Adherents of non-religious belief
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.
Founder(s) of non-religious belief
No 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:
- David Hume (1711-1776)
- Immanuel Kant (1724- 1804)
- George W. F. Hegel (1770-1831)
- Ludwig Feurbach (1804-1872)
- Charles Darwin (1809-1882)
- Karl Marx – (1818-1883)
- Friedrich Engles (1820-1895)
- T.H. Huxley (1825-1895)
- Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900)
- Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1981)
A (without) Theism (God). Atheism means simply “without God”. 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:
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:
Who or what is God to the atheist
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:
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.
- Strangely, today as the “nothing created and resulted in everything” argument crumbles, many atheists (Richard Dawkins included) are now either flirting with or outright adopting a bizarre new “theory” that highly intelligent aliens dropped off “life samples” here on earth to develop. A claim which cannot be “proven scientifically” nor can be “verified empirically” (both flawed methods of determining truth but are used by the atheist to reject belief in God).
- This theory (someday to be propagated as fact) is somehow more credible to the atheist than the truth of an intelligent being that is Spirit who creates and sustains everything seen and unseen. A being who has spoken and verified Himself in Scripture and Who has eyewitnesses to His miraculous interaction with His creation.
This theory doesn’t answer the questions:
- “How did we get here”
- “Why am I here”
- “Where am I going”
It just kicks the following questions further out into space:
- Why is there something rather than nothing?
- How did the aliens get to their planet?
- Why are they on their planet?
- Where are the aliens going in the future?
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 sad thing 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:
The religious worldview of the atheist
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:
- Humanist Manifesto
- “The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life” by Charles Darwin.
- “The Age of Reason” by Thomas Paine
- “The Anti-Christ” by Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche
- “Why I am not a Christian” by Bertrand Russell, Paul Edwards
- “Das Kapital” by Karl Marx which is a political/societal blueprint whereby religion is depicted as evil and the state itself revered as the most high provider and authority. Confucianism)
- This work contains the famous quote “Religion is the opiate of the masses”. Oddly enough, the Covid lockdowns of 2020-2021 revealed that blind belief in government and state-ordained spokesmen posing as scientists would prove to opiate the masses. (c.f. Bolshevik and Chinese revolutions)
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:
- The Universe is self-existing and not created.
- Man is a result of a continuous natural process.
- Mind is a projection of the body and nothing more.
- Man is moulded mostly by his culture.
- There is no supernatural.
- Man has outgrown religion and any idea of God.
- Man’s goal is the development of his own personality, which ceases to exist at death
- Man will continue to develop to the point where he will look within himself and o the natural world for the solution to all of his problems
- All institutions and/or religions that in some wa impede this “human development” must be changed
- Socialism is the ideal form of economics
- All mankind deserves to share in the fruits from following the above tenets.
- Religious forms and ideas of our fathers are inadequate.
- The quest for the good life is still the central task for mankind.
- Man is alone responsible for the realisation of his dreams.
- Intelligence and will, bring the good life (fulfilled dreams) about.
Atheist arguments against the existence of God
Atheists often times will say, “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:
Moral Concepts argument against God
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
- Premise a. is good, premise b. fails to take into consideration the possibility that the all-good God may have or bring about a greater use for the evil in order to bring about a greater good.
- This argument also fails to consider the aspect of time. God might use/allow evil for a time then ultimately destroy it.
- Often times there is a confusion between good/evil and personal happiness
- The events we condemn and the moral law by which we condemn them are both traceable to the same source.
Scientific Methods argument against God
- First argument: a. God is man’s wish: man is inadequate and requires someone or something greater than himself to rescue him from his dilemmas.
b. God arises from this desire and is therefore without objective reality.
- Second argument: God is a result of superstitious belief: Natural laws explain everything, we no longer need a God to explain things. Therefore, God does not exist.
- First argument: Whether or not a man ‘wishes’ is no evidence for whether a thing exists or doesn’t exist! Could we assume that since atheists wish for God to NOT exist, that He therefore does exist?
- Second argument: The atheist argument here is a genetic fallacy: It assumes a point proven merely by virtue of tracing it to its source. b. Could we assume that since a particular science arose out of magic or alchemy that it implies that science is invalid today?
Logic argument against God
- First argument: God’s all powerfulness is contradictory. If God is all powerful, He should be able to do all things but in doing all things He may thwart his own omnipotence. Therefore, God does not exist.
- Second argument: God’s attributes contradict each other: love and wrath, all loving yet all knowing; absolutely good yet absolutely free. These contradict each other logically.
- First argument: This comes from a misunderstanding of the omnipotent attribute of God. God’s power can do all the things that power CAN do.
– “Power cannot do the intrinsically or logically impossible as such things cannot be done at all” – W.L. Craig
– How much power is required to make 2+2=6? 4 atom bombs? Power has nothing to do with mathematical equations.
- Second argument: This argument assumes that the attributes listed at left are mutually exclusive. However they are not. For example, a loving father disciplines his child in loving punishment. All knowing shows love of the person to make choices to learn
Christian arguments for the existence of God
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
- The teleological argument infers an intelligent designer of the universe just as we infer an intelligent designer for any product in which we discern evidence of purposeful adaptation of means to some end
- Thomas Aquinas (13th cent) – Stated that all things operate in order toward some end, even though they lack consciousness (c.f. acorn example). Nothing that lacks consciousness tends toward a goal unless it is under the direction of someone with consciousness and direction. (c.f. syllogism of this)
- William Paley (18-19th cent.) – Argued from the position of intelligent design If one were to trip over a rock in a field, one could say it has lain there forever. If one were to trip over a watch, no one would say it has “lain there forever” because its parts are framed and assembled for ONE integral purpose: to tell time! We need not ‘see’ the construction process to recognize a designer. Like ancient works of art, we acknowledge a designer. We cannot infer that this watch is merely one in an infinite series of watches because we still have no account for the (original) design itself! In nature, even greater design exists (human eye) which is even greater evidence for a designer.
‘cosmos’ universe; ‘logos’ rational thought or word
- The cosmological arguments posits first Cause as sufficient reason of the cosmos.
- Thomas Aquinas (13 cent.) a. Unmoved Mover – Anything that has the potential to move cannot actualize its own potential. Some other thing must cause it to move and something causes this other thing to move and so on its repeated. However, it cannot regress to infinity. It must have a first cause of motion.
b. First Cause – Nothing can be self-caused because then it would have to bestow existence on itself. Therefore, there must be a first cause which is simply uncaused. This, everyone calls “God”.
c. Absolute Necessary Being – In the world there are both possible beings (those that come into and pass out of, existence) and necessary beings (those that always exist). – presupposing the past eternity of the earth, all possibilities would be realized and that all possible beings would come to be and pass away, making it possible that the process would arrive at the ‘nothing exists’ possibility (since its had an eternity to realize all possibilities) then there would be nothing in existence today, (since from nothing comes nothing), this is absurd because, things still exist today! Therefore, necessary beings must exist in that at least ONE being has to continue to exist throughout all the coming into and passing out of existence of the many possible being.
Existence of God based on universal morals and conscience within mankind.
- The moral argument for the existence of God is the position that there is the existence of a being which is the embodiment of the ultimate good, which is the source of the objective moral values we experience in the world. 8
- Thomas Aquinas – There exists, a gradation of values: some things are more good, true, and noble than others, the varying degrees of which increase to approach a superlative standard.
a. Whatever possesses a property more fully than anything else is the cause of that property.
b. Hence, something is the cause of superlative standard of good, true and noble things: which we call, God
- This argument points out that there are clearly gradations of “good” in existence. 1 man helps 10 homeless, another man helps 1000 homeless etc. which ascends to a level of absolute and perfect good having no “shadow of turning” which can only be a perfect being which the Bible describes as “God”.
- It is worthy of note that the atheist must “borrow” from the moral code of the Bible in order to make atheism appear “humane” but if there is truth in evolution and atheism then we are nothing more than complex chemicals which came together by chance and therefore there is no good nor evil nor are there “morals” of any kind. We are animals.
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:
On The Origin Of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life:
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)
Serious flaws with the theory of evolution
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”:
1. Bad Cosmology of evolution
2. Bad Metaphysics of evolution
3. Bad Physics of the Big Bang
4. Bad Chemistry of evolution
5. Bad Biology of evolution
6. Bad Archaeology of evolution
Neanderthal Man – Bones were stooped – turned out to have rickets/ arthritis and was quickly reclassified to ‘homo sapien’.
7. Bad Philosophy/Epistemology of atheism
8. Bad Geography and Geology of evolution
- Memphis Delta rate of erosion only shows erosion for about 5,000 years – not millions of years
- Trees, animals, insects found in sediment layers display a sudden and instantaneous laying down of layers – not gradual. Trees petrified upright across sediment layers showing a rapid petrification and forming of layers.
- NO one has seen the geological column – tree rings do not form at one-per-year but often times twice per year. Glacial ice rings form from hot to cold periods not summer to winter so some glacial rings may form at 5 or 6 per year!
- Throughout the Grand Canyon there are thick rock layers which are smoothly bent (some bent almost to a perfect right angle.
- The geologist Dr. Snelling made the following observation, “Normally, solid rock cannot bend without breaking, so this leaves only two options for bending: either the rock layer was bent while still soft, shortly after being deposited by water, or after the layer had fully hardened, it was bent by pressures which made the rock plastic, like playdough. Geologists who believe the layers were laid down over millions of years accept the latter option.”
9. Bad Anatomy of evolution
- Nearly every appendage deemed “unused leftovers of evolution” have been shown to have a purpose – appendix, tonsils etc. Debunked idea of “foetal evolution” representing an old ancestral development from another species.
- All stages of upright hominids have fully formed human feet and none show the evolution of the ape foot which has a thumb-like toe
- This change has never been observed in any so-called transitional forms. If Darwin’s survival of the fittest was true – this thumb-like toe would have made the transitional ape-human disadvantaged and easily gobbled up by carnivores
- This is such a problem for the evolutionist, they do not address it in any of the artistic renditions of ape to man evolution.
10. Bad Sociology of evolution/atheism
- Darwin’s book was originally written from an overt racist position – “On The Origin Of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle For Life”
- There is no way of determining right from wrong for the evolutionist as that comes from the Judaeo-Christian moralistic worldview and natural selection allows for no such differentiation. Therefore, if left to itself, the atheistic form of community: communism, will degrade into the corruption and greed of fascism while still masquerading as “communism” e.g. North Korea, Cuba, Soviet Union and China.
- In the other godless atheistic form of government: socialism, the government tries to replace the position of “God” to the citizenry, providing food, health care, retirement etc all while rape, theft, murder and other violent crimes are rising at an alarming rate e.g. United Kingdom, United States, European Union, Australia, Canada etc.
- As children have been taught that they are nothing more than animals (a clearly disproven travesty) they have since behaved in more animalistic behaviour as time goes on.
Some final thoughts on evolution
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 bad archaeology, bad biology, bad anthropology, bad cosmology, bad geology, bad chemistry. It is a religion embraced by many who deny the validity of and disparage the very idea of religion.
Other forms of non-religious belief:
Agnosticism – ‘a’ without ‘gnosis’ (knowledge)
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.
Two types of agnosticism
- Leaves the possibility open for incoming facts but defers their conclusion until that time. Their statement would be, “we do not know all the facts…”
- Similar to a hard skeptic, is much more dogmatic in that the facts do not exist for them simply because this agnostic says, “we cannot know the facts, not now nor in the future” (Immanuel Kant)
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:
Agnostics might utilize the following arguments to support their particular belief system:
Language argument Against God
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.
Knowledge argument Against God
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!
- If one is atheistic/humanistic in their beliefs, then there is no afterlife, just an end. The atheist believes that after death, there is nothing. This is based on the presupposition that men and women are nothing more than animal in composition, possessing neither a soul nor a spirit. All thoughts are as a result of a chemical transfer between synapses in the brain.
- This Darwinian outlook on life offers absolutely no explanation for the vast difference between the most intelligent animal on the planet and the least intelligent man on the planet. Ultimately, this view of the afterlife appears to quell a nagging uneasiness within the atheist as he/she will no longer have to feel that they will be held accountable for the life they chose to lead.
- Creating a view on afterlife whereby a human being simply dies with the absence of any activity whatsoever whether good or bad, happy or sad, most likely brings a sort of temporary peace of mind that allows the atheist to live as he or she would desire without any consideration for long-term consequence. We can see evidence of this mindset in the final interview with Jeffrey Dahmer, a notorious serial killer and, prior to his final days in prison, a devout atheist.
- Unfortunately for the atheist, agnostic, Humanist, Darwinist, etc this view of the afterlife was/is arrived at in a very “unscientific” manner where there is zero data to evaluate and analyse, no way of recreating the event in a controlled laboratory for observation, no eyewitnesses, and no logical rationale, hypothesis, or theory for arriving at the conclusion that there is “Nothing after Death”.
- Because of the absence of scientific evidence, one can conclude that this belief actually requires more faith than even the most far fetched of religious afterlife scenarios. According to the atheist, they have this life and this life only to accomplish their hearts desire since, for them, no afterlife exists.
- The wisest thing that an atheist or non-religious person can do at this point is apply Pascal’s wager which can be broken down as follows:
I do not believe
Temporal benefits, purpose and no fear of death. Then eternal life, happiness and fulfillment 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
God does not exist
Temporal benefits, hope, peace, purpose and fulfillment, no fear of death and then nothing after death
Hopelessness, unfulfilling pursuit of fleshly gratification, nothing after death