Atheism is dead


I have to give atheists credit, if I believed there was no God I would hardly waste my precious time blogging against religions that weren’t true, or concerning myself with ten commandment monuments around national parks. I would firstly reproduce as much as possible, and secondly, I would fill my days with things that made me happy. Perhaps maligning religion makes some atheists happy, however, one can hardly compare this with living as though there truly were no God.

Which leads us to the core of my article, that atheists do not live as though their worldview were true, instead, the assume God exists in virtually all that they do.

The apostle Paul said of God “In Him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28)

The same is true for atheists, they rely on God just as much as the Christian. Just in another way.

I was reading the news earlier in the week and noticed another atheist organization trying to have another Christian monument removed.

I wonder why atheists preoccupy themselves with these things.

If there were no God, the universe has absolutely no meaning. That means, everything within the universe, both the physical properties and the events which take place, are, as result, without meaning.

Most atheists agree that the universe is essentially, according the their worldview, without meaning. Without a Superior Intelligence guiding natural processes, or a Divine Will willing creation as an active choice, we are left with a random event, which leads inevitably to a chain of other random events. All events within this one event that had no meaning are without meaning.

I find remarkable then, that atheists take such issue with religion. I can recall many times reading the moral and philosophical issues that atheists take with the Christian religion.

They point to events like the crusades as though they should be morally outraged.

Let’s think for a moment.

If the universe has no objective meaning, that means, a human being, a product and part of the universe, has no objective meaning. That means the human life itself has no objective meaning.

This is the philosophical end result of atheism. That human life has no meaning along with the universe.

However, atheists don’t act this way. Everyday atheists campaigning against religion and pointing out what they perceive as “injustices” are acting as though human life does have meaning. We should not teach children creationism, because their lives have meaning and the truth matters. We should not ban same sex marriage, because those people have feelings and their lives matter and have meaning, we should not believe in any deities because what we believe matters and beliefs have consequences which have meaning.

The result of atheism being true is that there is no meaning to human life or anything in the material world.

Yet atheists act as though there is.

“That’s the beauty of life, to find out our own meaning.”


Says the atheist.

I agree, I find that the meaning of my life is to teach young earth creationism to children, specifically, yours.

And who is the atheist to stop me? That’s the meaning to my life. Or perhaps the meaning of my life is to rob banks. Without objective meaning we have relative meaning. Which leads to moral problems.


Atheists rely on God for their meaning.

No atheist attacking religion should act as though there were meaningful consequences to religion. If I engage in a crusade, any human life that was taken had no meaning, the beliefs in my mind which I hold to had no meaning, and the chemical reactions which take place during my crusade were neither moral nor immoral.

That’s problematic.

How can chemical reaction be moral or not? In the atheist’s worldview, everything that happens is the result of matter acting on matter. Chemical reactions are morally neutral.

Why are people dying in an atomic bomb explosion any less moral than the process of the atom being fractured?


We hold that human life is more valuable than other types of life, and that human suffering is more than chemical reaction.

These beliefs betray atheism.

The Christian worldview however states that human beings are not just matter, but are images of GOD bearing a unique soul, and that the most Powerful Being in existence gave us laws to abide by for our own good.

Atheists rely on God for their morality.


“The meaning of life is to gain the truth through reason and logic”


And why should that be the meaning of life? This also leads us to another nail in atheism’s coffin. How an immaterial logic could be in a world of only matter.

Nobody would argue that logic is material so how can a worldview that doesn’t allow for anything accept matter have logic?

“Logic is made of matter, logic is the result of organized and orderly processes within our brain.”

Does the human brain change?


Then logic can change, and therefore we have no reason to impose logical absolutes on individuals or religions.

Human brains may change over time but the general makeup is the same, therefore the general rules of logic are the same.”

The general makeup? My Christian brain tells me that atheism is logically absurd, is the logic in my brain valid? if logic is rooted in the human brain, why is my logic different from atheism logic? And whose is right?

Logic is not made of matter, but is an abstract concept agreed upon by human beings.”

Then this is no longer materialism and the atheist just agreed the universe can harbor something that is not material. The problem is is that if humans agree on logic, why cannot we disagree? The law of identity for example is true whether or not I agree with the law. Logic is real independent of the human mind.

Logic I would argue, cannot be independent of a mind. I argue that logic is a reflection of God’s Mind. To make logic a reflection of the human mind is to say logic can be relative, because our minds are all different. To argue that logic is made of matter is to say logic can change, and is subject to entropy, which means in 500 years perhaps logic will be entirely unrecognizable, which is not the case if we look 500 years into the past.

Only an Immaterial Unchanging Rational Mind can be the necessary reason for immaterial unchanging logic.


Atheists rely on God for their logic.


Atheists don’t need any God or gods for morality, meaning, or logic. The knowledge we all gain is through the scientific method. We know things to be true, moral, and logical through studying the known universe.”


Which leads us to another atheist dilemma. How we have any idea what is true. What is truth without God?

“Truth is anything corresponding to reality”

And how do we know what’s real? The atheist believes the world around them is an actuality, and therefore can be studied as though what the world portrays is actually real.

What justification does the atheist worldview have for believing they are not in a dream world or that the world around them is not an illusion they cannot escape?

The Christian worldview states that God, who cannot lie, created us in His image with working senses in a world of His own, that, by nature, reflects the truth, and is real.

Perhaps our senses are valid, but how do we know what we’re sensing is actually real apart from the above worldview?

If we cannot know what is real, we cannot know what is truth, but instead just suppose truth without any certainty.

All the study of evolution or the cosmos relies on the premise that what they’re studying is actually real. This premise is only justified in a worldview with God. Without God what we see might not actually be a reality, but may be some type of illusion, or perhaps a dream world or simulation. We may have reason to believe the world is actually real, but we cannot say for certain that the world is real. Which means we cannot say anything is true for certain.

Yet atheists don’t act this way.


Atheists rely on God for truth and certainty.


Any and all criticism of this article supposes:





And morality (one would think there were a moral obligation to set me straight if I were not telling the truth)

The atheist relies on God for the existence of all. The atheist cannot breathe without God. The atheist can only attack God using the logic, truth, and certainty that He gave them. The atheist says God does not exist, yet has no basis for believing anything exists with certainty.

This article is not me trying to pick on atheists, this article is a call for atheists to repent.

The atheist uses these things that are GOD’S yet uses them to argue against His being.

The atheist has such a deep connection and reliance upon God the atheist must know innately that God indeed is real.

My friend, human life does indeed have meaning, and the truth and logic we all use rest in Christ, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge (Colossians 2:3)

The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, and dear reader, I urge you to stop your battle with God using the things which are His.


All the attacks on God from atheists, arguing against the logical coherence of Christianity, or the moral atrocities in the name of religion, or the truth which is known through science, or the meaning which the truth even has, or the certainty by which we can know the universe arose through natural processes, all the meaning, all the logic, all the morality…


all of it is Christ’s.



Is atheism a valid idea we should give attention to?

No, atheism is dead, we must abandon atheism wholesale.


18 thoughts on “Atheism is dead

  1. When you say Atheism is dead, I assume you are not claiming that everyone on earth believes in a God or gods again, rather that those without your faith are missing out on a part of life?


      1. That depends on what you would call valuable. Is atheism valuable in any sense? Certainly. If I wanted a worldview that gave me freedom to live with no regard for my Creator than atheism is entirely valuable.

        In a sense of providing certainty, morality and logic atheism is not.

        So to answer your question I would say that depends on the definition. I can believe in air but my belief is more valuable if I believe I must breathe it.


      2. Interesting. Why do you feel that atheism provides less logic? I think of atheists as the more science-based logic slinging types.


      3. Atheists can be very logical indeed. However the question is not if atheists are logical the question is would logic exist if atheism were true.

        Which leads back to my article about logic being something not made of matter and transcendant of the human mind. I argue only God’s mind can account for logic being what logic is.


      4. I definitely accept the fact that species can change, even significantly over time. What I don’t believe is that simple organisms gave rise to complex organisms or that species can change to such a degree as to become something other than their same species. I’m no scientist so I try to shy away from the evolution debate, I wouldn’t necessarily call evolution some type of conspiracy, I would say though that facts are only interpreted in accordance with our worldview, and science today is committed to naturalistic presuppositions, which yields naturalistic results, however unlikely.

        But no, I wouldn’t say God used evolution I believe He created species generally as they are, with allowance for small changes, like those we see in pets.


  2. I see. If species do change over time, and they get separated geographically, the evolutionists say that those separated branches each keep evolving and eventually, like horses and zebras, they look similar, but are different enough that they are now different species. But you would say, no, they never change that much, right? It’s sort of a time question. Like was the Grand Canyon always grand? Do you have a view on the age of the earth?

    What I’m really most curious about is this: Do you believe fossils of transitional species such as Tiktaalik are being misinterpreted somehow, or they are hoaxes or they are planted in the earth by the Devil to confuse people? I heard that once.


    1. While I would say our classifications of those animals may now be different, is there enough change in genetic information to actually warrant that new classification? If so was any information added?

      Again I’m not a scientist so these are just my personal thoughts. But I do believe in a young earth, and I don’t think fossils are by any means part of a conspiracy, in regards to your link I would wonder why they would call that creature a fish when it seems very much like an amphibian, but I’m no expert.

      Ultimately I have faith in those in creation science in the they have done the research and have studied creation to the glory of God. I do not by any means recommend taking my word on these matters, but there do exist reputable creation science journals and ministries, so I tend to leave this issue to the experts.

      My main area of interest in apologetics is history and philosophy.


    2. And I would add that unless one starts with a worldview that can account for certainty, debating specific evidence would not be very helpful.

      Can I ask do you believe there is a possibility the world around you is an illusion?


      1. I believe from my study of the brain that we experience a map of the real world, so in that sense it is an illusion, but also not. I believe there is a possibility that both you and I are simulations running in a powerful futuristic super computer. If that were true, all would be an illusion. I don’t know, but I find the possibility intriguing.


      2. Hmm that’s interesting. I guess that was the point of the article. If there’s a possibility that the world is a simulation and our illusion that would mean we would essentially have no certainty about what’s real and therefore what’s true, and any knowledge claims wouldn’t be justified. The only solution to this would be accepting Biblical axioms…i e we have certainty because there is no possibility that the world is an illusion or simulation but rather the creation of a Truthful God


  3. Good point, the simulation could make anything possible. I think you are saying that that level of uncertainty would be unacceptable. The consequences to knowledge if the simulation theory were true clearly dictate that it can’t be true, so the answer is to believe. Is that close?


    1. I would say the results of the simulation theory are unacceptable enough as to make any claim to knowledge unjustifiable. In other words if I said I know there’s a fellow named Xeno I’ve been conversing with…. But said fellow might not actually exist, then I can’t say I really know there’s a Xeno. If the simulation theory were true or rather even possible this uncertainty would extend to everything.

      So the solution I believe is to start with the axiom that the world around us is the creation of a Truthful God thereby getting rid of the possibility altogether.


      1. Thanks again. In a world created by a Truthful God, people have more certainty than in a world created by an Artificial Intelligence. Therefore it is best to get rid of the possibility of uncertainty by having faith in the Truthful God explanation of our existence and experience. Am I getting it?


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s