stress.

So, whether you’re an edge-lord or someone who simply doesn’t get while we pray, at least see that saying prayer is “meaningless” is incoherent.

8 Things Creationists Should Stop Doing.

1. Questioning The Faith of Christians Over This Issue Whether it’s the age of the earth, if the seven days were 24-hour periods or climate change, none of these issues are salvation issues, they aren’t even necessarily theological issues, but scientific issues with theological implications.  The exception being the seven days, that should be understood in the context of the ancient near-east an the historical-grammatical method of interpretation. I’m happy to let the reader take their position as they may, the important thing is to not pretend someone is going to hell because their seven days don’t follow the Gregorian calendar.

2. Buzzwords and “Gotcha!” questions. 

We are here to win souls, not just arguments. Regurgitated, rehearsed lines and responses are not the best way to engage someone.

3. Pretending you’re a Scientist or an expert in a certain field because you read a few articles on the topic.

This should be self-explantory, don’t pretend to be an expert in a field where you’re not.

4. Citing Shoddy Sites 

We don’t need a convincing case of dinosaurs living with humans from dinosandhumanstotallyarebffs.com or iamgullibleandbelieveanythingagainstthemainstreamscientificopinion.com, cite proper academic sources to back up your claims.

5. Using Bad Arguments

“If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?” “How do explain the sunrise?” “Tide goes in Tide goes out, you can’t explain that” and other low-energy questions should be avoided at all costs. You aren’t going to convince the average Joe when you show a blatant misunderstanding the most basic features of their beliefs.

6. Accusing Christians who disagree with you for selling out to the world.

Disagreeing with someone on the conclusion regarding empirical data doesn’t necessarily mean someone is a sell-out or are on some bandwagon. Perhaps they’ve seriously considered this issue and their implications and find the conclusions thereof to be coherent. Get to know not just what someone believes but also why they believe what they do.

7. Using History to Disprove Science 

History is not meant to address scientific claims, so appealing to the historicity of a belief is irrelevant to a self-correcting system.

8. Bully Christians Into Believing Your Interpretation

Rhetoric like “You don’t submit to scripture if you don’t believe the Earth is X years old” is harmful to our brothers and sisters and when you treat the age of the earth as an essential doctrine in which the Christian faith once delivered to the saints stands or falls. You’re standing on the quicksand of dogmatism that the rock of our salvation isn’t on.


I know it’s a joke in Reformed circles to look to a fortune cookie for wisdom but while eating at an asian buffet, there was a fortune that perhaps you’d like to hear. Regardless of the source, it has a point that you should take into consideration. It said “Speaking the Truth is a loving act.” This is my intention.

Did Darwin Repent?

Charles Darwin, the Atheist’s hero and the Neo-Ussherian’s nightmare. Darwin lived a pretty full life, dying at the age of 73 in 1882. If you think Evolution is a controversy now, it was even more so then. Nowadays, Scientists have way more evidence and technology to come to their conclusions that simply remained speculative in Darwin’s day.

Since Evolution was seen as an enemy of the Church at the time, it makes sense that some would like to think that Darwin renounced Evolution in favor of Christianity. These rumors aired about one month after his death. [1]

One of the most well-known rumors surrounding this issue, was a recollection by Lady Hope [2]. In Lady Hope’s sequence of events, Darwin was visibly uneasy regarding the Genesis creation account while he was reading the book of Hebrews. This was published and got a wide circulation.

However, there are several problems with Lady Hope’s recollection. First, there was inconsistencies in her story. Lady Hope claimed to be present when Darwin was on his deathbed, yet his daughter Henrietta wrote on page 12 of the London evangelical weekly, The Christian, for 23 February 1922,

‘I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case, she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier…The whole story has no foundation whatever’ [3]

It should also be noted that Darwin’s wife Emma, who was burdened by his agnosticism, would have seized upon any semblance of repentance or a confession, yet she never corroborated on this story.

Since there is no evidence Darwin had a death-bed repentance, his family denies it, and the most credible account is filled with inconsistencies that are denied by the people who were there, it is safe to say it is highly unlikely that Darwin repented.

But even if it were true, that Darwin recanted Evolution and became a Christian (I don’t think these two things are mutually contradictory) it wouldn’t prove anything. Evolution no longer relies on Darwin’s influence and writings to continue, if anything the fossil record and the Human Genome Project led by Dr. Francis Collins provides a stronger argument for Evolution than Darwin. The irony of the situation is that Dr. Collins is a Christian. So, for the few people who want to repeat this highly improbable death-bed scenario with Darwin, I hope you see that the argument is of no value even if it were true.

[1] James Moore, The Darwin Legend, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1994, pp. 113–14
[2] ibid. p.176
[3] Watchman Examiner, Boston, 19 August 1915, p. 1071. Source: Ref. 1 , pp. 92–93 and 190