Atheism: Debates, Evidence, and Philosophical Perspectives

Atheism: Debates, Evidence, and Philosophical Perspectives

Atheist Professor Graham Oppi Gives REAL Definition of Atheism (very based):  "Atheism is the view that there are no Gods" 1

Negative atheism, also called weak atheism and soft atheism is any type of atheism where a person does not believe in the existence of any deities but does not explicitly assert that there are none. Link
Positive atheism, also called strong atheism and hard atheism is the form of atheism that additionally asserts that no deities exist
Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God, of the divine or the supernatural, is unknown or unknowable. An agnostic can also hold neither of two opposing positions on a topic. Link 
Skepticism (American English) or skepticism is generally any questioning attitude or doubt towards one or more items of putative knowledge or belief. Link
Freethought (or "free thought")is a philosophical viewpoint that holds that positions regarding truth should be formed based on logic, reason, and empiricism, rather than authority, tradition, revelation, or dogma Link
Anti-Theism The view that theism, religion, and belief in God must be opposed. The individual believes that religious belief is both dangerous and harmful. Anti-theists are often Strong Atheists. Link
Apatheism The individual lives as if there are no gods and explains natural phenomena without invoking the divine. Typically the individual doesn’t care whether or not God exists. Link
Explicit Atheism The individual makes a positive assertion regarding their lack of belief in God and/or gods. Implicit Atheism The absence of belief in one or more gods, without a conscious rejection of it. Link

There are further categorizations and nuances within atheism related to various philosophical, ethical, and epistemological stances. These categorizations often intersect with broader worldviews and can provide more specific insights into an individual's perspective on religion, deities, and the supernatural. 

Practical Atheism: This stance involves living one's life without any reference to gods or deities, regardless of one's theoretical belief in them. Practical atheists may not spend much time considering the existence of deities because it has no practical impact on their daily lives.
Theological Noncognitivism: This is the position that religious language, particularly discourse about God or gods, is not cognitively meaningful. It suggests that statements like "God exists" do not express propositions that can be true or false in any meaningful sense. This can lead to a form of atheism because it denies the coherence of theistic claims.
Ignosticism: Similar to theological noncognitivism, ignosticism is the view that a coherent definition of God must be presented before the question of the existence of God can be meaningfully discussed. If the definition is unfalsifiable, the ignostic takes the theological noncognitivist stance that the question is meaningless.
Secular Humanism: While not strictly a form of atheism, secular humanism is a worldview and ethical system that emphasizes human well-being, ethical values, and natural explanations for phenomena without recourse to the supernatural. Many secular humanists are atheists, as they do not include the divine in their ethical or philosophical considerations.
Atheistic Religion: Some religions or belief systems, such as certain forms of Buddhism and Jainism, do not include a creator god in their doctrine, which makes them atheistic in a sense. However, followers may still engage in religious practices, and rituals, and hold spiritual beliefs.
Atheism and Spirituality: Some atheists identify as spiritual, finding awe and wonder in the natural world, humanity, and the universe without attributing these feelings to a deity. This form of atheism recognizes a sense of connectedness or transcendence that does not rely on traditional notions of theism.
Post-Theism: This stance posits that humanity is in a post-religious phase where the concept of god is unnecessary for explaining natural phenomena or for providing ethical guidelines. It sees theism as a historical phase that humanity has evolved beyond.

These categorizations show the diversity within atheism and related stances, highlighting that disbelief in deities can come with a variety of philosophical underpinnings and implications. Individuals may identify with multiple categories simultaneously, and these labels can often overlap or be used in combination to describe one's specific viewpoint.


Claim:  Atheism is just about the rejection of the claim of the existence of God because there is no evidence for his existence. I am just not convinced about your arguments of God's existence. 
Reply:  The discussion around atheism often becomes tedious when individuals presume the need to educate others on its principles as if this would be the first encounter with such explanations.  Atheists, like everyone else trying to make sense of the world, are not exempt from the burden of proof.  Atheists believe that the significant questions of life can be addressed without resorting to the notion of a divine supernatural entity. In contrast, theists observe that naturalistic explanations often fall short, suggesting that the idea of an intelligent, transcendent force provides a more convincing explanation. In such instances, theists consider it logically sound to deduce a supernatural origin.
Atheism, in its essence, is defined by the rejection of a personal god. However, the spectrum of atheistic belief is broad, encompassing deists who accept a non-interventionist creator, agnostics who remain uncertain about the divine, materialists who deny anything beyond the physical, and even those who subscribe to panpsychism, believing in the inherent intelligence of the cosmos. Therefore, "atheist" serves as a catch-all term for anyone who does not identify as a theist.

Does atheism just as a ‘lack of belief’ make any sense?

Claim:  Atheism is not a religion or philosophy. It is simply a lack of faith or belief in God(s).
Answer: The assertion "I lack belief in a god" is a stance frequently adopted by atheists, likening their skepticism about God to disbelief in fantastical notions such as invisible pink unicorns. They claim to maintain a neutral stance, devoid of any belief or disbelief regarding divinity, treating the subject as inconsequential. However, this perspective overlooks a critical aspect of human cognition: once introduced to an idea, neutrality is no longer viable. Exposure to a new concept necessitates some form of cognitive response, whether it's outright dismissal, contemplation of its validity, acceptance, rejection, or any stance in between. The claim of returning to a pre-exposure state of non-belief, defined as an absence of cognitive engagement, is untenable. Consider a child unaware of the concept of invisible pink unicorns. Upon learning of this concept later in life, the child must inherently form an opinion, ranging from belief to skepticism, amusement, indecision, or deferred judgment. The exposure compels the child to adopt a stance, moving beyond the initial state of unawareness. Some might argue that deferring judgment aligns with atheistic views on non-belief. However, choosing to withhold judgment following exposure to an idea is a form of engagement, differing from a lack of awareness. This stance, akin to agnosticism, reflects an open-mindedness to new information, acknowledging the possibility of the concept's existence pending further evidence. This is distinct from atheism, which is often characterized by a definitive lack of belief. To illustrate, consider the hypothetical suggestion of an ice cream factory on Jupiter. Upon hearing this, one might react with skepticism, amusement, curiosity for evidence, or whimsical musings about interplanetary ice cream. Such a notion is instinctively categorized as implausible, demonstrating that exposure to an idea inevitably leads to some form of judgment, thereby challenging the possibility of maintaining a true state of non-belief.

The argument that one can simply "lack belief" in a deity, as often claimed by atheists, overlooks the inherent human tendency to evaluate and categorize ideas from full endorsement to outright dismissal. This natural inclination challenges the notion of passive non-belief. Consider the analogy of animals and their apparent absence of belief in deities. For instance, my bulldog Bobby, a remarkably intelligent and engaging pet, demonstrated no understanding or belief in the concept of God. This lack of belief, however, doesn't classify him or other non-sentient entities like infants, plants, or inanimate objects as atheists. Atheism, in this context, seems applicable only to sentient beings capable of contemplating such concepts. Yet, the broader assertion by some atheists that their stance is merely a "lack of belief" seems to sidestep a more profound engagement with the philosophical and theological discussions surrounding atheism. This stance can be seen as a way to avoid the scrutiny and critique that comes with holding a more defined position. The growing discourse and critique from various religious and philosophical perspectives are challenging atheistic positions more rigorously, prompting a more defensive posture from the atheist community. This discourse is not just an intellectual exercise but a reflection of a deeper search for truth, with significant implications for the validity and sustainability of atheistic beliefs in the face of growing scrutiny and debate.

The assertion that atheism equates to a lack of concern is contradicted by the actions of many vocal atheists, who actively engage in discussions and debates about their disbelief. This suggests that atheism, for some, goes beyond the mere absence of belief in deities to a more defined stance, often articulated as the belief in the nonexistence of God. This active engagement raises questions about the depth and substance of one's identity if it primarily revolves around a disbelief in something. Weak atheists center on critiquing the beliefs of others rather than proposing a constructive worldview of their own. This comparison is drawn to highlight an inconsistency: while one might not actively campaign against belief in UFOs due to personal disbelief, some atheists adopt a more proactive stance in expressing their disbelief in God. The conversation around atheism often blurs the lines between weak atheism, agnosticism, and strong atheism, with various strategies employed to argue against theistic beliefs. Some atheists might use evasive tactics, such as claiming ignorance or deferring to science, as a means to sidestep deeper philosophical discussions about naturalism and the existence of a deity. This can come across as intellectual dishonesty, where the refusal to believe in a deity is seen not as a neutral lack of belief but as a deliberate choice influenced by personal will. The debate extends to the nature of evidence and belief. When atheists assert the absence of proof for a deity's existence, it raises the question of whether their stance on the natural world is similarly based on faith, given the lack of definitive proof that the natural world is all there is. This challenges the notion that atheism is a purely passive absence of belief,  instead, it is an active choice to reject theistic evidence, which is often dismissed out of a reluctance to engage with the possibility of a deity's existence.

While asserting rational and open-minded approaches, some atheists are being closed off to any evidence or reasoning that might evidence the existence of God, which is a form of willful ignorance rather than true rational skepticism. Furthermore, the discussion often involves atheists making accusations of theists misunderstanding or oversimplifying concepts like atheism and evolution, which are evasive tactics rather than substantive arguments.
In his essay "Herding Cats: Why atheism will lose," Francois Tremblay suggests that atheism's credibility is undermined if atheists cannot substantiate their fundamental beliefs about reality and cognition, likening unfounded atheism to a "paper tiger." A meaningful stance on atheism requires intellectual engagement and the willingness to substantiate disbelief with reasoned arguments.

Why the “I Just Believe in One Less God than You” Argument Does Not Work

Argument: “I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” Another way to phrase it: “I don’t have to take the time to reject Christ any more than you have to take the time to reject all the millions of gods that are out there. It just happens by default. The justification for my atheism is the same as yours concerning your rejection of all the other possible gods.” And another: "I don’t believe in Yahweh. I don’t believe in Hercules either."
Response:  In addressing the contention that the distinction between atheists and theists is merely the disbelief in one additional deity, it's essential to delve into the nuanced nature of divine belief. The monotheistic concept of God stands apart from the pantheon of polytheistic gods not merely in number but in the very essence of divinity. Within the monotheistic framework, God is not envisioned as another entity within the cosmos but as the foundational underpinning of all reality, the very bedrock upon which existence itself is contingent. This conceptualization transcends the realm of superhuman beings governing specific domains, characteristic of polytheistic traditions, and ventures into a philosophical domain where God is the necessary "unmoved mover" or "first cause," a principle without parallel in the realm of polytheism.

The argument often overlooks the epistemological distinctions between innate knowledge and constructed beliefs. Monotheistic traditions posit an inherent, intuitive knowledge of a creator, discernible through the natural world's complexity and order, contrasting sharply with the culturally constructed deities of polytheism, which often fulfill explanatory or societal roles. Moreover, the dismissal of all deities based on the rejection of some neglects the independent lines of evidence and reasoning that might underpin the belief in a specific monotheistic God, such as cosmological, teleological, or moral considerations.

Asserting that atheism and theism differ only in the rejection of one additional god implies a false equivalence, treating all concepts of divinity as interchangeable and dismissible on identical grounds. This perspective fails to engage with the unique arguments and experiences that support a monotheistic belief, which demands consideration on its terms. Such a stance also involves a category error, erroneously equating the monotheistic God, not as a being within the universe but as the very ground of being and existence, with gods that, however powerful, exist within the universe's confines.

Furthermore, the historical and cultural evolution of religious beliefs from polytheism to monotheism in various traditions often reflected deeper philosophical and theological exploration rather than a mere reduction in the number of deities. The diversity of religious expressions and the multiplicity of gods across cultures might better be understood as humanity's manifold attempts to comprehend and articulate the divine, rather than evidence against the existence of a singular, ultimate deity.

In summary, the debate transcends a simplistic comparison between atheism and theism based on the number of gods rejected. It invites a deeper exploration into the nature of belief, the philosophical underpinnings of monotheism, and the logical and epistemological considerations that distinguish a grounded belief in a singular, foundational deity from the dismissal of an array of mythological figures.

The Burden of Proof: Is It Solely the Responsibility of Theists to Provide It?

The discourse around the burden of proof in debates between theists and atheists is often charged and polarized. In discussions about the existence of God, theists are typically asked to provide evidence for God's existence. This expectation is based on the philosophical principle that the one making an affirmative claim carries the burden to substantiate it. However, atheists, too, should bear a burden of proof, particularly when they posit naturalistic explanations for phenomena traditionally attributed to divine intervention or creation. If atheists challenge theistic views, they should also provide positive evidence for their naturalistic viewpoints, rather than solely critiquing theistic claims. A more constructive approach would involve articulating and defending a naturalistic view of the universe that explains the existence of the universe, life, biodiversity, and consciousness. Theists are not the only ones who have the burden of proof. Anyone making claims about the nature of reality, whether theistic or naturalistic, should be prepared to support their claims with evidence. This calls for a more balanced discourse where both sides are expected to present well-reasoned, evidence-based arguments for their respective worldviews, be they theistic, atheistic, or otherwise.

Is there a dispute between Science and Religion? 

The most profound ideological conflict isn't between science and religion, which often find ways to coexist harmoniously, but rather between the philosophical perspectives of naturalism and theism. These viewpoints offer fundamentally different interpretations of reality and existence. Like abstract concepts such as numbers and logical principles, metaphysics transcends sensory experience, placing the debate between naturalism and theism firmly within the philosophical domain. Metaphysical naturalism posits that the entirety of reality is confined to the physical matter and energy within space-time, dismissing any existence beyond the natural world. This perspective inherently rejects supernatural entities or phenomena, such as deities, souls, or other spiritual beings, and negates the notion of an overarching purpose or design in the universe, as it denies the existence of any conscious designer. Conversely, theism presents the universe as the creation of a Supreme Being who not only initiated its existence but continues to sustain it, existing beyond the physical boundaries of the universe. By their very nature, these two ideologies are in direct opposition to one another. In the discourse surrounding the origins and complexity of life and the universe, Intelligent Design has been positioned as an emerging scientific theory on the cusp of gaining acceptance within the scientific community. A scientific theory is defined as a well-substantiated explanation for the natural world, one that is formulated based on rigorous testing, observation, and analysis in line with the scientific method. This process includes the critical examination of hypotheses through empirical study and the validation of findings according to established scientific standards.



Neil deGrasse Tyson: "Science is the philosophy of discovery. Intelligent Design is the philosophy of ignorance. " 2
Response: "Science is the tool of discovery. The awe-inspiring discovery is that science confirms an intelligent designer. "

Science, in its essence, is a remarkable tool of discovery that continuously unveils previously unfathomable complexities and the majestic order of the universe. It's a journey through which humanity explores the vastness of space, the minutiae of cells, and the enigmatic laws of physics. This journey of discovery, far from distancing us from the notion of an intelligent designer,  brings us closer to the awe-inspiring realization that the universe operates with precision and harmony that evidence a purposeful and intentional setup. Either in the quantum realms or farther in the cosmic expanse, we encounter patterns, laws, and a level of complexity that borders on the poetic. The constants and equations that govern the universe, the fine-tuning necessary for life to exist, and the beauty found in the natural world from the spirals of galaxies to the DNA's double helix structure, all evoke a sense of wonder and imply a designed instantiation. Moreover, the capacity for humans to appreciate beauty, pursue truth, and ponder their existence in the universe suggests a dimension of reality beyond mere survival and reproduction. These pursuits, while not tangible or quantifiable in the same way physical phenomena point to a depth of human experience that material explanations alone do not fully encompass. In this context, the idea of an intelligent designer is not necessarily at odds with the scientific endeavor but can be seen as a perspective that enriches our understanding of the universe. It invites us to consider not just how things are but why they might be, encouraging a holistic view of existence that marries the empirical with the existential. Thus, the unfolding revelations of science, rather than diminishing the possibility of an intelligent designer, amplify our sense of wonder and appreciation for the complexity and beauty of the world around us, pointing towards a greater purpose and design behind the cosmos.

Strong atheism is a faith-based worldview

Communal Gatherings: Atheists have formed communities and congregations that mirror the social and communal aspects of religious worship. Examples include "godless churches" and secular assemblies where individuals gather, not to worship deities, but to enjoy a sense of community, discuss ethical and philosophical issues, and support each other in their shared disbelief.
Foundational Texts: While not revered as divine scripture, works such as "The Atheist's Bible" serve as compilations of thoughts, arguments, and reflections that provide a foundation for atheist viewpoints, much like religious texts do for believers. These texts offer insights, moral philosophies, and reflections on the nature of the universe without appealing to a higher power.
Philosophical Frameworks: Atheism, particularly in its strong or "positive" form, which asserts the non-existence of gods, often relies on systematic philosophical arguments. Texts that outline atheism's reasoning against theological concepts provide a structured ideological framework that parallels the doctrinal treatises found in religious traditions.
Evangelism: Although atheism inherently lacks the divine mandate that often drives religious proselytization, some atheists actively engage in spreading their disbelief in gods, critiquing religious beliefs, and advocating for secularism. This "evangelical" aspect, where individuals are passionate about sharing and defending their atheistic views, resembles the missionary zeal found in many religions.
Prominent Figures: Just as religions have their revered leaders, prophets, or popes, atheism has its notable figures who are highly respected, influential, and often looked up to for guidance and inspiration. These individuals, through their writings, speeches, and debates, shape the atheistic discourse, much like religious leaders shape the faith and practices of their followers.

The perspective often associated with atheism, although not universally held or acknowledged by all who identify as atheists, implies a set of understandings about the universe that do not necessitate a divine creator. This worldview would suggest:

1. The existence and functionality of the natural world do not require a supernatural creator.
2. The complexity and order observed in nature arise naturally by unguided means, without the need for an intelligent designer.
3. The universe could have originated from natural phenomena, without the intervention of a divine force, or it might be part of an eternal cosmos.
4. The laws governing the physical universe emerge from its inherent properties, rather than being decreed by a higher power.
5. The apparent fine-tuning of universal constants and conditions could be a result of natural processes or multiple universes, rather than the actions of a purposeful designer.
6. Life and its origin can be explained through natural, chemical, and biochemical processes without invoking a supernatural life-giver.
7. The emergence of complex information, such as genetic codes, can be accounted for by chemical selection and/or eventually other evolutionary mechanisms.
8. Biological structures and systems can develop through evolutionary processes without the need for a divine architect.
9. The diversity of life on Earth can be understood through the theory of evolution, which explains how natural selection and genetic variation lead to speciation.
10. Consciousness and moral values can be seen as emergent properties of complex brain functions, not bestowed by a divine entity.
11. Meaning and purpose in life can be derived from personal experiences, relationships, and achievements, rather than being assigned by a higher power.
12. The concept of an afterlife is not necessary to give life significance or to understand human consciousness.
13. The lack of empirical evidence for deities is viewed not as a dismissal of the possibility but as a basis for focusing on the natural and observable world.

The Biblical Perspective on Atheism

The biblical perspective on atheism is deeply intertwined with its broader theological and moral teachings. Central to this perspective is the assertion found in Psalm 14:1, which declares, "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God.'" This statement encapsulates the biblical stance that denying God's existence is not only mistaken but also a reflection of folly and moral corruption. From the outset, the Bible affirms the existence of God as a fundamental truth, beginning with the emphatic declaration in Genesis 1:1, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." This foundational assertion sets the stage for understanding the biblical view of reality, one that is inherently theistic and sees God's creative power as evident in the world. The Bible articulates that the evidence of God's existence is manifest in the natural world, a principle echoed in Romans 1:20. This passage argues that God's "invisible qualities" are clearly perceived in the created order, rendering disbelief in God as indefensible and without excuse. Such a perspective implies that atheism is not a conclusion arrived at through impartial reasoning but is influenced by a predisposition toward unrighteousness and a rejection of divine authority. Ephesians 4:18 and Revelation 21:8 extend this argument, suggesting that atheism and other forms of unbelief are symptomatic of a deeper spiritual and moral estrangement from God. This estrangement is characterized by ignorance, hardness of heart, and a proclivity toward behaviors that are antithetical to God's moral law. The biblical narrative also posits that the natural world, in all its diversity and complexity, inherently points to a creator. This is illustrated in Job 12:7-9, where the harmony and order of the natural world are presented as testimonies to God's handiwork. Even the demons, as mentioned in James 2:19, acknowledge God's existence, further underscoring the irrationality of atheism from a biblical standpoint. The Bible presents atheism not merely as an intellectual position but as one rooted in moral and spiritual rebellion against God. It challenges the coherence of atheism by highlighting the evident design and purpose in creation, which testify to a Creator. The biblical critique of atheism extends beyond the mere denial of God's existence to address the underlying spiritual condition that fosters such disbelief. In doing so, the Bible shifts the focus from the question of God's existence to the nature of one's relationship with the true God, emphasizing the importance of knowing and worshiping God as revealed in the scriptures and through Jesus Christ.

Understanding the outspokenness of Atheists

The fervor with which some atheists and agnostics engage in discussions about faith and theism can be perplexing. This passion for promoting atheistic or agnostic viewpoints often seems aimed more at deconstructing the beliefs of others rather than constructing a positive framework for their own worldview. This approach focuses on the negation of faith rather than contributing constructively to personal or societal well-being, leading to a perception of atheism as embracing a void rather than offering an enriching alternative. Why do individuals who profess uncertainty or disbelief in theistic explanations invest significant energy in debating those who are content and fulfilled by their faith? The insistence on discussing the lack of evidence for deities or the origins of the universe, particularly when their stance is one of admitted ignorance on these ultimate questions, is counterintuitive. It raises questions about the motivation behind such engagements and whether the goal is to genuinely seek truth together or simply to undermine the convictions of others. The comparison between a fulfilled, content theist and an atheist engaging in such debates might resemble a juxtaposition between satisfaction and dissatisfaction. From this perspective, atheistic engagement is not a pursuit of shared understanding or enlightenment but an attempt to project one's own uncertainties or skepticism onto others. This approach focused more on dismantling rather than building, is not appealing or constructive to those who find solace and meaning in their faith. For those who hold theistic beliefs, especially those who find in them a deep sense of purpose and direction, the proposition to adopt a viewpoint characterized by doubt and uncertainty is unattractive. The inclination to engage with arguments that appear to offer nothing more than skepticism is understandably low, as such interactions can feel unproductive or even demeaning to one's deeply held convictions. The challenge then becomes one of dialogue and understanding. How can individuals with divergent views on theism and atheism engage in meaningful conversations that respect the integrity of each perspective? Is it possible to explore these profound questions of existence in a way that enriches rather than diminishes? For productive discourse to occur, there must be a mutual willingness to listen, understand, and appreciate the value and sincerity of each other's viewpoints, even if agreement is not reached. This requires moving beyond mere criticism and towards a more constructive exploration of the diverse ways humans seek meaning, purpose, and understanding.

The Skeptical Worldview and the Challenge of Origins of Our Physical Existence

Most skeptics pride themselves on their intellectual abilities and believe they hold no unsubstantiated beliefs. However, modern science has shown that everyone has beliefs, as this is how our brains function. Although we'd like to think our beliefs stem from evidence and logic, this is often not the case. In fact, we become emotionally attached to our worldviews, making significant worldview changes rare occurrences. 

Principles of the Skeptical Worldview

1. All beliefs should be based on observational evidence. Unlike theists who partially base beliefs on religious texts, skeptics must rely entirely on physical evidence.
2. Skeptics must be logically consistent at all times. A skeptic cannot believe something contradicted by observational evidence.
3. Most skeptical atheists believe all phenomena have naturalistic causes, based on observing cause and effect in our world, with rare exceptions, if any.

However, insisting that supernatural events never occur is itself an unsubstantiated belief that can never be fully confirmed. To be truly open-minded, one must recognize the possibility that supernatural events do occur, even if rarely. Let's examine a major problem with the skeptical worldview: the origin of the universe. Before the 20th century, atheists assumed the universe was eternal. However, Einstein's theory of relativity and early observational evidence indicated the universe is expanding. Extrapolating backward revealed our universe had most likely a beginning, leading to the widely accepted Big Bang theory.

Attempts to circumvent a universe beginning have met observational difficulties. The oscillating universe theory was disproven by the insufficient matter in the universe and the inevitability of a "Big Crunch" instead of another Big Bang. So we've come to realize the universe began some finite time ago. Atheists face a dilemma, as the principle that everything that begins to exist must have a cause has never been refuted or overcome. Logic requires admitting the universe had a cause. Most atheists claim this cause was a natural phenomenon, or that we simply don't know yet what that cause might have been. Thus, any atheist definitively denying God's possible existence violates their own principle of basing beliefs on observational evidence. The problem worsens, as the physical laws allowing for life and matter's existence fall within narrow ranges, suggesting design. If true, the observational evidence actually leans toward God's existence, contradicting strong atheism. The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the universe's origin is bleak, as the laws of physics indicate we can never escape our universe to investigate its cause.

Strong atheists often employ a variety of scientific hypotheses to explain the origins and nature of the universe, life, and consciousness without recourse to a divine creator. These explanations span from the cosmological to the biological, attempting to provide a comprehensive naturalistic account of reality.

Multiverses:  This hypothesis suggests that our universe is just one of many universes, potentially with varying physical constants and laws. The existence of a multiverse could provide a naturalistic explanation for the fine-tuning of the physical constants in our universe, which some argue is necessary for life. In a multiverse, it's statistically probable that at least one universe would have the right conditions for life.

Steady-State Universe: This now largely outdated model proposed that the universe is eternal and unchanging on a large scale, with matter continuously created to keep the density constant despite expansion. It was an alternative to the Big Bang theory but has fallen out of favor due to observational evidence supporting the Big Bang.

Oscillating Universes: This hypothesis posits that the universe undergoes infinite cycles of expansion and contraction, commonly referred to as "Big Bang" and "Big Crunch" phases. Each cycle is thought to renew the universe, potentially explaining its existence without a divine cause.

Virtual Particles: In quantum field theory, virtual particles spontaneously appear and disappear in a vacuum due to quantum fluctuations. Some atheists suggest that the universe could have arisen from such fluctuations, with virtual particles contributing to the energy density of the vacuum, possibly leading to the Big Bang.

Big Bang Theory: This widely accepted cosmological model describes the universe's expansion from an extremely hot, dense initial state. While it doesn't provide a complete explanation for the universe's initial conditions, it offers a detailed account of its development over 13.8 billion years, supported by extensive observational evidence.

Accretion Theory In the context of planetary formation, accretion theory describes how planets form from the dust and gas surrounding a new star. This naturalistic explanation accounts for the diversity and arrangement of planets in our solar system without invoking supernatural intervention.

Abiogenesis: This hypothesis seeks to explain the origin of life from non-living matter. Various models suggest that life began through simple organic compounds forming in Earth's early environment, eventually leading to more complex structures capable of replication and evolution.

Common Ancestry: Central to the theory of evolution, common ancestry posits that all life on Earth shares a common origin. Supported by genetic, fossil, and morphological evidence, this concept explains the diversity of life through natural selection and adaptation to different environments.

Evolution: The theory of evolution by natural selection, first articulated by Charles Darwin, explains the diversity of life as a result of genetic variation and environmental pressures. It's a cornerstone of modern biology and provides a naturalistic framework for understanding the complexity of life without supernatural design.

Monism: In the philosophy of mind, monism asserts that the mind and body are not distinct substances but one entity. Physicalist monism, in particular, argues that consciousness and mental states arise solely from physical processes in the brain, challenging dualistic notions that invoke a soul or spirit.

Strong atheists often argue that these and other scientific theories offer naturalistic explanations for phenomena traditionally attributed to divine action. They contend that invoking a supernatural entity is unnecessary and that science, though not yet complete in its explanations, is progressively unveiling the workings of a purely material universe. In addition to the scientific theories and hypotheses previously mentioned, strong atheists often draw on a broader spectrum of naturalistic explanations to account for various aspects of reality, challenging traditional theistic interpretations. These additional assertions and propositions encompass a range of disciplines, from physics and cosmology to biology and neuroscience.

Quantum Mechanics: This fundamental theory in physics provides a framework for understanding the behavior of particles at the subatomic level. Some atheists propose that quantum mechanics, with its inherent randomness and non-deterministic events, could offer insights into the origin of the universe and the apparent indeterminacy in the natural world, reducing the need for a divine prime mover.

Biogenesis: Going beyond abiogenesis, biogenesis focuses on the mechanisms of life's development and diversification after its initial emergence. This includes the complex processes of cell division, genetic inheritance, and molecular biology, all of which are explained through natural biochemical reactions and evolutionary principles.

Neuroscience and Consciousness: Advances in neuroscience have led to a deeper understanding of the brain's role in generating consciousness and mental phenomena. By mapping the correlations between neural activity and subjective experiences, strong atheists argue that consciousness can be fully explained as an emergent property of brain processes, negating the need for a soul or spiritual essence.

Anthropic Principle: Some atheists reference the Weak Anthropic Principle, which posits that our observations of the universe are necessarily conditioned by the fact that we exist within it. This principle suggests that while the universe's laws appear fine-tuned for life, this tuning is simply a prerequisite for our existence and observation, not evidence of divine design.

Sociobiology and Evolutionary Psychology:

 These fields examine the biological basis of social behavior and psychological traits, attributing many aspects of human culture, morality, and religion to evolutionary pressures. Strong atheists might use these disciplines to argue that religious belief and moral intuitions are byproducts of evolutionary adaptations rather than divinely instilled truths.

Simulated Universe Hypothesis: While more speculative, some atheists entertain the possibility that our perceived reality is actually a sophisticated computer simulation. This hypothesis, inspired by advancements in virtual reality and computational complexity, challenges traditional notions of a physically real universe, although it raises further questions about the simulator's nature.

Emergence Theory: This scientific and philosophical concept describes how complex systems and patterns arise from the interactions of simpler entities. Atheists might use emergence to explain the origin of complex structures and phenomena in the universe, from galaxies to life forms, as natural outcomes of basic physical laws rather than the result of intelligent design.

Cultural Evolution: Beyond biological evolution, cultural evolution examines how ideas, beliefs, and technologies evolve over time through social transmission. Strong atheists may argue that religion itself is a cultural construct that evolved to meet various social, psychological, and existential needs, rather than a reflection of divine truth.

Natural Moral Philosophy: Some atheists propose naturalistic foundations for morality, based on human well-being, social cooperation, and evolutionary ethics. They contend that moral values can be objectively grounded in the consequences of actions on sentient beings, without recourse to divine commandments.

Cosmological Natural Selection: This speculative theory suggests that universes may reproduce through black holes, with each generation of universes potentially having different physical constants. Over time, this could lead to the selection of universes with properties conducive to the emergence of complexity and life, offering a naturalistic explanation for the fine-tuning of physical laws.

These additional propositions underscore the diversity of naturalistic explanations available to strong atheists in their endeavor to understand the cosmos, life, and human experience without invoking supernatural causes. While not all of these ideas are universally accepted or free from controversy, they collectively represent an attempt to construct a coherent, naturalistic worldview grounded in scientific inquiry and philosophical reasoning.

The various naturalistic explanations for the universe, life, and consciousness fall short of providing a compelling account of our reality. These explanations, ranging from multiverse hypotheses to the principles of quantum mechanics, and from the processes of abiogenesis to the complex theories of evolution and neuroscience, inherently lack the capacity to address the fundamental questions of purpose, meaning, and the origin of the "first cause."

The inadequacy of naturalistic explanations in several key issues related to Origins

The Problem of the First Cause: Many naturalistic hypotheses, such as quantum fluctuations, trace the universe's origin to a singularity or "nothingness." Yet, they fail to explain how something could emerge from nothing without an external cause, or in the case of virtual particles, the cause of a quantum field, supposedly giving rise to the virtual particles, leaving room for the notion of a "first cause" or "unmoved mover" as a more convincing explanation for the universe's existence.

Fine-Tuning and the Anthropic Principle: The precise tuning of physical constants necessary for life challenges naturalistic accounts like the multiverse hypothesis, which lacks empirical support. This fine-tuning is irrefutable evidence of a fine-tuner with purposes, goals, and foresight, pointing towards a universe intentionally crafted to support life. None of the proposed alternatives bear evidence, nor make sense. There is no reason to add a multitude of entities. Occam's razor is well applied here. 

Consciousness and the Mind-Body Problem: Naturalistic explanations struggle to account for consciousness, subjective experiences, and the "hard problem" of consciousness. There is evidence that consciousness extends beyond mere physical processes. Penfield: The mind may be a distinct and different essence. I reconsider the present-day neurophysiological evidence on the basis of two hypotheses: (a) that man's being consists of one fundamental element and (b) that it consists of two.
Penfield: I conclude that there is no good evidence, in spite of new methods, such as the employment of stimulating electrodes, the study of conscious patients, and the analysis of epileptic attacks, that the brain alone can carry out the work that the mind does.

Moral Realism and Objective Values: The existence of objective moral values challenges the naturalistic view, as purely naturalistic explanations fail to ground these values, hinting at a transcendent source of morality. If you agree, that its wrong in any circumstances to rape, torture, and kill little babies for fun,  then you agree that objective moral values exist. Since they objectively exist, but do not exist in the material realm,  the moral law was made by Someone Who lives in the immaterial realm. 

The Existential and Metaphysical Questions: Naturalistic approaches fall short in addressing existential questions about meaning, purpose, and ultimate reality, pointing to the fact that there are aspects of reality that transcend the empirical realm. The perspective that life is a fleeting, accidental occurrence in the vast cosmos leads to a sense of existential nihilism—the belief that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. From this viewpoint, if we are merely the by-products of random events in the universe, then any meaning we ascribe to our existence is self-delusional because it is an attempt to impose significance on something that, at its core, is devoid of inherent meaning. Self-ascribed meaning is inherently flawed because it relies on one's subjective perspective, which is transient and limited. If our existence is the result of accidental cosmic events, then any meaning we derive from our experiences, relationships, and achievements is temporary and ultimately insignificant on the cosmic scale. Any personal or collective sense of purpose is a construction, a mere distraction from the fundamental meaninglessness of existence.


Origins of Life (Abiogenesis): The transition from non-living matter to life poses significant challenges for naturalistic hypotheses, which have yet to fully explain or replicate this process, hinting at the possibility of an external guiding force or intelligence. In over 70 years of scientific experiments, scientists have failed to elucidate any of the required steps, to go from the goo, to a fully self-replicating, autonomous living cell. 

Information in DNA: The complex information within DNA, the genetic code operating like a translation manual, and the mechanisms required for its processing point to the involvement of an intelligent source, refuting naturalistic explanations. The odds to create even just one of the myriads of proteins required to have a first living cell, are beyond the probabilistic resources of the entire universe, even giving the entire life span of 13,8 billion years, to do the shuffling and attempts. 

Laws of Nature: The uniformity and existence of the laws of nature, essential for a habitable universe, raise questions about their origin and finely-tuned parameters, challenging naturalistic frameworks that take these laws for granted.

Mathematical Universality: The "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" in describing the physical world suggests a pre-existing harmony between abstract mathematical principles and the universe's structure, pointing towards a transcendent rational mind.

Language and Symbolic Thought: The human capacity for language and abstract reasoning exceeds what natural selection and adaptive advantages alone can account for, suggesting a different origin for these cognitive abilities.

Aesthetic Experience: The human experience of beauty and the drive to create art challenges purely naturalistic explanations, suggesting that our aesthetic impulses may point to a reality beyond the material.

Altruism and Sacrificial Love: Instances of genuine altruism and sacrificial love, particularly when they confer no evolutionary advantage, challenge naturalistic accounts based on genetic self-interest or social cooperation.

Religious Experience: The prevalence of religious experiences and a sense of the numinous across cultures suggest dimensions of human consciousness and reality beyond what naturalistic explanations can fully encompass.

These examples underscore the challenges faced by naturalistic propositions in accounting for the full spectrum of human experience and the intricacies of the cosmos, suggesting the need for a broader explanatory framework that can encompass both the empirical and the transcendent aspects of reality. Naturalistic explanations fall short of addressing the deeper, metaphysical questions that define our existence. The limitations and gaps in these explanations, coupled with the profound intuition of purpose and design in the cosmos, provide a compelling case for a transcendent, intelligent cause at the foundation of all reality.

Objection: The famed atheist Bertrand Russell notoriously said: “If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause.”
Response: But it’s not true that everything must have a cause. Only that which begins to exist must have a cause. And herein God is perched up in a category of His own.


Claim: God is like belief in the tooth fairy, Easter bunny, Santa Claus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster
Response: The notion that belief in the biblical God is akin to believing in fantastical creatures like mermaids or the Easter Bunny is a flawed analogy and a philosophical misstep. The two types of belief are fundamentally different. We have convincing reasons to dismiss the existence of mythical beings; for instance, we understand that parents, not the tooth fairy, leave money under their child’s pillow and that Christmas presents are the work of family members, not Santa Claus, originating from the North Pole.

In contrast, belief in God is substantiated by serious philosophical arguments that have gained substantial consideration and defense in contemporary discourse. Richard Dawkins' "Flying Spaghetti Monster" serves as a rhetorical device to question the arguments for God’s existence, suggesting that if we can posit God as the creator, why not a spaghetti monster or any other absurdity? However, this comparison fails on several counts: Any physical entity, including a "Flying Spaghetti Monster," would be part of the physical universe and subject to empirical investigation, whereas the concept of God in classical theism is that of a being who exists beyond the empirical realm. The “objection” doesn’t provide a counter-argument but rather highlights that while philosophical discourse can approach the nature of a creator, it doesn't replace specific revelations or theological claims. The cause of the universe, as argued by theists, must possess qualities such as personality, power, and immateriality, which a "spaghetti monster" would lack. Dawkins' hypothetical does not counter the argument for an intelligent designer, which is based on the universe's apparent fine-tuning. The notion of a necessary being—one that must exist in all possible worlds—is not satisfied by a "Flying Spaghetti Monster," or any other contingent being. A necessary being's existence is derived from its nature, not from an external cause. The idea of a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" seems arbitrary and lacks any serious connection to the phenomena we observe in the universe or human experience. It doesn't provide a more compelling explanation for the features of our reality. Belief in God is rooted in philosophical and theological inquiry, distinguishing it from belief in mythical creatures, which we reject based on empirical evidence and reason. The suggestion of whimsical entities like a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" does not seriously engage with philosophical arguments for a necessary, non-contingent creator and serves more as a satirical commentary than a rational objection.



The proposition that some form of agency or being, irrespective of its fantastical nature, offers a more fitting explanation for our existence than the absence of any agency highlights a significant philosophical consideration. This perspective challenges the naturalistic view, which posits that life and the universe can be fully explained through processes and phenomena without invoking any external agent. The argument for an agential cause, stems from the observation that many aspects of the universe and human experience seem designed and purposeful, evidencing the influence of an intelligent cause. This is not to lend credence to fantastical beings per se but to underscore the intuitive sense that a directed, purposive process seems more plausible in accounting for the complexity and order we observe. In comparison, the naturalistic approach, while valuable in its methodological rigor and empirical grounding,  falls short in explaining phenomena that appear to possess inherent purpose or design. For instance, the fine-tuning of the universe's physical constants, which allows for the existence of life, or the emergence of consciousness and moral sensibilities in humans, are elements that extend beyond the purview of undirected natural processes. Furthermore, the human inclination towards meaning-making and the search for purpose suggests an underlying expectation of intentionality within the fabric of reality. This psychological aspect, while not definitive proof, lends weight to the idea that a purposive agency might resonate more with our intuitive understanding of existence. While it is essential to approach these considerations with critical scrutiny and not to hastily attribute complex phenomena to simplistic explanations, the notion that some form of agency provides a more satisfying account of our existence invites further philosophical and scientific inquiry. It encourages a broader exploration of the origins and nature of reality that remains open to multiple dimensions of understanding, including those that contemplate the possibility of purpose and design.

Objection: God creating our universe from nothing is magic
Response: God does not equal magic.  God equals a reality not bound by the rules of the physical world.   There can be a reality that we are not able to understand from existing inside this reality that can explain how God and what he does is not magic but completely natural to the laws of the reality of this God.    Conscious intelligence is also not magic but a proven thing to exist and this mental intelligence has been proven to have the force and ability of creating and designing. According to physics, Information is a far more fundamental quantity in the Universe than matter or energy.  What are the basic building blocks of the cosmos? Atoms, particles, mass energy? Quantum mechanics, forces, fields? Space and time — space-time? Tiny strings with many dimensions? Quantum physicists discovered that physical atoms are made up of vortices of energy that are constantly spinning and vibrating, each one radiating its own unique energy signature. This is also known as "the Vacuum" or "The Zero-Point Field."

According to some scientists, information is the foundation of reality. Paul Davies: "There's increasing interest among at least a small group of physicists to turn this upside down and say, maybe at rock bottom, the universe is about information and information processing, and it's matter that emerges as a secondary concept. "So, what is the universe?" Lloyd asks. "The universe is a physical system that contains and processes information in a systematic fashion and that can do everything a computer can do."He sees the universe not like a computer as an explanatory metaphor; it really is a computer as scientific fact. As such, he claims that all changes in the universe are "computations." Physicist Stephen Wolfram: "simple rules… generate what we see in nature." He described "an ultimate representation of the universe" in terms of "simple rules," which "govern fundamentally" and are "best conceptualized in terms of computation." James B. Glattfelder INFORMATION– CONSCIOUSNESS–REALITY :  The natural thing to do is to postulate consciousness itself as something fundamental, a fundamental building block of nature.  A deeper motivation comes from the idea that perhaps the most simple and powerful way to find fundamental laws connecting consciousness to physical processing is to link consciousness to information. Wherever there’s information processing, there’s consciousness. Complex information processing, like in a human, complex consciousness.   Physicists and philosophers have often observed that physics is curiously abstract. It describes the structure of reality using a bunch of equations, but it doesn’t tell us about the reality that underlies it. As Stephen Hawking puts it, what puts the fire into the equations?  That’s what physics really is ultimately doing, describing the flux of consciousness. On this view, it’s consciousness that puts the fire into the equations.

Quarks “were predicted not on the basis of physical data, but on the basis of mathematical symmetry patterns.” Physicists then made an educated guess that certain physical phenomena would later be found to correspond to these mathematical patterns. It turned out in this case, as in many other great scientific discoveries, to be true. As Frenkel explains, “This was a purely theoretical prediction, made within the framework of a sophisticated mathematical theory of representation of the group SU.” At the deepest level of understanding of reality (the goal of Tegmark’s inquiry), therefore, with respect to the physical world there is seemingly nothing but the mathematics itself, plus the human “baggage” of words—the “poetry” of physics—that are added by physicists to aid heuristically in their own thinking and in communicating their results to others. But if we want to discover the deepest reality that transcends any human linguistic additions, it will be necessary to limit our claims to an understanding of the mathematics itself. Hence, as Tegmark concludes, if we are to seek a physical reality that is independent of any human influence, it follows that such an “external reality is a mathematical structure.” In other words, “something that has a complete baggage-free description” outside human language “is precisely a mathematical structure” in and of itself alone. Atheists make that claim all the time: Did God use magic to create the universe? Often, they call God a "Sky-daddy". Well, first of all, magic without a magician, which would be the alternative to God creating through magic, would be far more counterintuitive. Actually, plain impossible. Something cannot come from nothing. Magic is something that violates the laws of nature. But those laws are as well the result of his creative act of creating the world we live in.  Then, the concept of "magic" has no meaning in this context of creating nature and its "laws". If HE is the creator as well of the laws of physics, why should it be impossible for HIM also to suspend them temporarily in the course of the universe's history, if it fits his plans and purposes? This objection also implicitly expresses incredulity that an eternal mind/spirit would/could be the ultimate, necessary source of all things that depend on him, that instantiates and secures them. But there is no reason for this. Since the time of the ancient Greeks, there have been basically two worldviews. One with God, the other without. In one, the mind is the primary or ultimate reality which instantiates the material world. In the other, not.   Most of the fathers and founders of modern science also held this belief. Sir Isaac Newton said that “an intelligent and powerful Being” created it all.


And Max Planck, the father of quantum physics:
"As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear-headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force that brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

Furthermore, many atheists claim that every scientific problem mentioned so far had a natural explanation. They like to mention lightning and thunder.  They play a large role in Greek mythology, with the god of the sky, Zeus, able to harness the elements’ power to use as a weapon. But fact is, there is no Zeus that expresses his wrath. Fact is, science has discovered how lighting works.  Lightning has a vital role in replacing nitrogen in the soil so that plants can assimilate it. 100 million tons of usable plant food per year is supplied to the soil by lightning. Nitrogen and oxygen are combined by lightning into plant food. Lightning in the nitrogen cycle and carbon cycle is another witness to the fact of Almighty God’s genius in designing and creating the World in awesome wisdom …past finding out. God made it self-supporting, to the finest tuned mind-boggling details, in perfect balance and harmony.  Lightning proof of God! Truth said natural explanations have been a TOTAL FAILURE to explain basically EVERY relevant question in regards to origins. They have NO predictive power. Science did hold the belief that the universe was eternal, until about 100 years ago, and had later to admit that it had a beginning. The Friedmann equations for the evolution of space predicted the big-bang singularity. General relativity theory predicts a boundary at the Big Bang, in that the laws of physics break down, and space and time shrink to nothing. That was confirmed by LeMaitre, and today, the BB model is predominant in cosmology. But that raises a bigger philosophical question: If it had a beginning, what caused it?

L. J. Henderson, R.H. Dicke, and  Fred Hoyle were among the first to argue for a fine-tuned universe. It gained traction with  Brandon Carter's contribution to a 1973 Kraków symposium honoring Copernicus's 500th birthday. If naturalism were true, the universe would be typical and unexceptional. It would be lifeless. Naturalism overwhelmingly expects a dead universe. The parameters are however unexpectedly exceptional, extremely unlikely, and life-permitting. In order to overcome the conundrum, proponents of naturalism resort to totally unscientific, made-up concepts, like a multiverse, ignoring that those also would require to have a beginning, and a finely-tuned multiverse generator.

Some of the world's leading scientists in abiogenesis research have stated that solving the mystery of the origin of life is categorically not possible, that science has no clue how to solve the riddle, that abiogenesis research is a failure and the most difficult problem that faces evolutionary biology and, arguably, biology in general. Jack W. Szostak: It is virtually impossible to imagine how a cell’s machines, which are mostly protein-based catalysts called enzymes, could have formed spontaneously as life first arose from nonliving matter around 3.7 billion years ago. Eugene V. Koonin: The origin of life field is a failure—we still do not have even a plausible coherent model, let alone a validated scenario, for the emergence of life on Earth. And Steve Benner in Paradoxes in the Origin of life: The “origins problem” cannot be solved. No universal scientific evolutionary prediction has met its goal.  NEVER, in over 150 years, since Darwin's book " On the Origin of species " was published, has even ONE, amongst hundreds or thousands, if not millions of science papers, provided ONE DEMONSTRATION, and empirical verifiable replicable evidence, that any of the evolutionary mechanisms proposed, could produce a primary macroevolutionary transition zone of speciation and population differentiation. W. Dembski writes: The problem is that nature has too many options and without design couldn’t sort through all those options. The problem is that natural mechanisms are too unspecific to determine any particular outcome. Natural processes could theoretically form a protein, but are also compatible with the formation of a plethora of other molecular assemblages, most of which have no biological significance. Nature allows them full freedom of arrangement. Yet it’s precisely that freedom that makes nature unable to account for specified outcomes of small probability. Nature, in this case, rather than being intent on doing only one thing, is open to doing any number of things. When the making of the above-mentioned things becomes a highly improbable event that requires specification, design becomes the more compelling, better inference. So there is nothing irrational to hold to the theistic view, despite the frequent attempt of atheists to ridicule it. God is not a "Skydaddy" doing magic, but an eternal powerful, ultimate, necessary creator of the universe, and life. He revealed himself in the scriptures, and we can know him. Anyone that ridicules the Bible, and the Christian worldview, is in my view, a self-deceptive fool.

Why do many people reject God?
 
 
New Atheism: The Confluence of Atheistic Humanism and Naturalism

The concept of "New Atheism" represents a contemporary movement that intertwines the principles of atheistic humanism with a steadfast commitment to naturalism. It is an ideology that not only denies the existence of a divine being or beings but also emphasizes a secular, human-centric approach to understanding the world and our place within it. Atheistic humanism, one of the pillars of New Atheism, places humanity and human values at the forefront of its ethical and philosophical considerations. It advocates for morality, ethics, and decision-making processes that are rooted in human needs and rational thinking, rather than divine commandments or religious doctrines. This human-centric approach fosters a society where individuals are encouraged to live fulfilling lives, grounded in reason and empathy, without reliance on supernatural beliefs.

The second pillar, naturalism, asserts that everything in the universe can be explained through natural laws and phenomena, without invoking the supernatural. New Atheists strongly adhere to the view that scientific inquiry and empirical evidence are the primary means to understand reality. This naturalistic viewpoint underpins their rejection of the supernatural, including deities, spirits, and other religious concepts that transcend natural explanations.
New Atheism emerged in the early 21st century, gaining momentum through the works of prominent thinkers and authors who advocated for a more vocal and assertive form of atheism. Unlike traditional atheism, which simply involves a lack of belief in gods, New Atheism actively challenges religious faith and its influence on society, promoting secularism, science, and reason as the foundations for a rational and humane world.

To understand the nuances of New Atheism and its emergence as a distinct movement, it's essential to consider its historical context, key proponents, and their seminal works. New Atheism came to prominence in the early 21st century, characterized by a more outspoken and sometimes confrontational stance against religion. The movement is often associated with the works of four influential authors, sometimes referred to as the "Four Horsemen" of New Atheism:

Richard Dawkins: A British evolutionary biologist and outspoken critic of religion, Dawkins is perhaps best known for his book "The God Delusion" (2006). In this work, he argues against the necessity of religion for moral and ethical behavior and promotes a worldview based on scientific skepticism and rational thought.

Sam Harris: An American neuroscientist and philosopher, Harris brought attention to the New Atheist movement with his book "The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason" (2004). Harris critiques religion and its impact on society, advocating for a rational approach to ethics and belief based on reason and evidence.

Christopher Hitchens: A British-American author and journalist, Hitchens contributed to the New Atheism discourse with his book "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" (2007). Hitchens was known for his eloquent and sometimes provocative criticism of religion, arguing that it detrimentally influences various aspects of human society.

Daniel Dennett: An American philosopher and cognitive scientist, Dennett is the author of "Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon" (2006). In this book, he examines religion from an evolutionary and cognitive perspective, suggesting that scientific analysis can explain religious beliefs and practices.

These authors and their works played a pivotal role in popularizing New Atheism, each contributing unique perspectives from their fields of expertise. The movement is distinguished not just by its atheistic stance but by its active engagement in public discourse, advocating for secularism, science, and rationality in the face of religious dogma. New Atheism's rise can also be seen as a response to the events of the early 21st century, including the September 11 attacks in 2001, which heightened global tensions around religion and its role in societal conflicts. This period saw an increase in public debate about the influence of religion in politics, education, and public policy, with New Atheists advocating for a secular approach to these areas based on empirical evidence and humanistic values. The movement's emphasis on scientific inquiry and skepticism has influenced various fields, including philosophy, biology, and cognitive science, prompting discussions about the role of religion in the modern world and the nature of belief and knowledge. While New Atheism has its critics, who argue that it sometimes oversimplifies complex issues or adopts an overly confrontational stance toward religious individuals, its impact on contemporary discourse around religion, ethics, and human well-being is undeniable.

Confirmation bias & willful ignorance - one of the main reasons to adopt atheism

The phenomenon of "my-side bias" illustrates the challenge of appreciating the logic of opposing viewpoints, especially on contentious issues. This bias is rooted in our deep-seated values, which can obscure our recognition of logical reasoning in arguments that clash with our personal beliefs.  This bias is not exclusive to any one group; it can be observed across various belief systems, including among atheists. Often, individuals may seek information or interpretations that align with their pre-existing beliefs, a tendency known as confirmation bias. This cognitive bias leads people to favor, interpret, and recall information in a way that reaffirms their existing views while discounting evidence that contradicts them. Some prefer not to identify strongly with atheism, perhaps to avoid the onus of substantiating their stance. They might contend that the absence of belief does not necessitate an alternative explanation and may advocate for a position of agnosticism or "we don't know-ism" as a more intellectually tenable stance. This approach valorizes the pursuit of knowledge through scientific inquiry, positing that the admission of ignorance is a precursor to discovery, rather than resorting to definitive answers like "God did it" without further exploration.

However, engaging in dialogue solely to undermine another's faith without a genuine openness to understanding or considering their perspective is disingenuous. Such interactions are not fruitful for either party. It's important to recognize that dialogues on faith and belief can be deeply personal and impactful. Respectful and open-minded conversations can foster mutual understanding and growth, even if agreement isn't reached. For us believers, sharing our faith and the evidence we see for divine creation is a key aspect of our spiritual practice, regardless of the immediate receptiveness of others. We hold onto the hope that our words might someday resonate with someone, or at the very least, ensure that we have extended the invitation to explore our faith.

What does the Bible say about atheism?

Psalm 14: 1 "The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God!' Corrupt up and injustices committed detestable; there is none who does good "

Genesis 1: 1 This is one of the statements that the Bible makes about atheism. We highlight two points: Atheism is nonsense. Denying the existence of God is foolish because the existence of God is obvious. The Bible in no time seeks to defend the existence of God because it is the most basic of all truths. The Bible begins already stating categorically: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" 

Looking at the account of Genesis 1:1 for just a brief moment, the words in that first verse are quite remarkable. They are indicative of the incredible mind of God. God says in that first verse everything that could have been said about creation and He says it in such few terms. The statement is precise and concise almost beyond human composition. A well-known scientist named Herbert Spencer died in 1903. He discovered that all reality, all reality, all that exists in the universe can be contained in five categories...time, force, action, space, and matter. Herbert Spencer said everything that exists, exists in one of those categories...time, force, action, space and matter. Now think about that. Time, force, action, space and matter. That is a logical sequence. And then with that in your mind, listen to Genesis 1:1. "In the beginning," that's time..." God," that's force, "created," that's action, "the heavens," that's space, "and the earth," that's matter. Everything that could be said about everything that exists is said in that first verse. Now either you believe that or you don't. You either believe that that verse is accurate and God is the force or you believe that God is not the force that created everything. And then you're left with chance or randomness or coincidence. The Bible says that God can not be known completely for us, but it can be sufficiently known:

God’s Wrath Against Sinful Humanity

Romans 1:20 18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools  

Ephesians 4:18 They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.
 
Revelation 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”

God is clearly seen in creation. Thus, atheism is considered foolish because it is irrational, is to go against the clear, reasonable. In fact, atheism is the greatest possible folly of existence. The atheist simply close their eyes to the evidence and closes his ears to reason. But for what reason he does this? This brings us to the next point:

The atheism of nonsense comes from the sinful heart of man

No person becomes an atheist for argument's sake, but because of sin in his heart. There is no single conclusive argument to prove the non-existence of God. In Romans 1:19 the Bible says that atheists do not deny God by logic, but by injustice, "men suppress the truth in unrighteousness." The Bible says that the atheist denies the existence of God because he decided to live for sin. That is, should the atheist that God does not exist. As Augustine said: "No one denies God unless that interests you that God does not exist"

The Bible says that even animals do not doubt the existence of God: "Ask, however, the animals, and they will teach you, or the birds of the air, and they will tell you; speak to the earth, and it will instruct you, let the fish of the sea inform the. About all they ignore the hand of the LORD has done this "(Job 12: 7-9)?. More than that, the Bible says that even the demons doubt the existence of God: "Do you believe there is a God? Very well! Even the demons believe - and shudder "(James 2:19)!.

The Bible disqualifies atheism as a valid belief, revealing its irrationality, inconsistency, and incoherence. Thus, the Bible does not waste time with atheism, the bible worries about idolatry. The first of the Ten Commandments is against idolatry, not against atheism. The great danger of civilization is not that she does not believe in God, but she delivers wicked fantasies and imaginations.
Men never cease to believe in something, because they are always in search of God, of meaning, of purpose, of eternal life. Thus, men are always making gods for themselves. Even atheists worship gods, either sex, addiction, money, status, or even a philosopher. The big question is not "Does God exist?" But rather, "What kind of God exists?". Therefore Jesus also did not bother much with atheism, but with idolatry. His concern was not only that people believe in God but who believe in the true God. He prayed: "This is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent" (John 17: 3).

Atheism & Self-delusion

The challenge with spiritual unawareness is that it often goes unrecognized by those it affects. Without a benchmark for comparison, some may not realize what they're missing, much like a person unfamiliar with color might not grasp the concept of color blindness. This analogy extends beyond any specific group, encompassing a wide array of belief systems and worldviews where people might not be aware of the spiritual dimensions they overlook. The adage that "there is none so blind as those who will not see" underscores the idea that a willingness to perceive is the first step toward enlightenment. Openness to new perspectives is crucial for any form of growth or realization. It's often through a transformative experience or a conscious decision to explore beyond one's current understanding that one becomes aware of previously unrecognized truths. In the context of spirituality, this journey often involves openness to the possibility of a reality beyond the tangible and empirical. For those who hold a belief in a higher power or divine influence, the moment of realization or spiritual awakening is described as an eye-opening experience, where what was once obscured becomes clear. This process is not just about acquiring new information but involves a profound shift in perception and understanding.

Such transformative experiences are deeply personal and can vary significantly from one individual to another. They often involve introspection, questioning, and a willingness to venture into the unknown. For believers, the role of divine intervention in facilitating this awakening is central, emphasizing the importance of receptivity to divine guidance. Engaging with individuals at different points in their spiritual journey requires empathy, patience, and an understanding that everyone's path to awareness is unique. Respectful dialogue and sharing of perspectives can be enriching for all involved, potentially serving as catalysts for personal reflection and growth. Ultimately, the journey toward spiritual awareness is an inward one, marked by an individual's readiness to explore beyond the visible and familiar.

John 3.19: This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.

John 12.40: He has blinded their eyes and hardened their hearts, so they can neither see with their eyes, nor understand with their hearts, nor turn—and I would heal them.

2 Corinthians 4:4: In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

2 Corinthians 4:6 For God, who said, “Let light shine out of darkness,” has shone in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled only to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. The human heart is the hardest thing in the universe, harder than Iron. Harder than diamonds. We shall not expect it to change just because we have irrefutable evidence that there is a Creator. But God does miracles. Even today. If he turned Saul into a Paul, he could draw even the most hardened atheist to him.

Acts 17:30 In the past, God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

Ezekiel 36:26 "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh."

New Rational Theists, a counter-proposal

Manifesto for Rational Theistic Renaissance (RTR)

In response to the rise of New Atheism, which emphasizes atheistic humanism, naturalism, and a secular worldview devoid of spiritual faith, we introduce the Rational Theistic Renaissance. This movement seeks to provide a coherent, intellectually rigorous framework that embraces theistic beliefs, integrating them with the principles of rational thought, scientific inquiry, and ethical considerations rooted in a transcendent moral order. We posit that a rational belief in God—or a higher intelligence—is not only compatible with modern scientific understanding but also provides a more comprehensive and satisfying explanation of the universe, human existence, morality, consciousness, and the phenomena of language and reason.

Tenets

Intelligent Design and Cosmological Rationality: - We advocate for the recognition of intelligent design within the universe, asserting that the complexity, order, and fine-tuning observed in nature point toward a rational, purposeful Creator. The intricacies of life and the precise conditions necessary for the existence of the universe suggest a guiding intelligence beyond mere chance or natural selection.

Complexity and Interdependency in Biological Systems: - Recent advancements in biochemistry and molecular biology have unveiled the staggering complexity of living organisms, characterized by complex interdependent genetic and epigenetic codes and a multitude of signaling systems that operate in a joint venture. These findings suggest that organismal architecture cannot be adequately explained by gradual evolutionary processes but rather indicates a deliberate, intelligent design.

Limits of Natural Selection and Random Mutation: - The traditional mechanisms of evolution—natural selection and random mutation—are increasingly recognized as insufficient to account for the origin of complex biochemical systems. This has also been acknowledged by professionals working in the field of evolutionary biology. A group to name is the so-called Third Way, composed of prominent secular scientists like Dennis Noble, and Paul Davies. The discovery of dozens of synergistic mechanisms operating in concert within cells underscores a level of complexity that evolutionary processes alone cannot plausibly produce. This aligns with a theistic perspective that views life as the product of intentional, intelligent design.

Irreducible Complexity as Evidence for Design: - The concept of irreducible complexity, bolstered by recent scientific research, challenges the gradualist paradigm of evolutionary theory. The systems within organisms, where the absence of a single component renders the entire system non-functional, point to a design that is deliberate and meticulously orchestrated, indicative of a higher intelligence.

Innovations in Systems Biology and the Case for Design: - Systems biology, which studies complex interactions within biological systems, reveals a level of organization and coordination that mere chance cannot adequately explain. The holistic view of life's processes, emphasizing the interconnectedness and interdependence of all biological components, supports the theistic assertion of a purposeful design inherent in the natural world.

Integration of Scientific Discovery with Theistic Belief: - We advocate for an open, interdisciplinary dialogue that embraces both the latest scientific discoveries and theistic philosophical perspectives. By integrating insights from molecular biology, genetics, and systems biology with a theistic worldview, we seek to foster a more comprehensive understanding of the origins and complexity of life.

Moral Realism Grounded in Divine Ordinance: - Our movement upholds that true moral values and duties are best understood as objective and absolute, grounded in the character and will of a benevolent Creator. This divine moral order provides a solid foundation for "oughts" and ethical imperatives, which cannot be sufficiently explained by social constructs, evolutionary byproducts, or subjective preferences.

Mind-Body Dualism and the Non-reducibility of Consciousness: - We affirm the dualistic nature of human existence, recognizing that consciousness, free will, and subjective experiences cannot be fully explained through physical processes alone. This perspective aligns with emerging scientific insights suggesting that the mind transcends mere material interactions, pointing toward a spiritual dimension of human life.

Language, Thought, and Reason as Indicators of a Rational Creator: - The capacities for language, abstract thought, and logical reasoning stand as hallmarks of human uniqueness, challenging the reductionist view that these faculties are mere byproducts of material processes. We argue that these immaterial aspects of humanity reflect the image of a rational Creator and cannot be fully accounted for by naturalistic explanations.

Historical and Experiential Evidence for the Divine: - Beyond philosophical and scientific arguments, we emphasize the historical reliability of sacred texts and the transformative experiences of individuals and communities who have encountered God. These testimonies provide personal and collective evidence of a reality that transcends the material world.  Rational Theistic Renaissance places significant emphasis on the empirical evidence that lends support to the historical and factual claims of sacred texts. This approach extends to tangible, verifiable evidence that corroborates scriptural narratives. Two notable examples of such evidence are the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo, each offering intriguing insights into the historical Jesus and the events surrounding his crucifixion.

The Rational Theistic Renaissance calls upon thinkers, scholars, and individuals of faith to engage in open, respectful dialogue with the scientific community, philosophers, and skeptics alike. We encourage rigorous investigation, critical thinking, and a humble approach to the vast mysteries of existence, advocating for a worldview that harmonizes faith and reason. We invite all who resonate with these principles to contribute to a constructive discourse that transcends polarizing narratives, fostering a culture where theistic beliefs are explored and expressed within the rich tapestry of human knowledge and experience. In the spirit of intellectual and spiritual exploration, the Rational Theistic Renaissance offers a robust alternative to the materialistic and secular assumptions prevalent in contemporary discourse. By affirming the compatibility of faith and reason, we aspire to illuminate the profound depths of reality, human nature, and the cosmos, guided by the conviction of a purposeful, intelligent, and moral foundation underlying all of existence.



 The symbol merges the concepts of enlightenment and scientific harmony with theistic belief.

1. Atheist Professor Gives REAL Definition of Atheism (very based) Link 
2. Neil deGrasse Tyson debunks Creation (Intelligent Design) Link