Atheism & Evolution Answered 1

I turn to Atheism. I deal with this briefly before, but let me restart so I can abolish it more completely. At the bottom, i’ll list some articles I’ve done before, so you can catch up on what I’ve written before.

Atheism is a religion that claims there is no God. The fact they’ve started organizing Atheism Churches is very simply a subconscious acknowledging of this fact.

Don’t like that? Too late now. Should have thought that one through before someone was stupid enough to invent an Atheist church.

Atheism in many ways is a foolish and self refuting religion. It boldly states, “There is no God!”

How do you know? Christians demonstrate the foolishness of this false religion all the time by asking the atheist to pretend that he has 50% of all knowledge in the Universe. The smart ones usually respond that such a thing is impossible. We then ask, then is it possible that lacking 50% or more knowledge of the Universe, that God can exist in the parts of the Universe you have no knowledge of?

They usually change the question.

A smart Atheist may find themselves wondering why I could possibly believe in a God? Well, I didn’t always. I was dead set against the idea in my 20’s. Why? Because I wanted to do what I wanted to do, and the idea of a God who will someday judge all mankind interfered with that.

There was a subconscious acknowledgement of several factors in that thought process.

  • There is an absolute moral standard in the Universe.
  • There is something greater than myself
  • That something set up those absolute moral standards.
  • That Something greater who has set up moral standards will someday judge me according to those standards.
  • I didn’t like that.

So, as a result, I denied the existence of a God. If I pretend it’s not there, I’m not threatened by it! Yay! I can do what I want! I’m eating a bag of Doritos for dinner TONIGHT!!!

Using Newtonian physics, we recognize these are scientific laws.

  • If the Universe exists, it either has always been there, or it has been created.
  • If it was created, it had a creation.
  • If it had a creation, it had a creator.

We were going good until the last point. At that point, my mind rebelled. After all, I wanted to live my sinful lifestyle!

It took faith in God to open my eyes. ONCE I believed, ONCE I exhibited faith in my God, I could suddenly see all the evidence for God had been there the WHOLE TIME. And once you get saved, you’ll see it too. absolutely guaranteed.

To reinforce the conflict I had between what I wanted and what truly was, I turned to ANYTHING that would reinforce my desire to live a sinful lifestyle. I had a strong belief in Evolution – after all, they taught it in schools, so it HAD to be true! There’s so much scientific proof!

Ray Comfort could have literally eaten me alive in a debate, and yet… at the time I prided myself in Occam’s Razor, thinking it must SURELY answer the whole God thing once and for all. Why?

Because that’s what Arthur C. Clarke kept writing in his science fiction novels. Like many other atheists, I grew up on Arthur C. Clarke, Robert A. Heinlein, Isaac Aasimov, Star Trek and Star Wars. The first Star Wars came out when I was 13.

I never stopped to investigate facts. If I had, I probably would have gotten saved YEARS ago.

There were several factors that I was unaware of. Such as – absolutely no proof whatsoever of Evolution. A single simple mathematical formula I was unaware of. Robert Heinlein was a Freemason, and worshipped a pantheistic deity by his own admission (solipsism, the belief we all are gods, and pantheism, the belief that there are gods in everything combined formed his religion. He did not put the complete theory on paper until his book Stranger in A Strange Land). Arthur C. Clarke was a Buddhist, and believed in reincarnation. Isaac Aasimov alone was an atheist. Star Trek advocated an Atheist worldview, not because it’s a truth, but rather, because it was an agenda of the very science fiction writers that wrote scripts for it.

So, with all this weighty stuff, surely there must be some truth to the Atheist position?

Nope. Smoke and mirrors. We’ve already demonstrated that my thought process had a conflict, a subconscious recognition of the fact that our very thoughts and morals are based upon a recognition of a supreme being, a creator.

The very fact there is a creation shows me there is a creator. Newton dealt with that in the 18th century. If I see something moving, I recognize that a force or energy was applied to that something to make it move. The very recognition of this as a law of science shows me that if there is a creation, there is a creator.

“Well, the Universe created itself! There’s tons of proof for this! The Hubble showed us that!”

No, actually. That’s three objections in one, so let me deal with them one at a time.

The “Big Bang” theory was posited by George LeMaitre in 1927, and popularized by George Gamow in 1948. Gamow, R. Herman, and R. A. Alpher created mathematical models that posited that it was feasible. So let’s examine it briefly.

The Big Bang theory proposes that all of the matter in the universe was compressed into a tiny dot. They always use the words “Smaller than a period on this page.” Why? That way you visualize it. It’s the size of the period on this page right? No, they said “Smaller” but everyone ends up looking at the period at the end of the sentence and visualizes this “.” They should be seeing this “?”

All that matter could no longer compress itself and then BOOM! Exploded. Right?

“You simplified it, but yes.”

The only thing that just exploded was your theory. Where did all the matter come from?

“from the Big Bang!”

Um… no. I’m not reaching you. Your theory says nothing existed, that “Nothing” compressed into a tiny place, and then blew up, right? I may have trouble going to sleep tonight, because I’m picturing that if “Nothing” exploded and created everything, then it may well do it while I’m asleep tonight!

“Nothing to worry about. Everything’s already been created.”

Okay, the conflict hasn’t popped in your head yet.

NOTHING compressed itself, and exploded, creating EVERYTHING. So Nothing + Nothing = Everything. The theory assumes that mass and the universal laws existed. In Algebra, they taught me as long as I have two bits, I can deduce the third. In this case, you have A+B=C.

So, what’s B?

“I can’t tell from that?”


Okay, then I need to know A and C.”

A =0.

“Then C=0.”

Right. you just disproved the Big Bang. “Nothing” cannot compress and explode, and create “Everything”. There’s universal laws, the first and second laws of thermodynamics, the law of Angular Momentum, Boyle’s Law. Where did they come from? We go no further until you answer that.

“They just are.”

Oh, I see. You try to reduce God using the same logic, but when it’s applied to your god – notice I have avoided capitalizing the word universe? – you balk. There’s no reason why we have universal laws. Science Fiction writers love positing the concept of universes that do not have the same laws, right? You’re familiar with that concept. So – why does our universe have these laws? Because they work? No, the laws exist because they were made that way, to work with the very items the universe is created of.

If we did not have protons, would the laws of nature work? No. By that very concept, we identify that the kinds of materials the universe is made of are DESIGNED to cooperate with the very laws that were put in place.

Wow, Science isn’t doing very good, and we just started this!

Next math formula. This is it for the math, by the way.


The very math formula that creates the number line. Anything we reduce to nothing equals one. Huh? Scientifically, it should reduce to 0. Right? Apparently not. Because the universe is a creation, and a creation demands a creator.


Stay tuned. I’m just getting started here.


Author: philipdean2013

Seminary graduate with a Ba. in Theology/Pastoral Studies, Happily married, Independent Baptist. I can't keep silent about what I see going on in Christianity any longer! Apostasy reigns around us, churches are sliding into worldiness, a whitewashed Gospel is preached everywhere... "Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls. But they said, We will not walk therein. Jeremiah 6:16 (KJV) So, I'm speaking out. ...Why aren't you???

15 thoughts on “Atheism & Evolution Answered 1”

  1. I favourited one of the posts in this series a little while ago and always intended to come back and read it. Now I have. And it’s unfortunate tripe.
    Atheism does not assert that there is not God. Atheism is the position of not being convinced that a God exists. It is literally to be without (a-) belief in a god or gods (-theism). So you’ve started with a misinterpretation of atheism. Although I have no reason to doubt your assertion that you rejected God on the grounds that you wanted to do as you pleased, that is not the mindset of ny atheist I have ever encountered. In fact, that is only the mindset of former-atheists who are now religious.
    You assert there is no evidence for evolution. Citation needed. While we’re at it, the link between evolutionary theory and atheism is also needed.
    You assert that you can’t make sense of Big Bang cosmology. Well, the link between atheism and cosmogony is also required. You assert seem to assert 0 + GOD = 1 + GOD (which reduced to 0 = 1), and that makes more sense than other types of 0 = 1. You don’t account for the fact that cosmogony does not assert that 0 = 1. Modern theories assert that 0 = 1 + (-1) = 0 (the zero sum universe).

    I have book marked this page and will read on when I better understand where you’re coming from here. I look forward to your response.


    1. Unfortunate tripe. Really?
      A – theism. Elementary Greek for “Without God.” The position you claim for atheism is actually agnosticism, which is greek for “without knowledge” – in other words, you have no knowledge of God. I did not start with a misinterpretation of atheism, but actually you did! So… my writings are not “unfortunate tripe” after all!

      When I referred to my rejecting God in my earlier foolishness, I was referring to the subconscious reasoning. After all, there is a quote from Julian Huxley, who said ‘I suppose the reason we leaped at The Origin of Species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores.’ (Henry M. Morris, The Troubled Waters of Evolution, Creation-Life Publishers, 1974, p. 58).”

      “No evidence for evolution – citation needed.” Didn’t you READ what I wrote??? You haven’t answered the claim, you just denial dropped and left!
      As for what cosmology asserts, I was not dealing with that, I was explaining the basic math as I learned it in college.

      There is Zero evidence for evolution. If you don’t believe me, start researching. If you’re researching everything I report with an open mind, you’re in for a shock. On the other hand if you just want to argue – which is how it appears here – please refer to my earlier writings on debates. I don’t have time for them.
      I do wish you well on your research! Good hunting, and I’m praying for you!


      1. I wish you the best of luck with your blogging, but I do not have the time for this.
        There is evidence for evolution. The phylogenetic tree of life; ring species; observed speciation; fossil records.
        Evolution has nothing to do with atheism.
        Atheism is not the rejection of God. Your definition “without God” will do, and that still isn’t rejection of God.
        Cosmogony (the study of the origins of the universe) also has nothing to do with atheism and you clearly haven’t engaged with the research.


      2. Thank you for your wishing success! I still disagree with you, and please understand – I’m not writing a book, but a blog here! I’m summarizing a lot. I do recommend “Unmasking Evolution” by Lawrence Smart and “The Evolution Cruncher” by Vance Ferrell, plus Henry Morris’s writings.
        Again, I’m going to say your definition of Atheism is actually Agnosticism.
        As far as cosmology, yes, I think you can tell I did my research. Evolution is defined in more ways than the divergence of species, but also in Stellar evolution (the creation of the universe), the appearance of life, the rise and expansion of species, etc. I would say where we disagree seems to mostly be confined to definitions. Take care!


  2. First of all, it isn’t really a good start if you try telling people what they think. If someone tells you, that he does NOT believe that there is no god, but just lacks belief in any god – accept that and go from there. Trying to tell him that he claims that there is no god simply doesn’t lead anywhere and people will get the feeling that you do not want to talk to them, but only to the image you have of them in your head, so everything they’ll say will be ignored anyway.

    Personally, I have never been to an atheist church and don’t feel any need to, but what an atheist church has to do with claiming that there is no god somehow escapes me. Sorry to say so, but it seems, to me, a little bit like you really want to believe that atheists claim there is no god and suddenly everything is evidence for that idea to you.

    Let me make this very clear: There are many versions of atheism, for example strong atheism (“There is no god!”) and weak atheism (“I do not believe in any god.”). As you can see, “strong atheism” cannot be used as a definition for all atheists (because it doesn’t fit, if you are a weak atheist), but “weak atheism” does: Every strong atheist automatically also is a weak atheist (“There is no god, THUS I do not believe in any god”). So the only reasonable definition of atheism that fits for all atheists is, that they lack belief in any god. There are, without any doubt, also atheists who say “I am 100% sure that there is no god!”, but these are not all of them.
    Oh, and agnosticism is a statement about knowledge (“We cannot know if there is a god”) while atheism is a statement about belief (“I do not believe in god” or “I believe there is no god”). So you can be both an atheist and an agnostic. You can even be agnostic and theist (“We cannot KNOW god, but I BELIEVE there is god.”).

    So, your first point is not really a good one, because most atheists I know would agree, that they cannot be 100% sure that there is no god. They just think that they can be reasonably sure, because they have never seen any evidence for him. Same thing as with invisible unicorns. We cannot be 100% sure that one isn’t hiding in someone’s back yard – but as we have never seen any evidence for them, we can safely assume that there aren’t some – until someone provides some evidence.
    I have never once seen an atheist changing the topic here. Most simply answer “And you cannot be 100% sure, that the flying spaghetti monster exists, which shows us, that it’s pretty hard to disprove something that doesn’t exist and thus the burden of proof lies with the one who claims THAT it exists.”

    And I know, this now may sound insulting, but I do not believe you, sorry. I know many atheist and not one of them is an atheist because he thinks that god would forbid something, simply because it’s ridiculous. If you knew that the law forbids you stealing – would you stop believing in the law and suddenly feel save? Of course not, that would be stupid. You would know the law still existed, no matter if you believed it or not. Same thing with god, if someone felt that god existed, he couldn’t switch that belief off for such a strange reason. Most atheists are atheists because they don’t feel any belief, the reason for that are various, but I never heard from one that atheism somehow protected him from god. Sorry, that doesn’t make any sense.

    Personally, I don’t agree with “There is an absolute moral standard in the Universe.”. Imho, there isn’t. There are atheists who think differently and who argue for an absolute moral standard without god, but – as of yet – I am not convinced and simply think that morality is a human invention, born out of evolutionary and social pressure.

    You then try your own version of the cosmological argument, which has been refuted ad nauseam, simply google it, please, so I will skip that.

    And you are right, there is no proof for evolution – there is only a huge amount of evidence. I know this isn’t easy to understand, but natural science is not about proof – only evidence. Proof would mean that you are 100% sure to be 100% correct – that doesn’t happen. We live and learn. But do not delude yourself into thinking that there isn’t evidence for evolution. Again, a quick google search would help, but to give you a pointer, try

    We don’t know what was “before” the Big Bang – as time started then, asking what came before it may not even make sense. But that only leads to the honest statement: “We don’t know.” It does not lead to “There is some god.”

    And let’s not talk about your math. Sorry, it’s funny, but… let’s simply keep silent about it, ok?


    1. Im going to completely disagree with you on the evidence issue. As far as the issues being refuted, I’m going to agree on that!
      “The Flying Spaghetti Monster” comment tells me you think very much like I do! I had to laugh.
      We’ll chalk it up to – you accept what they present as evidence, I do not. Thanks for writing!


      1. Well, a fun fact about evidence is, that nobody cares what amateurs like us think about it. Nobody cares that I accept it and nobody cares that you don’t. We both have to be honest and have to say that we are simply not knowledgeable enough to have an opinion about these things that matters.
        The only difference is, that I accept that and refer to experts, while you don’t.


      2. Hah! Depends on whom you identify as an expert! But yes, well said. After all – this is a blog. It’s not a textbook. I can say what I like on mine, and you can most certainly say what you like on yours!


      1. One of the last ones. It may still be pending. Feel free to read the entire series! There’s some videos posting soon as well!


Comments are closed.