Why believe in Atheism when they offer no proof (they have no proof because they cannot obtain proof). If Atheists would be honest with their position they can only admit they are agnostic, a non-theist who is still seeking proof of God’s existence. But an atheist can only be categorized as a dishonest agnostic who gave up his search. A true agnostic would hold a view of there being insufficient evidence but is still open to the possibility of obtaining evidence to be self convinced. An authentic agnostic will find himself in the middle, able to criticize both the views of the theist and the atheist equally for their fixed position. There are agnostics that have already convinced themselves that neither he nor anyone else can obtain evidence of the existence or the non-existence of God. The difference of an atheist from an agnostic is that an atheist takes the position that he has obtained full knowledge (even though he is not), he is ABSOLUELY certain by the evidence (at least in his own mind) there is no God.

An atheist is unable to give any logical or factual proof of God's non-existence. He cannot prove with any history or facts what caused the universe or life to begin, therefore he has no explanation why it exists.

Their position stays in an unproven state. An atheist cannot prove he knows or not know that there is no God, it is a matter of opinion driven by his own darkened sinful state of animosity toward God whom he is accountable to for his life.

The consequence of being an atheist:

There is no God; The Bible is not true; Life began by chance; there is no sin, so there is no need for a Savior; man invents the basis of right or wrong.

Sam Harris, author of "The End of Faith" and "Letter to a Christian Nation," says he is amazed that hundreds of millions of people worldwide profess religious beliefs when there is no rational evidence for any of those beliefs.

Let’s consider their position in reference to an intellectual pursuit. True science is about a pursuit of a hypothesis- a theory, using a method[s] to obtain knowledge that is subjected to continual testing that will produce the same outcome, so one can say that reality, science and logic prove this. To be an honest skeptic one has to pursue an open and complete examination of all possibilities to conclude a sufficient answer to the seemingly conflicting data. To do this they must gather all the data they can from both sides to increase their knowledge on the subject. They must also hold off on any immediate conclusion until ALL the evidence has been acquired and examined carefully. Otherwise they may not arrive at the correct conclusion. This approach demands that they take a starting position of zero-zero or fifty-fifty for either position, to be open to the evidence, wherever it may lead. With this being the criteria we can see that there are very few who have this open and honest approach. Few are skeptics, they already have their mind made up. They are critics that are like a mountain that cannot be moved. That is why no one can really be an atheist, but a positive agnostic.

Approaching this scientifically is difficult but it is more difficult to present evidence to men of this mindset because of their resistance. They are more determined to disprove than to prove to themselves and others the reality of God’s existence. They will ALWAYS arrive at a natural explanation for this world, the universe, what is both seen and unseen. Since they have made up their mind, it is impossible for all of existence to be explained supernaturally. They believe they hold indisputable proof there is no spirit in man, no afterlife and there is no reason for man to have any communion or contact with their creator. Their position is that man seeking God should be as natural as an ant wanting to communicate with man.

Without a supernatural event from an omni - intelligent; omni - powerful, omniscient being that creates, the evolutionists can only assume that the universe is eternal or a matter of self creation. Because they have ruled out a creator that has complete intelligence, that is all knowing and powerful, this is the only real option left for them. The “Big Bang” supposedly occurred about 15 billion years ago and then expanded into the present universe. If you ask what was there before, there is no answer, because there was no “before.”

Evolution’s position is that you don't need a pre-existing intelligence to make intelligent life and have design and order. Consider their position. Or better yet don’t think on it and understand what your conclusion is. Common sense requires existence of something before it can bring existence – because, nothing cannot create something. As the saying goes- “Out of nothing, nothing comes.” One of the basic laws of physics is expressed by the Latin phrase ex nihilo, nihil fit “from nothing, nothing comes.”

Neither can one take a position that the universe created itself. For something to create itself, it would have to exist before its own existence is created. To be self-created it would have to be existent and not existent at the same time. This is illogical to our reality and breaks the law of non contradiction.

All matter has energy, and for there to be energy it had to have a beginning. There must be something that is uncaused or eternal that caused matter or energy to exist, and it would require this something to have more energy/power than what it created. The fact is: it takes more faith to believe the world emerged from nothing, with no purpose to its existence. The atheist is not supposed to have any faith, which is exactly what he is using when he believes this, because it cannot be proven scientifically, nor reproduced or argued as a “matter of fact,” it is blind faith.

The well known scientist, the late Carl Sagan stated, “The Cosmos is all that is or ever will be.” An eternal universe directly contradicts the current view of the science that the universe had a specific beginning (they call the Big Bang), in a measurable period of time it began to exist. The universe thus contains a certain amount of energy. The 2^nd law of thermal dynamics shows everything is winding down, from order to disorder which refutes evolution that teaches the opposite. The law of entropy shows that everything is wearing out. Given enough time whatever lives will die. Scientific facts prove that the world is gradually running out of available energy. If it had a beginning it has an end. Mathematical calculations show if the universe were as old as evolutionary scientists say it is (6-8 plus billion years or more), it would have died from heat loss long ago (if everything stayed nearly as constant as it is today. If it had more energy in its beginning it makes it even more difficult to prove its age). It cannot be as old as they claim. If energy can’t last and it had a beginning, it had to had a start, be created. Which means there was something (or someone) that created it all, a something that has more energy than the energy that was created.

Mortimer Adler has said, “IF the existence of the cosmos as a whole needs to be explained, and IF it cannot be explained by natural causes, THEN we must look to the existence and action of a supernatural cause for its explanation” (Adler, How to Think about God, p.131).

Richard Dawkins, an atheist: “The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance.  Superficially, the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer.” Yet Dawkins finds any “other” explanation except a creator to be an answer for life’s puzzle.

Richard Dawkins in the video “No intelligence allowed” (a documentary by Ben Stein) believes in the theory of panspermea, he would rather believe life came from somewhere else in space and created man here than to believe God at His Word. But Dawkins has not thought this through because he is still left with the same unanswered question- where did life come from. For one must go further back prior to the event.

In 1982 Francis Crick, winner of the Nobel Prize in biology, co-discoverer of the structure of the DNA molecule, stated on the origin of life:

“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going.”

Francis Crick is one of the most respected molecular biologists in the world understands life could not have arisen by chance, so he proposed that the first life forms on earth were single-celled “spores” that came from interstellar space! His theory, called “Directed Panspermia” proposes that these “interstellar spores” later evolved into all the life forms on earth. Hoyle in his book Evolution From Space came to a similar conclusion.

The universe has highly complex design in both the seen and unseen. The simplest form of life consists of billions of parts working harmoniously together for the organism to function. To accept that these came into being over millions of years to sustain the organism is not rational, these parts were needed for its life and function and had to be produced at the same time which could not be produced by chance.

Earth is finely tuned to sustain life. The oldest tree on earth is the Methuselah tree in California. It is 4,300 years old. If the earth is billions of years old, why are there no trees older than 4,300 years (or approximately this date), certainly this is not the limit of their lifespan? The oldest living coral reef is less than 4,200 years old. Both of these bring them to the time of the flood of Noah’s day, coincidence or history?

This new atheism can be called scientism for it exalts science as the epitome of all knowledge. But science is unflinching; to have proof it must turn out the same every time one does an experiment. In reality, one does not have to have absolute evidence in order for there to be absolute proof. Neither can the absence of evidence be used as the proof of God’s non- existence, but shows one does not presently possess complete knowledge.

The atheists claim you can’t prove God exists- well they can’t prove the theory of evolution and the beginning of the universe. But this does not stop them from their scientific postulations that can be considered fantasies.

We learn by knowledge and experience. The atheist rejects evidence he has not experienced and knowledge he has yet to gain. This eliminates numerous facts. Has he personally experienced the earth revolving around the sun so that he would know its moving thousands of miles an hour. How about going to the moon, how does he know there is not an atmosphere and there and only a few inches of dust? Because he believes the reports of others. How does he know what they say is true? Because it is written in a modern book and not an ancient one called the Bible. Why believe others? Why not “question them” as they do the Bible? Could his trust in these men be considered like the faith of those who trust the Bibles word? For the word “faith” means -believing and trusting.

Certainly they exercise the concept of faith to believe facts they take for granted are true. The history assures us that what science believes today will likely change just as it has numerous times before, so they have no absolutes on nearly anything they call scientific and cannot make any claims about being absolutely right, for tomorrow they will be wrong.

They are devoted to their own minds and opinions. Their reasoning is far more narrow than they accuse Christianity of. They do not believe in absolutes yet they claim to be absolutely sure their is no God! Their view of the world may not even be the same of another atheist but they are willing to accept his, so they are inconsistent in their own reasoning.

What an atheist does to satisfy the moral image of God he is made in is becomes a humanist. A morally inclined creature without any basis for it except that it makes more sense to be good rather than evil. What makes this all the more inconsistent is that the morals of humanists contain many principles that are the same as Judeo-Christian traditions. Yet there are those atheists that are willing to lower man to on an equal status with the animals.

Richard Dawkins states, “There is no objective basis on which to elevate one species above another. Chimp and human, lizard and fungus, we have all evolved over some three billion years by a process known as natural selection (Dawkins, The Selfish Gene Foreword to the first edition.)

This is what all evolutionists believe to one degree or another.
Do animals or a fungus have morals? Do they create things to make life easier? Do animals show mercy or compassion? Man is unique, yet we are supposed to have come from the same lineage. Man having an ability to increase in knowledge and communicate it to others does not make us equal status with a fungus but elevates us above it?

These are the kind of irrational statements that come out of atheists to prove man is not unique or is of a special creation.

pt.3 A condensed history of atheism