EDITOR’S WARNING: Some may find this post upsetting, as it challenges several deeply-held beliefs. If you are an atheist, and you’re sensitive to critiques of atheism, then we encourage you to leave this page immediately. Thank you. – Right Smarts Staff
The infamous German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche had a favorite saying, “Gott ist tot.” Translated into English, this is the highly provocative claim that “God is dead.”
I’ve got some bad news for Mr. Nietzsche (or would have, if he hadn’t died over a century ago) . . .
God is not dead. In fact, not only is God not dead, the evidence for God’s existence is overwhelming. So much so that the only thing which can be said to be dead is atheism. Which is where I come in.
Atheism is dead.
Consider the rest of this post its port mortem.
Okay Atheism Is Dead, But What Is Atheism?
Many people find this confusing, so let’s get it out of the way early.
Atheism is not “a lack of belief in God,” as atheists are so fond of saying. If you lack belief in God, but don’t deny God’s existence, you’re agnostic (neutral position), not atheist (negative position).
Atheism is the explicit denial of God’s existence.
The term has been used this way for centuries. It’s how the term’s defined by dictionaries, and by authoritative encyclopedias, like the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Most telling of all, it’s how atheists (including Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion) use the term.
That is, until they’re put on the defense. When that happens, they immediately retreat into agnosticism . . .
You see, the conflation of atheism and agnosticism is a recent trend of so-called “new atheists.” Those stereotypical atheists who may or may not have neckbeards, wear fedoras, and carry themselves with an unwarranted sense of arrogance . . . You know the ones.
It’s little more than a cheap rhetorical device; a way to hide the fact that they have nothing of substance to offer.
There is zero compelling evidence for atheism. If there were, then atheists would be quick to point it out.
When asked to defend it atheists must play make-believe agnostics, retreating into the safe space of neutrality. This allows them to dodge their own burden of proof: offering a stronger explanation for existence than God. (this isn’t to say theists don’t also have a burden of proof. Of course they do.)
Anyone who’s ever had debated an atheist knows exactly what I’m talking about.
Atheist “God does not exist, you stupid theist!”
Theist: “If you say God doesn’t exist, what evidence do you have for God not existing, and for a better explanation for existence?”
Atheist: “I don’t need evidence, I merely lack belief in God’s existence.”
Explicit denial of God’s existence (atheism) when on the attack. Then they get challenged. Then they retreat into lack of belief in God (agnosticism) when on the defense.
It’s a textbook bait-and-switch tactic.
There is a secondary motivation for conflating atheism and agnosticism: to inflate the number of atheists.
Think about it . . .
If simply lacking belief in God makes one an atheist, then all agnostics are atheists. And if all agnostics are atheists? The U.S. (and the world) has a lot more atheists than we thought.
Take a look at this 2009 research on religious belief in the United States from the Pew Research Center:
We have 2% of the U.S. population identifying as atheism, and another 2% identifying as agnostic.
Ah, but here’s the catch: if simply lacking a belief in God makes you atheist, then those self-described agnostics are actually atheists. This means that 4% of the U.S. population is atheist — double what the research shows.
As they say, there’s power in numbers. Atheists know this, and use it to their advantage by using deceptive definitions to smuggle in millions of agnostics.
Of course, you’ll never hear self-described agnostics claim to be atheists. Most agnostics reject the atheist label, since they view atheists those who deny God’s existence.
Now that we know what atheism is (and isn’t), let’s continue on explaining why it’s dead as a credible worldview.
Atheism Offers No Positive, Testable Argument
To be credible, a worldview must offer a positive, testable argument. You can’t say it’s true and leave it at that, you’ve got to show it’s true.
If I told you that a purple alligator named Hector had created the universe, you’d demand positive evidence for this claim. If I couldn’t produce it (spoiler alert: I can’t), you’d reject it, and rightfully so.
“What does this have to do with atheism,” you might ask. It’s simple . . .
Atheists claim God does not exist, yet offer no supporting evidence. It’s a bald assertion; a claim with nothing to back it up. As the late atheist Christopher Hitchens was fond of saying:
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.”
Ah, but there’s more, folks.
In claiming that God does not exist, atheism logically entails that something other than God must be responsible for why something (rather than nothing) exists.
If God didn’t create existence, then something else had to. Makes sense, right?
And if you deny that God created existence, as atheists do, then you must believe something else did, right?
Let’s break it down in point-by-point fashion:
- Fact: existence exists (if I didn’t, you wouldn’t be reading this right now).
- There must be an explanation for this fact.
- Atheists deny one possible explanation: God.
- In denying the God explanation, atheism entails that some explanation other than God must be true.
- Atheists refuse to say what this other explanation is, let alone offer evidence in support of it.
- Thus, we’re left with a cold, hard conclusion: Atheism is a blind faith; a position with no evidence supporting it.
I’ve asked thousands of atheists to offer a superior explanation to God, and present evidence for it. Every single time they make an excuse. Some go red in the face and start name-calling. One even angrily said to me, “atheism doesn’t need evidence!” (with spittle flying out of his mouth).
Do you know any other worldviews which insist that they don’t need supporting evidence? I don’t; the very idea is absurd!
Don’t Believe The Hype: Atheism Has Given (Almost*) NOTHING to Science
Atheists like to pretend that science is their domain. And sure, a lot of modern scientists are atheists (relative to the population as a whole).
But the claim that atheism and science go hand-in-hand? It couldn’t be further from the truth.
Atheism is anti-science, and anti-reason.
Before any atheists reading this scream at me, please allow me to elaborate.
Science “works” for two reasons:
- The universe is comprehensible. That is, it follows a set of orderly guidelines (laws) which allow it to be understood by cognitive observers (that’d be us).
- Cognitive observers exists (hi, mom!).
This makes perfect sense from the perspective of theism.
Theists believe that God is the designer of the universe; a “cosmic engineer,” so to speak. Most theists also believe that God wants to be discovered. This would mean that science is the reverse engineering of the cosmic engineer’s work.
Sure enough, reverse engineering the universe perfectly described what science is and does. We study the various parts of nature and figure out how they work. That’s reverse engineering.
None of this makes any sense from the perspective of atheism.
Atheism entails mindlessness. Mindlessness entails chaos. Chaos is the opposite of science. Our minds are not chaos, and our universe is not chaos. If they were, science would be impossible.
Is it any wonder, then, that God-fearing men have built science over the centuries? From the scientific method, to nearly every branch of science, they’ve all came from the blood, sweat, and tears of God-believers. Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Max Planck . . . name a great scientist throughout history, and I’ll show you a believe in God.
What have atheists given science? Well . . . early astrologers were said to be atheist occultists, and astrology was once considered valid science. So that’s . . . something.
Atheism simply does not lend itself to productive science. Even today’s scientists who call themselves atheist conduct their research as if the universe is intelligently designed, with a purposeful, goal-oriented structure.
A great example of this is Darwinian evolution, where the evidence for design is so overwhelming that atheists have to pretend that the deaf, dumb, and blind forces of nature are somehow more ingenious than man.
“Evolution is cleverer than you are.”
More on evolution shortly . . .
If you question any of the above, then I have a challenge for you:
- Make a list of all branches of science founded by theists.
- Make a list of all branches of science founded by atheists.
- Compare the two to see which is the more impressive list.
What did you find?
If you did the above challenge, and did it honestly, you’ll find exactly what I found: Science was built on the foundation of theism, and in particular, Christianity.
Atheism, on the other hand, hasn’t given science anything of note.
It turns out that believing all of existence is one great big directionless accident isn’t a great heuristic for discovering truth. A shocker, I know.
But science isn’t the only area atheism has failed in. Oh, no . . .
Atheism Has Given Nothing to Humanity (But Taken A Whole Hell Of A Lot From It)
There’s a saying by the pseudo-intellectual atheist Stephen Weinberg:
“Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”
This is a strong contender for the dumbest thing ever said. It’s not only wrong, it’s wrong on so many levels that pointing them all out would quickly exceed this site’s monthly bandwidth allocation:
Weinberg’s concept of good and bad are stolen from Christian morality; millions of good people have done evil things for reasons other than religion (for love, for example); if religion is powerful enough to motivate the good to do evil, then it can motivate the evil to do good . . .
I could go on. I won’t. Instead, I’d like to look at the one error of most importance to this article.
Atheists have done a lot of evil.
In fact, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that atheists have done more evil than theists, despite being significantly outnumbered by them (sometimes by a factor in the thousands) throughout history.
Don’t believe me? Take a look below.
Atheism is by far the bloodiest religion. Not only is the list of history’s most horrific genocidal maniacs dominated by atheists, so, too, are the world’s prisons. Research has repeatedly shown that the percentage of prisoners who are atheist greatly outnumbers the percentage of atheists in the general population.
This all begs one important question . . .
Why Are Atheists So Violent?
It’s a good question, but not a complex one. The answer is simple.
Atheists are violent because atheism inherently devalues human life.
Theists respect human life; they view it as the most precious, most valuable thing in the world.
We are the Creator of the universe’s ultimate creation, made with love, and for an ultimate purpose. We have intrinsic value.
Even those so badly disabled that they’re unable to function are deemed priceless.
But not to atheists.
To the atheist, human life is just a cosmic accident; pond scum which has, through a long series of beneficial mutations, evolved consciousness.
The universe has no purpose, nor does anything in it, including humanity. Any purpose we may think we have is just illusory; a lie we tell ourselves to better cope with the cold, dark, nihilistic reality of our existence.
There’s no reason for an atheist to respect any human life. And those atheists who follow atheism to its logical conclusion don’t. It’s why finding pro-life atheists is so rare.
If you view humanity as an accidental byproduct of a purposeless universe, then you’ll treat humanity as an accidental byproduct of a purposeless universe. The results won’t be pretty.
Atheism Shrinks As Knowledge Grows
As I demonstrated above, atheism lacks a positive supporting argument. This is because when you dig in and really examine atheism, you’ll find that it’s little more than an argument from ignorance.
Atheism, in a nutshell:
- I know of no evidence for God. (this is the ignorance)
- Therefor, there is no evidence (here’s some more)
- Therefore, God does not exist. (atheism’s argument from ignorance)
- Therefore, the universe self-created via magic. (the logical consequence of atheism’s argument from ignorance)
The problem with this sort of argument is that it becomes weaker the more we learn.
Atheists once claimed the universe was infinite. If the universe was infinite, than it had no beginning. If it had no beginning, then we don’t have to explain how it came to be; it was always there.
This worked for a while. Then along came a little something you might have heard of: the big bang.
What the data behind the big bang proved was that the universe had a beginning, which meant something had to precede it; something had to cause it.
What about biology? Surely Darwin solved all of that back in the mid-19th century, right? Atheists tell us he did. Why would they lie about that? They defend it because it’s good science, and they’re pro-science. What other motivation could there be . . .
“Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually-fulfilled atheist.”
Oh! So that’s why so many atheists valiantly support and defend Darwin’s arguments.
It’s not about defending science, it’s about defending that “intellectual fulfillment.” Darwin’s theory explained our existence without God, which supports the atheist position. Defending Darwin is tantamount to defending atheism.
So, that settles it, right? Darwin’s theory means atheism wins.
Ha! Not even close.
Darwin’s “theory” has largely been a failure, with little to no resemblance to how biology actually operates (random chance plays almost no role, and natural selection is trivial at best). All that big talk from atheists assuring its the most proven theory in science, and the foundation of all biology? Big words designed to masque very little evidence, and to intimidate you into accepting it.
You don’t have to take my word for it. Just listen to the brilliance of Dr. Jonathan Wells. Dr. Wells is not only a multi-Ph.D. (a couple of diploma mills called U.C. Berkeley and Yale), but his IQ is said to be in the “high genius” category.
How smart is Dr. Wells? Think of the dullest person you know, and now think of your favorite biologist. The gap between the dullard’s and the biologist’s intelligence is likely smaller than the gap between the biologist’s and Dr. Well’s intelligence. He’s not just smart, he’s scary smart. And he’s an expert on Darwin’s evolution (if you think you know more on the subject than he does, you’re wrong). Here he runs down some of its many failings:
But the above only addresses Darwin’s (failed) attempt at explaining the origin of species. Explaining the origin of life? That’s on a whole different level.
For the most part, Darwin avoided the question of life’s origin like the plague. What little Darwin did delve into the subject was so misguided as to be closer to bad comedy than good science. In short, Darwin believed that life was very simple, and could originate with a basic mix of chemicals in the right place–say, a warm little pond–at the right time (a belief still shamefully held by many for ideological reasons).
Of course, we now know that belief is laughable. We know that even the “simple” cell is an unfathomably-complex structure (one scientist compared it to a microscopic Broadway), and that life is powered by the most sophisticated programming language in the known universe, the genetic code. We know that life is comprised of millions of nano-machines, acting in orchestra to allow us, and all other living creatures, past and present, to exist. Good luck explaining all of that without an intelligent designer. Heh.
Not only has an atheistic origin of life never been demonstrated, it’s never even been proven possible.
Is it possible for life to arise from non-life? Is it possible for the blind forces of nature to create, not only the brilliant programming language that is the genetic code, but the cellular machinery to read and transcribe that language? So far, the evidence is shockingly empty, despite what surely adds up to billions of dollars in funding and millions of hours of research from brilliant men and women.
Just take a look at the amazing molecular machines within the human body. Did these machines self-engineer through random mutation? That’s an extraordinary claim with an extraordinary lack of evidence.
The validity of atheism rests on both a God-free origin of the universe, and a naturalistic origin of life. Both views were once considered plausible, but after decades of discovery and increased knowledge, now seem like fairy tales for the ignorant, and the wishful thinking of ideologues.
The more we learn, the weaker atheism becomes. That’s a very profound observation.
My Challenge To Atheists: Either Put Up Or (For God’s Sake!) Shut Up
Show us the evidence for atheism.
You claim to be rational, logical, and only accepting of things proven true, so this isn’t an unreasonable demand.
Don’t hide behind the “lack of belief” lie, which is just intellectual cowardice.
Don’t try to change the subject and demand evidence from theists (we have overwhelming evidence, which you ignore).
Most of all, don’t shout out how you “don’t need no stinkin’ evidence!” (especially not with spit flying out of your mouth; it makes you look insane)
Instead, just show us a better explanation than God for why something, rather than nothing, exists.
That’s it. It’s that simple.
If you want to go into even deeper detail, then great!
Explain to us how nature arose from whatever it is you believe nature arose from. Explain to us how the laws of nature came to be. Explain to us the origin of life. Explain to us the origin of the laws of logic and of mathematics. The more atheism can explain, the stronger it will become, and the more people who adopt it as their worldview.
If you can do these things, and do them compellingly, then you will have taken atheism from an irrational blind faith in a what appears to be little more than non-testable magic, to a legitimate, credible worldview on par with–maybe even superior to–theism. I’ll abandon my theism and proudly wave that scarlet A flag, as will all other reasonable theists.
But you won’t do any of those things.
You won’t do anything of those things because you can’t do any of those things. And that is why you get so angry when you’re asked to.
Unlike a man named Jesus Christ, atheism won’t be rising from the grave.
Atheism is dead, and it’s staying that way.
P.S., if you dispute any of this article, comments are open. I love to hear from everyone, from all worldviews. Who knows, maybe one of you will even answer my challenge. I mean . . . miracles do happen, after all. 😉
BONUS: A Quick Rundown Of Other Atheist Silly Questions & Bad Arguments
Is Atheism A Religion?
It can be, and often is, but not in all situations. Just like not all theists qualify as being religious, neither do all atheists.
But, some do. How do we determine which do, and which don’t?
If you’re an atheist, and you hold atheistic views on:
- The existence of existence/the universe (without ultimate purpose).
- The existence of life on Earth (purposeless and unintentional).
- The existence of human life (ultimately purposeless and unintentional).
- Morality (no ultimate foundation; based entirely on [evolved] reason).
- The (absence of) an afterlife.
Then you’re well your way to being a religious atheist. After all, these topics fall under the domain of religion.
Furthermore, if you:
- Frequently read atheistic literature.
- Proselytize for atheism (including on the Internet).
- Attend church-like atheist sermons.
Then, yeah . . . you’re religious (probably a fundie, too).
You’re behaving just like the religious do, over the exact same subjects, only from the other end of the spectrum. They believe mind over matter; you believe matter over mind.
Saying Atheism Is A Religion Is Like Saying Bald Is A Hairstyle!
Let’s remember: religion doesn’t require belief in a creator God. Buddhism is the world’s third-largest religion and rejects the notion.
Is saying Buddhism is a religion like saying bald is a hairstyle? Don’t be silly.
(one could also argue that nature is the atheist’s creator God, but I digress)
Atheism can, and often does, fulfill all the requirements of being a religion, with or without belief in a creator God.
Because it is.
Can Atheists Be Rational?
It’s hard to see how. The atheist position logically entails that the mind is nothing more than chemical reactions, which behave according to the deterministic laws of chemistry. There’s no room for critical thought or reason; you believe what your brain chemistry dictates you believe, and that’s that.
Does that fit your definition of rational? It doesn’t mine.
Are Atheists Free Thinkers?
Not at all. Atheists engage in the same groupthink and behavior that are commonplace in ideological echo chambers.
Not only are atheists not free thinkers, one could make a strong argument that atheists, if atheism is true, can’t be free thinkers. Think about it . . .
Atheism entails the denial of free will, which is — you guessed it — the ability to think freely. Kind of hard to be a free thinker without free will, isn’t it? This is a severe case of cognitive dissonance.
Why Do You Say Atheists Can’t Be Good Without God When I Know Lots Of Good Atheists?
This is a common misunderstanding.
When it’s said that atheists can’t be good without God, it’s not meant that atheists can’t behave in ways deemed “good” by civil society. They can, and many do (albeit at a lower rate than theists).
What’s meant is that, in an atheistic world, “good” and “bad” have no ultimate objective standard, and so no one is good or bad. This is a dillema atheist philosophers have dealt with for centuries. Don’t expect it to be solved any time soon.
Who Created God?
Do you know how creationists like to ask evolutionists “if we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys,” and then act like they’ve asked a profound question?
This is the atheist version of that question.
Rather than being profound, asking who created God shows a deep ignorance of the necessary properties of God — or of any proposed first cause.
Whatever the root of reality is — that prime force or substance — it will not, CANNOT, have a creator. That God is timeless and uncreated aren’t arbitrarily-assigned attributes, but necessary properties reasoned to by centuries of deep thought.