Atheism
(Atheism Is A Religion)
Biblical
Authority Ministries, May 23, 2025 (Donate)
The fool has said in his heart, “There
is no God.” They are corrupt, and have done abominable iniquity; There is none
who does good. (Psalm 53:1, NKJV all passages)
The religion of atheism is nothing new. The godly have dealt
with it since sin took a foothold in a fallen world (after Genesis 3).
King David dealt with it in the Old Testament; the Apostle Paul dealt with it
in the New Testament when he argued against the atheistic Epicureans in Acts
17.
In our day and age, the atheistic religion is alive and
thriving in the wake of declining Christianity in the Western world. Atheists
make up about 3.1% of the US population according to the Pew Research Center in
2014.
The UK has about 13% who profess the religion of atheism.
Christian philosopher Dr. Greg Bahnsen who famously debated world's leading atheist Dr. Gordon Stein on the existence of God.
These increases come as no surprise as the government
schools in the West teach the religious tenets of atheism without restriction
in many classes. One of the founders of modern, atheistic evolutionary views,
Charles Darwin, argued that man invented the idea of God.Being
from England, his views have been imposed on generations of people in the UK
and beyond.
What Is Atheism?
Atheism is the king of the secular humanistic religious
variations. It is the pinnacle of secular beliefs, taking the position to its
extreme.
Atheism is the religious belief system that professes there
is no God or gods. While agnostics claim it is not possible to know whether a
god exists, atheists are absolute in their insistence that there are no gods.
Many people who claim to be atheists will actually acknowledge they are
agnostics when pressed.
Inherent to atheism is materialism—the concept that the only
material things exist. The atheist
claims there is no immaterial realm (i.e., no spiritual realm), otherwise God
could exist in that nonmaterial realm and thus atheism would be refuted. So
there is an absolute commitment to the idea that every phenomena can be
explained as the result of matter interacting.
The term theism is based in belief in God (theos
is “god” in Greek). Atheism means without
God (a- without, theos- god). The term has been in use
since the 1600s. Atheism is a fancy way of saying that they try to maintain a
belief system without any notion of God. Some prefer the moniker non-theist. In
reality, these are just different names of the same basic philosophy with
slight variations in their outlook.
As with any religious worldview, there are variations in
atheism:
o
Classical Atheism (atheism without any flair)
o
New Atheism (evangelistic and aggressive to
impose the religion of atheism on people through schools, media, etc.)
o
Non-theism (opposed to God but usually
disinterested in discussions; also called soft atheism)
o
Anti-theist (opposed religions other than
itself—outspoken and confrontational; also called hard atheism)
o
Church of Satan (LaVeyan Satanism)
o
Epicureanism (among the first atheistic
evolutionists, a form of Greek philosophy)
o
Ritual atheists (e.g., Atheist Church which
models rituals after Christian elements but without God)
There are several religions that are atheistic in their
outlook or act like atheism in practice. Without being exhaustive, two examples
are agnosticism and Buddhism. Buddhism has elements of a “transcendental
heavens” that lies outside the natural realm, but in practice it is atheistic
in denying a being acknowledged as a god.
Though distinct from atheism but still a variation of
Secular Humanism, agnosticism receives an honorable mention because many of its
adherents act more like practical atheists. Agnostics (a- without; gnosis-
knowledge) claim that it is not possible to know if a god or gods exist since
they are not part of the natural realm. In his debate with Ken Ham, Bill Nye, a
professing agnostic, used and argued for atheistic positions while not claiming
to know with certainty whether God exists.
As a reminder, this book series is not arguing for a mere
theistic position, but instead for
Christian theism. We are unashamed about proclaiming and arguing for the
God of the Bible.
Atheists—Seeing through the Facade
Professor Richard Dawkins, a well-known atheist and former
professor at Oxford University in England, openly argues against gods
—especially the Christian God— and claims that he doesn’t believe in the God of
the Bible. Nor does he believe in the Easter Bunny, Dionysus (an alleged Greek
god), or the Tooth Fairy!
Interestingly enough, Dr. Dawkins doesn’t spend his energy
and effort arguing against the Easter Bunny, Dionysus, or the Tooth Fairy. Instead,
he has spent much of his life writing books and articles and offering
interviews and commentary arguing against the God of the Bible. Why the
inconsistency?
Have you ever stopped to think about why Dr. Dawkins and
other professing atheists spend so much of their waking hours arguing against
God’s existence? It is because in his heart of hearts (innermost part of his
mind) Dr. Dawkins knows God exists and he is trying to suppress that knowledge
and justify his denial of the obvious. It is an easy task to let go of the
alleged existence of the Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and so on. But the God of
the Bible is not so easily cast aside. And there are good reasons.
Romans 1:18–25 says:
For the wrath of God is revealed
from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress
the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them,
for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible
attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even
His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because,
although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but
became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the
incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and
four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to
uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among
themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and
served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
The Bible gives a consistent witness to the fact that God’s
existence as the eternal and divine Creator is obvious from the creation He has
made, including man himself.
He has made everything beautiful in
its time. Also He has put eternity in their hearts, except that no one can find
out the work that God does from beginning to end. (Ecclesiastes 3:11)
Who show the work of the law
written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between
themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them. (Romans 2:15)
The heavens declare the glory of
God; and the firmament shows His handiwork. Day unto day utters speech, and
night unto night reveals knowledge. There is no speech nor language where their
voice is not heard. Their line has gone out through all the earth, and their
words to the end of the world. (Psalm 19:1–4)
Dr. Dawkins and others are trying to suppress their
knowledge of God, which God has made evident to them. However, they cannot
escape it, so they do what they can to hide from it, seeking to justify that
God doesn’t exist—with bold, yet bad, arguments no less. But there is no escaping
that fact that God exists.
Why Is This Significant?
It means that atheism, though professed, doesn’t really
exist. In other words, there are no true atheists, just those who claim to be. If we agree with God we
must disagree with atheists. An all-knowing and all-powerful God informs us
that all people do have the knowledge of God’s existence. Therefore, atheism is
impossible. What you have are 3% of Americans who are openly suppressing that
knowledge of God and lying, whether consciously or not, to say they are
atheists.
Here is an illustration to help understand the point. Imagine
if someone professes that logic doesn’t exist. Then they proceed to use logic
to try to prove that logic doesn’t work. Do you really believe them when they
claim they don’t believe in logic? No, they demonstrated that their claim was
false the moment they used logic to disprove logic.
Furthermore, when atheists spend immense time trying to
disprove God , it proves where the battle in their heart is. It is against the
God they are trying to suppress.
Atheistic Origins: Big Bang, Millions of Years, and Evolution
Since materialism is one of the core tenets of atheism,
naturalistic, evolutionary processes provide the foundation of the belief of
origins. So the atheist must try to figure out where universe came from
naturalistically, without appealing
to a Creator.
Big Bang
In the past, some atheists posited an eternal universe
(which most now reject). The second law of thermodynamics destroys this
position. If the universe was eternal in the past, there should be no usable
energy left whatsoever. So the fact that stars shine disproves this position.
Others have observed that the universe is expanding (which
the Bible suggests was the case, e.g., Isaiah 40:22, 44:24; Zechariah 12:1;
etc.). But those opposing God proposed that if the expansion of the heavens could
be wound backwards (in a general sense), there was a “creation point” or
singularity (an almost infinitely hot and dense particle). Then this
singularity blew apart (expanded outward in all directions rapidly) and this is
where the space, matter, and energy came from to form the universe. But they
say there was no God involved—pure naturalism.
This singularity could not have been eternal as the second
law of thermodynamics destroys that idea as well. It should have run down to a
point where there is no more usable energy as eternity progressed. So the
atheistic position is that there was nothing—no time, no space, no matter—and
then this singularity just popped into existence from nothing and then expanded.
This is essentially what the big bang model promotes.
Based on modern observations of the expansion of the
universe and measurements of distance between galaxies, scientists postulated
that the expansion could be viewed in reverse. At some point the universe must
have been smaller, so the calculations attempted to determine when the universe
began. This assumes that God had not created the universe in the recent past or
with any initial size.
As time went on, the model was adjusted in light of new
findings. But to rescue the model in the face of contrary evidence, ideas like
cosmic inflation were added to make the numbers “fit” the model. There have
been many changes to the initial concept and so many layers added that it
barely resembles the original “cosmic egg” idea. Today, many scientists appeal
to the unobserved idea of a multiverse to explain how something came from
nothing—the origins fairy tale for the atheist.
The biblical creationist explains these modern observations
as well so the observations are not exclusive to the big bang idea. Take note
that this whole model is built on pure speculation! The big bang is not
repeatable or observable at its very root, which means is it not observational
or repeatable science. It is just fairy tale stories to fit with their
preconceived religion of atheism and naturalism.
But as a loud and clear point, no God or gods are required
in any big bang model. It was always meant to explain the origin of the
universe from a totally naturalistic, materialistic, viewpoint. So for
Christians who might consider the option that God could have used the Big Bang, then they are
essentially adding God to a view that was formulated to explain the universe
without God!
Millions of Years
Millions of years (in fact, billions of years) are a
prerequisite for an atheistic worldview. We’ve never heard of a young earth
atheistic evolutionist. For the earth to form as we know it through
naturalistic processes, there must have been billions of years for its
evolution, beginning with the big bang.
To the atheist, one must have millions of years for stars to form after the big bang, then millions of years for stars to
supposedly make heavier elements, then millions
of years for stars to explode, then millions
of years for the heavier elements to coalesce into planets and asteroids
and so forth. All of these naturalistic evolutionary processes are referred to
as cosmological evolution.
Then the atheist needs millions
of years for the molten planets to cool. Then one needs millions of years of naturalistic
processes to finally arrive at sufficient water and a protective atmosphere for
life to form. Then the atheist needs millions
of years to for the right planet to be at the just the right size and just
the right distance from a stable star. Then they need millions of years of chemical processes to occur so that maybe one
of them accidentally produces the first life. As the earth continued to form,
geological evolution supposedly produced the rock layers, seas, and landforms
that we see today.
Keep in mind, we’re just hitting the highlights. But see
this for what it is: blind faith. This is just one arbitrary story layered upon
another with no observable verification or witness.
Chemical and Biological Evolution
Chemical evolution or “abiogenesis” is how matter supposedly
gave rise to life from non-living elements. The problem is that this has never
been observed. Furthermore, one of the few laws in biology is the law of biogenesis
that says life only comes from life. So to blindly believe in abiogenesis is
not scientific as it violates this verified law of science. Despite the
evidence against it, atheists must believe it happened at least once in the
past to be consistent in their materialistic worldview.
At any rate, once life supposedly formed, what did it eat?
How did it excrete its waste? How did it protect itself from harsh chemicals
all around it? How did it know to reproduce? Where did the coded information in
its DNA come from? This complex initial life-form apparently just happened by
accident in the atheistic worldview—at least that is how the story goes.
Assuming life happened, this single-celled organism must
evolve over billions of years, adding complex information to its genome like a
circulatory system, a brain, a nerve system, ears, eyes, hair, immune system,
and so forth. Of course, we do not observe these kinds of changes happening in
nature today, nor have we been able to repeat this via naturalistic
experiments. It is a story based on blind arbitrary assertions and opinions
based on what we actually observe today.
From a big-picture perspective, atheism, based on its
origins teaches that man (and the universe) is just an accidental mixture of chemicals
doing what chemicals do. There is no purpose, no right, and no wrong—everything
is ultimately meaningless.
Bahnsen-Stein Debate: When the World’s Leading Atheist Met His Match
Along with Dr. Richard Dawkins, Dr. Gordon Stein (d. 1996)
was another well-known champion of atheism. Dr. Stein was a brilliant man. He
was an atheist and proud of it.
Dr. Stein was well-versed in the classical arguments for the
existence of God (first cause, grand design, etc.) espoused by persons like
Thomas Aquinas and Rene Descartes. Each of these arguments began with human
reason and tried to derive a position that a
god probably exists.
Starting from a possible god, the Christian would then argue
that that god might be the God of the
Bible. Each classical argument for the existence of God is probabilistic. In other words, the best you can argue is that a god
probably exist and it might be the biblical God.
Dr. Stein knew this. He also figured out how to annihilate Christians
in debate because of these faults, even writing a book on the subject. This
should come as no surprise, since the arguments are flawed from the onset.
These arguments rest on the premise that one should leave God out of the
argument and stick strictly with human reason as the sole authority.
Why would a Christian, who believes God is the absolute
authority, argue on the basis that God
isn’t the absolute authority to develop a position based on the premise
that man is the absolute authority?
The moment that a Christian leaves God’s absolute authority out of the debate,
he has already lost the debate over God being the absolute authority!
Dr. Stein, with his string of victories, was set to debate
philosopher and pastor Dr. Greg Bahnsen. Dr. Bahnsen didn’t use the flawed
classical arguments for the existence of God. Instead, he started with God and
His Word as the absolute authority and didn’t waiver.
Dr. Bahnsen argued that all other positions, including
atheism, must borrow from God and His Word to make sense of anything—knowledge,
logic, truth, morality, and so forth. This is called the Transcendental
Argument for the Existence of God (TAG for short). Although, it really isn’t an
argument as the name seems to imply, but rather a starting point for God being
the absolute authority in all arguments.
In other words, Dr. Bahnsen stood on the authority of God’s
Word, which is what makes argumentation possible—even Dr. Stein was borrowing
from God’s authority and didn’t realize it. This was devastating to Dr. Stein’s
case. Dr. Bahnsen pulled the rug out from underneath the atheistic position of
Dr. Stein.
Dr. Bahnsen used the subject of logic (as well as absolute
morality, and uniformity of nature) to destroy Dr. Stein’s atheistic position.
How did he do this? Dr. Stein was a professing atheist who had a materialistic
worldview. Thus, when Dr. Stein argued that immaterial entities, like God, don’t
exist (based on his professed worldview), Dr. Bahnsen caught him in a trap.
Dr. Bahnsen kindly pointed out that logic, which is not material
either, could not exist in Dr. Stein’s atheistic view. Logic is not material. It
is abstract, invariant, and universal. Truth, knowledge, information, absolute morality,
etc. are not material either. Thus, Dr. Stein couldn’t even make a logical case
without presuming his professed religion of atheism was wrong in its
materialistic foundations. Dr. Bahnsen pointed out that Dr. Stein must borrow
from God’s Word just to argue against it.
Dr. Stein kept trying to figure out how to answer and words
came out of his mouth, but he left the debate in utter defeat. He and Dr.
Bahnsen wrote letters back and forth until they died in 1995 and 1996. To his
dying day, Dr. Stein could not answer the devastating case made against his
atheism. In subsequent debates, Dr. Bahnsen ultimately earned the name “The Man
Most Feared by Atheists”. Let’s look more closely at specific refutations of
the religion of atheism.
Arbitrariness
Stop regarding man in whose
nostrils is breath, for of what account is he? (Isaiah 2:22)
Would you believe something just because someone tells you
to believe it? We should hope not! Next to God, the ideas of man are but a
breath. God’s ways are much higher than mans (Isaiah 55:9). This is logical as
God is all-knowing (Psalm 147:5) and man isn’t.
When the opinions of man sit as the absolute authority on a
subject, then they are arbitrary. Each person sits in the supposed position of
authority, so no one is the authority. This is the case for atheism. There is
no God or ultimate authority to appeal to in an atheistic mindset. In the
absence of God, man is viewed as the final authority on all matters.
Appealing to man’s opinions as the truth is a faulty appeal
to authority. Thus, it is illogical. The entire philosophy of atheism is based
on man being the ultimate authority on all matters—an arbitrary position that
can never provide a source of truth.
Inconsistency and Borrowing from the Bible
Absolute Morality
If everything came from nothing and all things that happen
are merely chemical reactions doing what chemicals do, then there is no such
thing as right and wrong. In other words, if someone decides to kill all the
atheists in the world, from an atheistic position that is okay since they
cannot argue that killing atheists is wrong within
their own worldview. If people are merely a sack of chemicals interacting, then
there is no consistent reason to forbid killing others.
Don’t get me wrong, many atheists want some sort of moral
code (i.e., they don’t want to get murdered or be lied to), but that doesn’t
come from their religion. Instead, it
comes from God who has written the law on their hearts and their consciences
know it. Really, the atheist must borrow morality from God’s Word, whether they
realize it or not.
The atheist might argue that they could borrow morality from
other religions, but that fails too. First, all those other religions are also
borrowing morality from the God of the Bible (they all have the law of God
written on their hearts too). So the atheist is still ultimately borrowing it
from God.
Second, if the atheist opts to borrow morality from other
religions who have deviated from the Bible in their morality (like Islam or Eastern
religions), it doesn’t help them. Islam is generally fine with the
extermination of the atheists (infidels).
Eastern thought says all things are illusion (doctrine of maya)—including people like atheists. If
someone kills them it is no big deal since they don’t really exist anyway. It
merely changes their karma for the next life.
Absolute morality comes from God as God is the ultimate and
final lawgiver (Hebrews 6:13). Only God explains why morality exists in the
universe that He created.
Laws of Logic
The atheist holds that all things consist of matter and energy
(nature and matter only). They argue with the loudest voice that there is no
immaterial, spiritual, or ideal realm. Their position relies on strict
materialism.
If an atheist professes that he believes there are
immaterial things that exist, then he is not an atheist. He would be a dualist.
That is an entirely different religious framework.
The atheist argues against the existence of an immaterial
realm. If they left open the idea that the immaterial exists, then God, who is
not material, could exist and atheism would be wrong. If this were the case,
the atheist would be forced to move to a different religious system like
dualism or agnosticism, conceding that atheism would be impossible.
This is why aspects like materialism and naturalism (everything
can be explained by natural processes) must be held to unwaveringly in an
atheistic religion. As a result, this also makes atheism one of the easiest
religions to refute.
Consider things that are immaterial or abstract: truth,
logic, knowledge, concepts, dignity, respect, love, care, conclusions,
information, and so forth. The logically consistent position is that the
atheist cannot believe these exist either. They are not material; they must not
exist. To get around this issue they claim that love is an aspect of matter
interacting, but they have no way to verify such a claim. They go on using the
immaterial laws of logic while adhering to a materialistic worldview.
For example, what is the mass of logic or by what means
would we measure it? It is an illogical question to ask what the mass is of
something that has no mass because it is an abstract, immaterial concept. Yet
logic, which is invariant and universal, exists as the universe even obeys the
laws of logic. For example, you cannot have the moon and not the moon at the
same time in the same relationship (law of non-contradiction).
Many atheists appeal to reason and logic, but their
worldview cannot account for either. So they must step out from under their
atheism and borrow the Christian worldview that does make sense of logic. God
created all things and He upholds things in a logical fashion. Logic is a tool
we use to think God’s thoughts after Him.
Consider truth, information, love, etc. These things cannot
exist in a purely materialistic worldview. Even argumentations, reasons,
conclusions and so forth cannot exist in an atheistic worldview. The atheist
cannot, based on his own professed worldview, make an argument for atheism
without first giving up his atheism.
Uniformity of Nature
Doing scientific inquiry is predicated on the Bible being
true. God upholds the world in a consistent fashion and has promised to do so
(Genesis 8:22). So the Christian can do observable and repeatable science
knowing the result will be the same day to day.
God, who knows all things past, present, and future, has
promised the future will be like the past—not in the conditions of course but
in the way God upholds things. To clarify, the wind may not blow at the same
speed each day, but the laws of that govern the wind will be the same each day,
allowing predictions about the future.
In an atheistic worldview, laws of nature changed in the
past (i.e., the big bang defies the laws of physics; there were no laws, now
there are laws). In the future they may change again. Since no one really knows
the future in the atheistic framework, the laws of nature could change as early
as tomorrow. Why do science if the laws of science might change tomorrow?
The atheist might argue that we know the future will be like
the past, because in the past the future was like the past. But this is
circular reasoning. It begs the very question we are asking.
Unless God reveals to us that the future will be like the
past, science is impossible. It makes sense that leading scientists held a
Christian worldview (Francis Bacon, Isaac
Newton, Galileo Galilei, Johannes Kepler, Gregor Mendel, Michael Faraday,
Robert Boyle, Raymond Damadian, etc.). Secular scientists are still resting on
the shoulders of great Christians and their scientific works.
A Path to Absurdity
Let’s assume for a moment the atheistic position could make
sense of logic. To say there is no God would logically require someone to look
everywhere in the entire universe at the exact same time and for all time, past and future, and find no God.
Furthermore, the atheist would have to be powerful enough to
look in the immaterial, spiritual realm for all time too. They would also have
to be powerful enough to supersede God to make sure God was not cloaking
Himself from their search. In other words, for an atheist to say, “there is no
God”, would require the atheist to be omnipresent and omnipotent. The atheist
would essentially have to be all-knowing to say God doesn’t exist
(omniscience).
Thus, for an atheist to claim there is no God, would require
them to be God! Thus, it is an absurd and self-refuting worldview.
Regarding the Atheist
Do atheists get tired of all the evil associated with the
philosophy of atheism—Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and so on?
After all, most murderers, tyrants, and rapists are not biblical Christians,
and most have rejected the God of the Bible. Even if they claim to believe in
the God of the Bible, they are not really living like a true Christ follower
(who strives to follow God’s Word), are they?
Does an atheist feel conflicted about the fact that atheism
has no basis in morality (i.e., no absolute right and wrong; no good, no bad)?
If someone stabs an atheist in the back, treats them like nothing, steals from
them, or lies to them, it doesn’t ultimately matter in an atheistic worldview
where everything and everyone are just chemical reactions doing what chemicals
do. And further, knowing that a person is essentially no different from a
cockroach in an atheistic worldview (since people are just animals) must be
disheartening.
Do atheists struggle with the fact that atheism has no basis
for logic and reasoning?
Wouldn’t it be tough to get up every day thinking that truth, which is
immaterial, really doesn’t exist? Would the atheist be bothered by the fact
that atheism cannot account for uniformity in nature
(the basis by which we can do real science)? Why would everything expand from
nothing and, by pure chance, form beautiful laws like E=MC2 or F=MA?
Perhaps the atheist would like a weekend to recoup and think
about these things. Interestingly, the concept of a weekend is really
meaningless in an atheistic worldview since animals, like bees, don’t take a
day of rest or have weekends. Why do atheists borrow a workweek and weekend
that comes from the pages of Scriptures, which are despised by atheists? A
consistent atheist should just work every day until they die.
Weeks and weekends come from God creating in six literal
days and resting for a literal day; then the Lord Jesus resurrected on the
first day of the week (Sunday). And why look forward to time off for a holiday
(i.e., holy day), when nothing is holy in an atheistic worldview?
Does the atheist feel conflicted about proselytizing the
faith of atheism, considering that if atheism were true then who cares about
proselytizing? Let’s face it, life seems tough enough as an atheist without
having to deal with other minor concerns like not having a basis to wear
clothes, or no basis for marriage, no consistent reason to be clean (snails
don’t wake up in the morning and clean themselves or follow other cleanliness
guidelines based on Levitical laws), and no objective reason to believe in love.
In fact, why would an atheist care to live one moment longer
in a broken universe where one is merely rearranged pond scum and all you have
to look forward to is…death, which can be around any corner? And in 467
trillion years, no one will care one iota about what an atheist did or who they
were or how and when they died—because death is the ultimate “hero” in an
atheistic, evolutionary worldview.
The religion of atheism is a lie (Romans 1:25). As Christians,
we understand that truth exists because God who is the Truth exists (John 14:6),
and we are made in His image.
Unlike an atheist, whose worldview doesn’t allow him to believe in truth or
lies, the Bible-believer has a foundation that enables him to speak about truth
and lies. This is because believers in God and His Word have an authority, the
ultimate authority on the subject, to base their beliefs upon.
Atheists have no consistent reason to proselytize their
faith, but Christians do have a reason—Jesus Christ, who is the Truth, commands
us to (Matthew 28:19). We want to see people repent of their evil deeds and be
saved from death to worship the God who created them (Acts 8:22, 17:30).
Where atheists have no basis for logic and reason (or even
for truth, since truth is immaterial), Bible believers can understand that
mankind is made in the image of a logical and reasoning God who is the truth.
Hence, Christians can make sense of things because in Christ are “hidden all
the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”(Colossians 2:3). Christians also have a
basis to explain why people sometimes don’t think logically due to the Fall of
mankind in Genesis 3. The most logical response is to give up atheism and
receive Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior to rescue you from sin and death (Romans
10:13). Instead of death, God promises believers eternal life (1 John 2:25; John
10:28) and in 467 trillion years, you will still have value in contrast to the
secular view of nothingness.
Christians do have a basis to wear clothes (to cover shame
due to sin; see Genesis 2:25; 3:7), a reason to uphold marriage (God made a man
and a woman; see Genesis 1:27; Matthew 19:4–6), a reason to be clean (Leviticus
contains many provisions to counter diseases in a sin-cursed world), and a
source of real love (since God made us in His loving image; see 1 John 4:8). As
Christians, we have a solid foundation for saying things like back-stabbing,
theft, and lies are wrong (see the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20).
The day is coming when we all will give an account before
God for our actions and thoughts (Romans 14:12). For those who are atheistic
and reading this, I invite you personally to become an ex-atheist, join the
ranks of the saved through Jesus Christ and become a new creation (2
Corinthians 5:17) as we continue to advance with the gospel in peace that only
God can provide (Romans 5:1).
Originally here: https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/atheism-is-religion/;
by Ken Ham and Bodie Hodge; Republished by permission.
Consider the very thoughts of the Pre-Flood world. Genesis 6:5 says, “Then the
LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every
intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”
Keep in
mind that Christians do fall short due to sin and the Curse, but God never
fails.
