Why I Am Not An Atheist

In this age of reasoning and intellectual prowess, we have come to a point where belief systems have to be scrutinized in the face of constructive reasoning and intellectual analysis, so that with the evidence of objective arguments backed by meaningful evidences, our fundamental beliefs and opinions can be discussed not as irrational ranting deduced from indoctrination, but as informed opinion deduced from rational soul searching and concise objectivity.
In lieu of this, it is pertinent I assert at this stage that I am a theist. Not just a theist, but a literal creationist who believes in the infallibility and inerrancy  of the biblical word of God. (I am tempted to add that that there is a logical justification for my belief). This position is not as a result of indoctrination (though the foundations of all belief systems theist or non-theist stem from indoctrination of some kind) but rather soul searching, rational and logical analysis buttressed by personal convictions from esoteric experiences. This is the basis of my position on religious beliefs.
The faith factor
I am not an atheist because of several factors, some of which are pertinent. The first factor here would be faith. The atheistic logic stems from the belief that there is absolutely or probably no God. This belief runs contrary to known conventions and beliefs that have been the basic rationality for centuries. Our quest for knowledge has given us a newer understanding of how things around us operate and co-exist, but our interpretation suggests the non-existence of a super-intelligent creator.
I do not dispute the evidences that suggest the diversity of human species or the existence of human life and forms on our planet. What I disagree with is the interpretation deduced from these facts or evidences. Perhaps the appropriate way to start would be to separate the facts from fiction. 
If the conclusion that an invisible creator designed the universe as we see it today is called faith. And the other side of the argument lacks an empirical outlay of facts and evidences that suggest that such a creator cannot exist, then its (theist) arguments can also be described as relying on the persuasions of faith.
For example, love is an abstract thing. It can neither be seen nor touched. It has neither weight nor mass, hence not subject to materialism. Is it appropriate to deny the concept of love? (in lieu of the fact that people show gestures that can be described as love to one another) would it be logical to dismiss love as non-existent because it is intangible? funny enough, God says He is love.
Since atheism defies rationality (because it is unable to produce jaw-dropping evidences to support its assertions. This conclusion is based on personal conclusion after reading several arguments from leading atheists and non-theist scientists), it is only rational to say that the inability to produce empirical evidence against scientific claims or theory is simply the hyping of an illusion. This illusion is what I call faith. In the absence of empirical evidence, Atheism or non-theism relies on faith and not logic.
Intelligence
Intelligence can only beget intelligence. The material world around us is a product of human intelligence. Regardless of atheistic arguments and notions that suggest the notion that "any super-intelligence capable of creating the universe must have specific characteristics and attributes that are not attributed to God" as suggested by Richard Dawkins is simply a mischievous argument. 
This is because the material world around us was created by men of different abilities, intelligence, attributes and inexplicable limitations. Notwithstanding these attributes, they were able to invent the things we use today including vehicles, aeroplane and other technological devices that have advanced our civilisation. If this argument is plausible for man, why is it not plausible in entrenching a case for the existence of a super-intelligent designer? Sounds like double standard to me.
Esoteric factor
I am not an atheist largely because I understand that true Christianity is esoteric. This implies that I have an interpersonal relationship with God that makes me hear from Him from time to time effortlessly. Contrary to innuendos (that are usually associated to persons who claim to hear from God) I am sane and clearly hear the voice of God. I also do see dreams and visions from God that come to pass. So also do millions of true believers all over the world who have an interpersonal experience with Him.
Daily mail reported some months ago of a man who won £2,800 for correctly predicting and betting on the choice of Chelsea's next manager, when the bookies had no list of favourite. When asked how he knew, he replied that "he dreamt about it"
Another instance would be the case of James Martins, he had a dream. In that dream he walked into a street and meets a white bloke with a Scottish accent , who was dressed in a blue suit. The bloke hands over a business card. He had never met the bloke in his dream before. 
Days later whilst James was about his normal business. He walks into a busy street in west London and finds a formally dressed man helplessly battling to resuscitate his flattened tyres. With no help in sight and the man seemingly incompetent, James offers to help. The man kindly obliged. 
In the course of helping the man, they began to converse. The man had a Scottish accent and on helping him to fix the car problems the man produces his business card and asks James to keep in touch. It was only after the man had driven off that James realised that this event was what he dreamt about 3 nights ago.
It is impossible for the human brain to conjure up a dream of a future event with such impeccable accuracy. While scientists argue that dreams are influenced by the subconscious brain, the question is, how did the brain know that James martin would walk into a street in west London, meet an helpless bloke with a Scottish accent, who would need his help and hand over a business card to him?
The powers of dreams suggest the existence of the extra-terrestrial or a realm beyond the reach of matter. James dream can thus be viewed in the form of a message (from someone capable of knowing a future event) to someone with whom He is deeply involved with. This illustrates the persona of God and the essential self evidence of millions of persons over the world who have personal experiences and a relationship with God.
Miracles 
Persons all over the world have personal limitations. These limitations range from debilitating illness (such as cancer, leukaemia, HIV/AIDS, physical disabilities) to financial handicap (bankruptcy or indebtedness), wrong imprisonment and poverty amongst others. Many times the victims of these limitations are incapable of getting help from their immediate environment. In such cases, there is the need for a miracle.
A miracle is an unexpected intervention in a helpless case. Many persons suffering from these personal limitations have experienced profound and undeniable miracles as a result of their prayers and faith in Jesus Christ. This is the basis of interpersonal relationships between men and God. 
While these miracles or personal relationship with God does not constitute a generic empirical evidence for the existence of God, it however personifies sufficient individualistic evidences for the person involved (those who have received a miracle or communed with God) that God does not only exist but is also keenly interested in the affairs of men. I belong to the privileged few described above, hence I cannot be an atheist. 
The salvation logic
I am not an atheist largely because of my belief in salvation and the conclusive logic which is applicable to our intellectual world.
I do concede that I was indoctrinated into Christianity, but living in the 21st century where logic, rational analysis and arguments have raised question marks on dogmatic belief systems, it is pertinent that I explain why regardless of my indoctrination into Christianity,  have still remained a Christian and dedicated my life to Christ for good.
The salvation principle makes logical sense if viewed from a literal objective point of view. The judicial systems in many parts of the world dictate that crimes of several kinds must be punished with specified penalties including the much dreaded death penalty.
This punishment serves as an atonement  for the crime committed. Relating this to Christianity, the judge can be likened to one who has absolute jurisdiction or sovereignty (in this case that would be an intelligent designer or creator to whom all must give account to), the accused would be the creations who have violated the inherent laws of nature. what if the punishment was unbearable? and what if the pardon was possible as is applicable in our judicial system?

 . . . . . . to be continued