Saturday, November 27, 2010

My Theory: All “Atheists” Believe in God

Could all “atheists” actually believe in God? Could it be that all their posturing, lawsuits, speeches, science, press releases and Madalyn Murray O’Hairs really belie their true beliefs? Startling to think that this could be true, but consider the evidence.

First: their chosen designation: “atheist”. The term atheism originated from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god". The “a” from the Greek meaning "without" or "not", and “theos” from God. So, an “a-theist” would be someone who is “not” God or “without” God (that “not” part is a given). If there is no God, then why include the idea of him in their name? Why not just say “pagan” (heathen: a person who does not acknowledge your god), why include the idea of a god within the label of someone who does not believe in nor accept gods? That’s like saying “I am anti-baseball, but my name is Baseball.”

Second: If they don’t believe in God, why do they spend so much effort, time, money and breath denying His existence? After all, you don’t see them fighting the idea of the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, or the existence of leprechauns, do you? They don’t believe in those entities so they don’t fight the idea of their existence. However, with God, they spend millions of dollars on lawsuits, thousands of man hours, print reams of paper in books and pamphlets, post hundreds of thousands of atheism pages on the internet, and put in appearances on television and radio shows in order to deny the existence of someone they don’t believe in. If they don’t believe in Him, why the effort? Why spend so much money on Him? The more they protest the more they show how much they are worried about Him and the more they prove their belief. Why not ignore the issue as they do with the existence of Sasquatch or Tinkerbell if they do not believe?

Third: If atheists believe in medicine and science (and only medicine and science) why do they not consider that belief in God? After all, they prove His existence, do they not? Consider that medical science is always making discoveries on how things work with our bodies, and how miraculous they really are, and that is a sign of God. Evolution goes simplest to most complex, and tries not to get complex. With our bodies, we can see evidence of God in how they work, what makes them tick and in the ways that – miraculously – we are healed. Medicine cannot account for the kinds of miracles seen in the human body’s recovery, spontaneous remission of diseases, or in other things that human bodies do. They can neither explain them, nor deny them. God in action in the atheist’s belief in medicine.

Fourth: Science – besides medical science -- is constantly making new discoveries, finding the answers to new questions. Quantum physics (as did other fields of study) led to new laws that science’s observation, testing and deducing proved to be there. Did their discovery make those rules’ existence come about? No. Their discovery – their finding – simply proved that they already existed. Somehow, those rules of quantum physics, chaos theory, and fluid dynamics already existed before they were found by scientists. Those rules didn’t just pop into existence out of nothing. Did they “evolve” or were they pre-programmed by an intelligent designer who knew how things work?

Atheists believe that science will disprove God and they believe in science, yet all of science’s work (whether they admit it or not) proves the existence of God. To wit: If the universe, solar system, life, "evolved", then what happened to make it "evolve"? Wouldn’t there be some sort of need for evolution, according to the atheistic ideal of Darwin’s theory of evolution? Survival of the fittest would not suffice in an universe of nothingness, void and without form. What would be the catalyst for evolution? If the universe developed purely out of randomness and these rules were not in play before the process started, then what put the rules into place? Was it the randomness that suddenly found order and the rules followed out of already existing order from randomness? Can that happen that without the rules in place the rules develop themselves? Fact is that chaos (randomness) can develop into some semblance of order, but the rules were there first to make it so, just as scientists finding those rules made the rules already there, and not the discovery of those rules birth the rules’ existence. Therefore, science has proven the rules – rules that make scientific and mathematical sense – were in existence prior to the formation of the universe. Therefore, intelligent design (it must be intelligent design for the rules to make sense) is responsible for the rules and thus, God existed prior to the universe’s existence.

Some of you would argue that last sentence, I know. But watch the videos here and and continued here and tell me that the rules were not there prior to scientific discovery. Science didn’t write the rules. Man didn’t come up with them and enforce them. If they weren’t done by man they had to have been done by God.

"But, wait!" some cry. "Nature could have done it itself!" The belief that there is no God demands the belief that nature had to have made all of the rules itself, but how did that come about? How did nature’s pre-universe (as we know it), pre-earth (as historically represented via Pangaea, etc.) pre-evolution (into humans) decide to write its own rules? Random atoms floating somewhere in darkness and tumult, banging into each other, floating without rules and without purpose, evolved order without outside interference? Random atoms chose of their own free will to cooperate, to lump together, to go in a certain direction at the same time, to change their physical and chemical characteristics and become something that – by chance and by random association – would become a universe, solar system, planet that would not only develop all of this out of nothingness, but also be capable of sustaining life as we know it? It not only sustains life, but it creates life out of non-life: a breathless (in any way, shape or form), non-eating, form without a heartbeat of any sort, without any sign of life whatsoever was created by this randomness and became suddenly alive. Alive in the sense of the scientific sense of the word: Life: (noun) "the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally." In the atheists’ world, randomness evolved into life, without interference of an intelligent being.

Fifth: Not only that, but all this randomness evolved into homo sapiens, humans as we know them. Just as Darwin described, atheists believe it to have been. Darwinism defies belief in God because we were not created, we evolved. Apes and protozoa and all of that; we came from nothing and to nothing we return. That’s all there is to it. Therefore there can be no God because there is no creation. That sort of thinking proves nothing. Saying that the existence of “X” always disproves the existence of “Y” is erroneous: they could co-exist, could they not? I do not believe in evolution as Darwin set it forth and others expounded upon. There are way too many problems with it and there is within the scientific community still disagreement on it. (Read more on that at Evolution Guy.) That being said, if any sort of evolution did occur, who is to say that God did not make that happen as well? The atheist’s insistence that God is not real because Darwin is, may just as well prove that God exists because things are happening in an orderly, intelligently designed fashion. Therefore, Darwin’s Theory – or a modified version thereof – may very well be a confirmation of God’s design and of His creative hand in the “evolution” of man. Atheists believe in God in that way, too.

Considering all of this, no matter which way you slice it, it seems to me that atheists are not atheists, but theists in disguise. They may profess that they do not believe in the God of the Bible, or the God of Islam, or in any particular god, but everything they profess faith in either proves the God of the Bible or at the very least does not disprove Him. Their own actions – which speak louder than their words – prove they are afraid of and don’t want God to exist. If I am correct and there is a God that we must answer to, then atheists have a lot to answer for as do Christians. The question is: Theists all, or just afraid of God?

© 2010 Linda McKinney All Rights Reserved


  1. I have argued..and delighted in pointing out that their Anti-religion stance is indeed a religious stance.

    They get all wonky eyed at that notion.

    Great Post...stand by for international visitors...Lots of them.

  2. Capt. Black Eagle,

    You're right, they did get al wonky-eyed. Someone actually took portions of my work (I'm sure they considered it "reasonable use" and posted it to their blog under a derogatory name with a derogatory graphic and then this guy said, "Posted by Larry". No attribution to myself besides the link to my blog. He didn't ask permission to use my work so I found it and told him to take it down. He left a link to his site and I removed that because he doesn't get any publicity from my blog for his stealing my work! Double standards apparently apply to this creep because it states on his blog to "ask permission" and to "properly attribute" his work. Too bad he doesn't see fit to do the same for others.

    If he can't use it by asking permission, without using elipses (with which you can make a work say anything you wish it to), and by giving me attribution then he can't use it at all. Irritates me. No "Do unto others..." in his realm.

  3. I linked your post to an International forum I belong too. I only quoted the first paragraph, then linked them to your site. The responses there are, as you would guess, range from intelligent discussion to 6 year olds who lost their crayons.

    At present there have been 1366 views 234 comments over 12 pages.

    Of course any post about religion gets them going.

  4. Capt. Black Eagle,

    That's funny! Those six-year-olds are really angry when they lose their crayons, yes?

    That many views with just the first para.? That's impressive.


No profanity and I reserve the right to delete any comments deemed too stupid to let stand. Remember, I have the right and the responsibility to respond to you. If you wish to link to my blog, give proper attribution. My blog is © Space Coast Conservative All Rights Reserved.