Atheism and Naturalism

Atheists can be some of the hardest people to talk to if you aren’t ready for the conversation. But after studying the issues with an atheistic, evolutionary worldview, I have seen that it is not a philosophically defensible worldview. Atheists may say that they have science on their side, but they have nothing more than faith in some things that scientists believe and say that have not been observed. They have faith like any other religious person, and they have opinions that are arbitrary and subjective. The good news for the theist is they have an objective standard and an ultimate authority that answers the questions that atheism as a worldview cannot answer.

If you are an atheist and are going to read some of the articles below, I understand that you may not hold some of the following beliefs. These articles are based on some of the many beliefs and philosophies that I have seen that many atheists hold to based on many conversations I have had with them. So if there is something below that you do not believe as an atheist, disregard the article. Don’t get all up in arms because you believe that I misrepresented your form of atheism. My experience is that atheism is subject to each individual atheist. The only thing they hold in common is their “unbelief” in the existence of deities, except for the deity of Darwinian Evolution.

Introductory Articles: Problems w/ the Atheistic Worldview

Proof for God

Conversations with Atheists


If you are an atheist, can you answer the following questions below in the comments section of this page:

  1. How does your worldview justify believing the future will be like the past?
  2. Can you account for objective morality and truth? Or is morality arbitrary and subjective?
  3. How do you know your reasoning is working properly?
  4. How do you know you are living in reality?
  5. Do you believe the natural world is all there is? If so, how do you prove this?
  6. Where do the immaterial, universal, and unchanging laws of logic, math, science, and physics come from?
  7. How did life come from non-living matter?
  8. How did a mind come from mindless matter?
  9. Can you know anything for certain?


  1. Keir Bourne says:

    1) I don’t see how atheism has anything to do with history. Probability theory – basic mathematics – explains why we should believe the future will be like the past.
    2) Your question presupposes that morality cannot be subjective. To an extent, this is demonstrably untrue; people have different opinions on all sorts of ethical questions. However, it is true that most of us have some level of ‘objective’ morality. Evolution accounts for this; in order for our species to survive, we must work together. ‘immoral’ acts like murder are unhelpful for the survival of a species. In other words, the reason humans don’t generally kill is because if we did, we wouldn’t be able to exist.
    3+4) Not to be rude, but these questions of ‘reality’ seem silly, immature perhaps. I can’t prove that I’m not in some computer program, or that our brains don’t simply mistake randomness for reason, but there’s no reason to think it should be anything else, because A) from what we have seen, our brains do work; and B) because we can’t think about anything properly if we don’t assume that we even exist.
    5) I can’t prove that the natural world is all there is, but there has been no evidence presented to suggest realms outside the natural one. I therefore don’t assume that the supernatural is true.
    6) They don’t “come from” anywhere, but they are necessary for the universe to be like it is; with all due respect, a physics book might come in handy for you here.
    7) Abiogenesis.
    8) Evolution.
    9) 100.0(r)%, no. But 100.0000000000000000000000000%? Yes.

    My question to you is why do you think that a god (indeed, the Abrahamic god specifically) is necessary in order for these questions to be answered?
    And also, why does evolution always have to be grouped with atheism? Atheism doesn’t rely on evolution, nor evolution on atheism. There are plenty of religious people – the majority, actually – who understand why evolution is true. There are even atheists who don’t accept evolution. In fact, no atheists a few hundred years ago knew about evolution.

    • Keir,

      Thanks for answering these questions. They are mostly there for research purposes. I just want to see how atheists would respond to them. I have the same kind of questions on each page for each religion and belief system.

      Since you graciously took the time to respond to them, I will respond to your comments and/or questions. If you would like to continue this conversation, please send further comments to me by email ( I will be deleting my comment after about a week. I just want to leave the comments of the questions being answered on this webpage.

      You asked why it is that I group evolution with atheism. The reason is because I have not met an atheist yet that does not believe in evolution. You would be the first if you don’t, but the way you answered the questions would lead me to assume you do believe in evolution.

      No matter how many people believe in any given thing does not prove that it is true. I am sure the numbers of people that believe in God far surpasses those who do not. This doesn’t prove anything. The fact that there are some (not the majority) religious people that believe evolution is true proves nothing either. all it shows is that some people are willing to compromise what scripture teaches for things that have not been proven to be scientific fact (if there is such a thing).

      1. How does your worldview justify believing the future will be like the past? Science bases everything it does on the presupposition that the future will be like the past (induction), but they do not have a justification to believe such a thing.

      2. How do you account for objective morality and truth? I will change this question. Thanks. I would argue that if one believes in evolution, morality is the same for us as it is for other animals. Some atheists and philosophers have made this point. But if morality did evolve, the morality I may have may be different than the morality you have. I don’t see how an objective standard can come from evolution. If murdering a group of people rids the gene pool of weaker members of the species, it could be argued that it would be morally acceptable according to evolution and natural selection. Also, if there were only 10 people left on earth, only one being a women, it would be best for the species for the 9 men to have their way with the woman to further the species. Morality would change based on the situation and on what the majority want. This is not objective

      3 & 4. How do you know your reasoning is working properly? How do you know you are living in reality? I don’t believe these questions are silly. They are pretty telling. It shows the presuppositions that we take for granted that can’t be accounted for from an atheistic worldview. I know I am in reality and able to reason properly because scripture says so. My worldview can account for these things.

      5. Do you believe the natural world is all there is? If so, how do you prove this? This is the common philosophical definition of naturalism (that the natural world is ALL there is). To say that the natural world is all there is, or that everything is material, are not scientific statements, but faith statements. They can only be believed. And the only way to prove that they are “all there is” is by “begging the question,” You can’t logically appeal to what is material or what is natural to prove that they are all that exist.

      6. Where do the immaterial, universal, and unchanging laws of logic, math, science, and physics come from? These immaterial, unchanging, universal laws transcend time and are applicable to everyone. They are absolutes. They cannot be accounted for from a materialistic worldview, naturalist worldview that does not believe in immaterial things, absolutes, etc.

      7. How did life come from non-living matter? It has never been observed that life can come from non-living matter on its own. This can only be believed, or assumed. No one was there to see it happen.

      8. How did a mind come from mindless matter? How did evolution do this. It is easy to assume it did, but a whole different thing explaining how it did. This has not been observed either.

      9. Can you know anything for certain? If you know things for certain, do you believe in absolute truth? These things that you do know for certain, what are they and how do you know them?

    • A really good answer, full of railonatity!

  2. you do realise that it is extremely inconsistent for a non-calvinist to use presuppositionist arguments right? i mean there is a reason why all of the presuppositionist you cited are calvinists

    • I appreciate your thoughts Tony. I don’t agree with them. The majority of the arguments can be used by non-calvinists. I have been doing so for quite some time now, and my Theological beliefs have not made a difference thus far. Besides, the Apostles were presuppositionalists, and they were not Calvinists, but only Christians as I am. 😉

Speak Your Mind