Valuable answers for valid questions about world religions, cults, worldviews and the Christian church
This site contains over 130 pages of free content in articles, videos and audio – it might be faster to use our search function to find what you are looking for
850-900 million
Atheism’s earliest date of origin is possibly pre-historic post-diluvian; at least pre-520 BC when the earliest Chinese non-religious traditions (Taoism, Confucianism) appeared; Thereafter Humanism, Atheism, Agnosticism in their most recent iteration would appear with the so-called “enlightenment” 1770-1800 A.D.
Atheism does not have a distinct “founder” but the earliest record of a non-religious system of belief and worldview would be Chiu King (Confucius) 550-479 B.C. and for the modern form of secular non-religious belief, other more recent key influencers were:
The modern form of atheism has been passed down over the last few centuries via teachings and writings mostly from the enlightenment period of the late 18th century. I’ve included a bit of information about these men in the slides here::
A (without) Theism (God). Atheism means simply “without God”. Recently there is a movement within atheism to re-define the term as “without belief in…god or gods” but that is not how the term has been clearly defined nor does it line up with the historical etymology of the word “atheism”.
Atheism has been around in its various iterations for millenia. One of the earliest codified forms of atheism would be Confucianism in the mid 6th century B.C. whereby Confucius believed in a series of principles to live by and actively spoke against the belief in deity of any kind. However, the concept of atheism goes back even further to at least the 10th century B.C. when King David, wrote the following Psalm:
A fool says in his heart 'there is no God'.
Historically, there was a constant struggle within atheism. While its adherents would cling to the belief that there was no God in existence whatsoever, they were at a complete loss to explain how the universe and humans came into being in the first place. Atheists make the impossible-to-prove claim that no god exists nor ever would nor could. The atheist posits that God is just the figment of a primitive imagination.
Many Neo-atheists today take on the tactic of ridiculing theists by equating belief in God to that of believing in Santa Claus. This is due largely in part to what can be called the “Great Retreat of Richard Dawkins” who, after being repeatedly defeated by theists in debate, directed his followers to no longer engage the Christian but rather they should mock them openly:
Dawkins called on atheists and agnostics to "ridicule and show contempt" for the religious and their doctrines. The example he used was the Roman Catholic belief that the bread and wine of communion turns into the actual body and blood of Christ. He encouraged atheists to mock and ridicule the religious in public.
Richard Dawkins is considered one of the “Four Horsemen of New Atheism” due to his committment to lecturing on theology instead of his chosen field, biology. c.f. Darwin lecturing on naturalism instead of his chosen field of theology.
This theory from modern atheism still doesn’t answer the following questions:
It just kicks the following questions further out into space:
Within atheism, there is a willingness to believe in a vastly superior intelligent being, so long as its an alien that doesn’t require accountability for one’s life choices. Nevertheless, the Bible is always proven correct regarding those who prefer stories of alien life-planting to the truth of the God who created all things:
"The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12 that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness."
The sad thing about atheism is that these people who love the lie more than the truth (most likely because the lie doesn’t require them to turn from their sin) will stand before Jesus, the God of all creation to give an account for the life He’s given them. The problem is that they suppress the truth in this unrighteousness despite everything shown to them. My hope is that the person reading this is not one of them nor allows themselves to become one of them:
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened."
Atheism has in the past been classified as “non-theist” but today it has moved drastically to more of an anti-theist position. There are a couple of written works which specifically underpin the modern atheist:
Of the 6 works mentioned above, I will go into a bit more detail on the Humanist Manifesto and the faith-based evolution which was introduced by Charles Darwin in “The Origin of the Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”.
There are/were four authors and speakers who were given the name “The Four Horsemen of New Atheism“. These are Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and was Christopher Hitchens who passed away in 2011 and instantly became a believer as we all do after death but unfortunately too late to avail himself of the saving grace of God provided through Jesus.
These four have contributed several works which influence what is now known as “new atheism”. I give them an honourable mention but the works I’ve mentioned above were more foundational in the formation of modern atheism.
Photo attribution: Author: unknown., CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=35010565
The Humanist Manifesto was written in 1933 and was signed by all prominent secular humanists of the day. The crux of this manifesto can be summarised with the following quote:
“Humanism is the faith in the supreme value and self-perfectability of human personality.”
Based on 15 concepts:
Atheism adherents will claim “Where extraordinary claims are made, extraordinary evidence is required” which might sound quite logical at first but upon further thought, a theist can make an identical argument claiming the atheist’s belief in the ‘non-existence of a god of any kind, any where, on any planet, and in any galaxy’ is itself an “extraordinary” claim that requires “extraordinary evidence” and can then proceed to provide the evidence that God has given: His creation and the internal moral law of the conscience.
In the end both “extraordinary” arguments could very well negate each other and the theist and atheist alike must then move on to a more intelligent discussion whereby they directly discuss their reasons for either belief or disbelief . The following arguments are fairly common attempts by atheists to defend the atheistic position. I’ve juxtaposed common Christian refutations for each one below:
The Christian God being all-powerful and the God of love could not (some argue ‘would’ not – completely different argument) allow evil:
a. If God was all-powerful, he could destroy evil.
b. If God were all-good, he would destroy evil
c. Evil exists, therefore, God doesn’t exist
Many theologians and well-known preachers have made the point that the existence of God and the authority of His word cannot be “proven” by “crafty arguments” of men. I wholeheartedly agree with them, however, in keeping with 1 Peter 3:15 in providing a “reason” for the hope which lies within us, the following arguments use God’s creation, moral law (the conscience) mankind’s “reasoning” capabilities (provided to him by God) to arrive at a defense for the Christian position that God exists as He states in His authoritative word (Romans 1:20):
‘telos’ design; ‘logos’ rational thought or word
‘cosmos’ universe; ‘logos’ rational thought or word
Existence of God based on universal morals and conscience within mankind.
From the Latin evolutio and evolvere – (an unfolding)
Despite the holes in the primary arguments used by atheists and agnostics in the 18th century, their cause would receive a shot in the arm in the early 19th century when a theology major named Charles Darwin wrote a book called called “The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” a title that so embarrasses the politically correct atheist that they have shortened all references to name of the work as “Origin of the Species”.
This work comprises Charles Darwin’s theoretical account of how he supposed all life came about on earth. Through the ages, it has been attributed to him as an “original scientific work” when history reveals that it was neither original (it was primarily based on the writing “Zoinomia” written by his grandfather) nor scientific (Darwin had no background in naturalism but rather, his training was in theology).
Many quickly embraced the new “Darwinist” theory in haste in order to justify how such complex life came to be. Unfortunately, in their haste to embrace Darwin’s ‘Zoinomia’ re-write, there was a failure to investigate yet even more holes in this new theory of Evolution:
Darwin admitted his “theory” had holes, the following graphic contains a few quotes from the book:
First law of thermodynamics: Matter or energy cannot be created or destroyed (conservation principle)
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked)"
Charles Darwin, theologian, wrote Origin of The Species. He assumed the role of ‘naturalist’ with no education in the field. He also claimed that if transitional forms were not found in the next 100 years, this ‘theory’ should be abandoned.” The following are a few more significant points to consider which should raise some serious questions regarding the validity of this theory of evolution – particularly how evolution contradicts science therefore disqualifying it as a “scientific fact”:
We all arrive at conclusions that tend toward our bias whether it is teaching, books, or evening newscasters, all human beings will gravitate toward information that favours our bias. One such bias suggests that the universe is eternal, and asserts that Earth arrived at an exact state of life-sustaining temperature and composition by way of pure chance, and that mankind began as a type of cell which became a type of molecular goo, and then a fish, and then an amphibian, and then an ape, and then a human.
This idea would otherwise be disregarded as ridiculous, unfounded babble, if it weren’t for the supposition that perhaps these millions of miraculous mutations and transitions took place over millions and millions and millions of years. With the addition of millions of years, somehow even the most ridiculous notion seems plausible, sometimes even probable! Proponents of the “eternal universe” bias have no capacity to fathom what millions of years would actually look like and therefore concede, erroneously, that practically anything is possible given enough time.
The idea that millions and millions of spectacular creatures existing in an environment perfectly suited to sustain life for EXACTLY those creatures, came about by freak mutations over millions and millions of years starting from a single cell is a faith-based belief system: no evidence, no eyewitness reports (past, present, or future), and no logical consistency with nature. Darwin the theology major, without any training, teaching, or experimentation in naturalist studies, actually wrote down/codified much of what his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, suggested in his writings called Zoinomia and also, according to Darwin, Lamarckian evolution by Dr. Douglas Grant, as he heard him teach in Edinburgh, Scotland.
Through his grandfathers writings and Dr. Grant’s teachings, Darwin came to the conclusion that man started as a cell. Darwin also wisely stated that ‘his’ theory (not a fact) required transitional forms of species, and if none were found in the next 100 years after his writing, ‘his’ theory should be discarded. Nearly 200 years have passed and no transitional forms have been found nor exist today. As Phillip E. Johnson writes in his book, Darwin on Trial, “We simply have dogs, or cats, but there are no cogs, dats.
Now keep in mind, the theory of evolution speaks of species evolving into a completely different species: a fish evolving into an amphibian, evolving into a 4 legged goat-like creature, this goat like creature becoming an ape and an ape becoming a human. If this transitioning process has been continuing for millions of years, it would make sense that we would see these “middle” development forms walking around today (or over the last 4-5000 years), but we do not.
Atheist scientists have depended heavily on sparse, unidentifiable, bone fragments and artist renderings to create some kind of random, sporadic transitional form in an effort to prop up a bankrupt theory whose plagiaristic founder said should be debunked upon no discovery of transitional forms! No transitional forms exist today because none existed in the past. This is more about clinging to pseudo-science to further justify a position that isn’t so much about discovering the beginning of man as it is about desperately trying to quiet the innate sense (our God-given conscience) within every human being that there must be someone who put this all together, God!
If evolution has ALWAYS been in process, it would STILL be in process today. But what we find is, one species giving birth to its own species and “after its own kind” just as it was always designed to do. Therefore, as Darwin himself recommended we must throw this theory out and begin to look at some other possibilities for the ‘origin of the species’.
Evolution is NOT scientific due to its dependency on bad archaeology, bad biology, bad anthropology, bad cosmology, bad geology, bad chemistry. Evolution is a religion embraced by many who deny the validity of and disparage the very idea of religion, ultimately the idea of accountability for their thoughts, words and actions before a holy and omnipotent God.
Agnosticism believes there is insufficient evidence to prove or disprove the existence or nonexistence of God and therefor criticizes the theist for their dogmatism based on assumption; even though the agnostic is basing their dogmatism of insufficient evidence on assumption.
The skeptic David Hume suspends accepting anything as truth until sufficient ‘facts’ are in. The self-contradictory nature of this position is evident in that his very statement cannot be accepted as truth until sufficient ‘facts’ have come in to support Humes position:
“Belief is not to be confused with ultimate truth, which is unknowable.”
Agnostics might utilize the following arguments to support their particular belief system:
a. Two types of statements: purely definitional (all triangles have 3 sides) and empirical (this is a triangle)
b. One cannot make definitional statements about God without showing He exists
c. Because God is not empirically verifiable, we cannot make empirical statements about Him.
d. Therefore, talk of God is nonsense.
This language argument is self-refuting, the statement itself is neither ‘definitional’ nor ‘empirical’ (factual), which, in effect, condemns this line of reasoning as nonsensical.
“Man not only can be deceived by his senses but often times he KNOWS he’s being deceived and then applies reason to compensate for the possible deception and learns”
a. We can know a thing as it is ‘to us’ due to imperfect senses
b. But we cannot know a thing as it ‘truly’ is.
Like the Language argument, the Knowledge argument is self refuting “we cannot know the real” means that we cannot know the ‘reality’ of this statement itself!
“The trouble with the Language and Knowledge arguments is that the agnostic assumes some knowledge about reality in order to deny ANY knowledge of reality."
Temporal benefits, purpose and no fear of death. Then eternal life, happiness and fulfillment after death.
Temporal benefits, hope, peace, purpose and fulfillment, no fear of death and then nothing after death
Hopelessness, unfulfilling pursuit of fleshly gratification, fearful expectation of death and judgement, eternal torment by way of separation from all the good that God currently provides
Hopelessness, unfulfilling pursuit of fleshly gratification, nothing after death
No one receives eternal life and eternal presence with God, from who all good things come (James 1:17), by belonging to the right church, denomination, world religion, or by having a particular world view. Rather only those who trust in the Lord Jesus preached by the Apostles in the Bible, for their own sin. We will not trust in a Savior for sins that we either don’t believe we have or that we think aren’t deserving of hell. But the Bible says that ALL have sin and the wages of that sin is eternal separation from God (death). The good news is that the Bible says that you can know that YOU have eternal life. Click the button below to see if you are genuinely saved from your sins according to the Bible: