8 Questions Atheists Cannot Plausibly Answer

Below I have presented eight questions that I do not believe that atheists will be able to plausibly answer.

1. What explains our objective morality?

If we have no God, then we have no objective and transcendent moral values and duties. Yet we do have objective moral standards and duties to do what’s right. Therefore, God exists.

Despite the culture or era, sane humans have the innate sense of what’s right and what’s wrong and we prefer to do what’s right to help our fellow humans. No matter the major religion, we all are aware of the Golden Rule. We prefer the humble over the braggarts, the selfless over the selfish, and the truthful over the liars.

Evolutionary biologists have made observations to posit that cooperative societies were better poised for survival and over thousands of years in the distant past, groups fared better than individuals. Biology helps to explain in-group favoritism, but it fails to explain out-group helping behaviors. Biology helps to explain cooperation between people, but it fails to demonstrate the superiority of cooperation (and often selfless behaviors) over competition (and often selfish behaviors). Both cooperation and competition enhance our survival chances.

Biochemist Sy Garte notes the errors in trying to explain human morality with evolution, which he states is only about the diversity of life on earth. But that doesn’t stop biologists from making “just so” inductive propositions about the origins of our empathy. I have not seen propositions on the survival value of other desirable human traits, such as humility, gratitude and forgiveness. These would seem to diminish our survival possibilities. Finally, biology can only explain our morality in a descriptive sense, “what is.” Biology cannot explain our moral prescriptions of what “should be.”

Cross-cultural sociologists and psychologists and leadership scholars like Hofstede, Trompenaars, House, and Schwartz have found that societies vary in ways inconsistent with our innate morality. For example, not all societies are considered “cooperative or collective.” Collective societies are in Asia, Northern Europe, the Arab region, Africa, and South America. Highly individualist societies are in Western Europe, the United States and Canada. Many societies are hedonistic, hierarchical, and have preferences against gender egalitarianism. So, what we know that we ought to do is often inconsistent with what we are actually doing. How do we know what we ought to do? We know because it’s hard-wired in our conscience.

Furthermore, even in ancient historical times, we have examples of highly individualistic and highly successful societies, such as those in ancient Greece and Rome. Cooperative societies over the past couple of thousand years are not necessarily positioned better for survival, because it has been shown that individualism is more beneficial in some ways. For example, a multitude of global studies have correlated gross domestic product with individualism (Hofstede, 2001). Individualism also corresponds with capitalism, innovation, competition and entrepreneurship. So, why do even individualists know that we ought to help the weak, feed the poor, and be thankful, grateful, honest, humble, just, cooperative, empathetic, forgiving and loving? Why is it that all societies, regardless of their practices, know what we ought to do? Where did we get this moral compass?

In a consistent atheistic worldview, everything is relative and cultures can decide for themselves on what we should and shouldn’t do. In this worldview, we have no objective metric in judging the Nazi atrocities.

Atheists who are inconsistent about their views may admit that we have objective morality, which they try to ground in consequentialism. Yet this is based on flawed, circular reasoning. The source of our objective morality cannot also be the consequence, or outcome of our objective morality.

2. If an atheist’s position is that the universe is the product of chance and necessity (instead of the product of intelligence), how can he or she explain the fact that the universe is structured rationally, logically and with mathematical precision and predictability?

Pope Benedict XVI: “If nature is really structured with a mathematical language and mathematics invented by man can manage to understand it, this demonstrates something extraordinary. The objective structure of the universe and the intellectual structure of the human being coincide.” Further information can be found here:


3. If atheists adhere to the belief that the purpose of human life is merely to procreate and survive, is it possible to determine that human life has any more value than animal life – since animals share the same basic purpose?

Larry Moran said “According to what we know about the natural world, humans are not special in any way and life does not have a purpose.” Richard Dawkins said “DNA neither cares nor knows. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”

Yet we all seek meaning and purpose and to make a difference in this world. In an atheistic worldview, this is completely irrational as we’re just lucky beneficiaries with a temporary existence on some random planet that is doomed for destruction one day. The reason we desire meaning and purpose is because our Maker has hard-wired us to do so.

4. Why have so many atheists determined that the life of a fetus in a mother’s womb is less valuable than the life of his or her mother? Age discrimination? When is a human considered a human to them?

“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” – Jeremiah 1:5

5. How can atheists explain the ordering of our DNA?

If a reasonable person saw “I love you” written in the sand at the beach, he would assume that someone wrote the words intentionally. Similarly, our human genome has been mapped out and we know that our DNA consists of 3.5 billion perfectly ordered letters.

You may argue that we are highly complex and evolved, yet even the DNA of the simplest of organisms, the amoeba, contains thousands of volumes of information. The latter is noted by Richard Dawkins, a prominent atheist and zoologist.

6. How can atheists explain the force that powered the Big Bang of the universe?

For most of human history, many people believed the universe was eternal and unchanging and life was an infinite regress. In other words, life begets life, which begets life, and so on. Many in some Eastern religions still believe the universe is in an eternal cycle of growth and regeneration.

Yet in the 1920s, Edwin Hubble cast doubt on such theories. Hubble observed that galaxies outside of the Milky Way existed and their light appeared to be stretched, which is a sign they were rushing away from the earth. A Catholic Belgian physicist studied Hubble’s observations and interpreted findings as evidence of an expanding universe, which was a possibility within Albert Einstein’s field equations of general relativity. According to what was dubbed the “Big Bang” theory, the universe inflated, expanded and cooled, starting from a very small, very hot singularity that emerged into what we know of the universe today.

The Big Bang suggests a start date for time, space and matter of around 14 billion years ago, so whatever existed prior to the Big Bang and caused its sudden inflation must necessarily lack those qualities. The cause of the Big Bang must be an uncaused first mover that is transcendent in time and immaterial, intentional, and powerful. These are the characteristics of a Supreme Being and Creator who started the expansion of the universe from nothing.

Prior to the discovery of the Big Bang, Albert Einstein struggled with the theological implications of a universe in a mode of expansion, so he created a cosmological constant, also known as a fudge factor. Einstein considered himself an agnostic. He didn’t believe in a personal God or an eternal life, noting that this life was enough for him. His cosmological constant served as a repulsive force, which kept the universe from collapsing under its own weight. It also enabled Einstein to favor a static universe over one with a start date. A Boston University physicist and Einstein scholar named Michel Janssen noted that “Einstein needed the constant not because of his philosophical predilections but because of his prejudice that the universe is static” (Overbye, 1998). Einstein stubbornly held to his cosmological constant until 1931, when after a visit with Edwin Hubble at an observatory at Cal Tech, he abandoned it and never mentioned it again, calling it “theoretically unsatisfactory anyway” (Overbye, 1998). Since then, the Big Bang theory has come to be well-accepted by NASA and the vast majority of scientists all over the globe.

Astrophysicist Hugh Ross (2018, p. 28) has indicated that all Big Bang theories share “(1) a transcendent cosmic beginning that occurred a finite time ago; (2) a continuous, universal cosmic expansion; and (3) a cosmic cooling from an extremely hot initial state.”

Interestingly, we have Biblical support for each of these points. In other words, centuries before 1925 when the Big Bang was promoted by Abbe George Lemaitre, Job, Moses, David, Isaiah, John, Zechariah, Paul and other Biblical authors noted the creation and expansion of the universe.

a. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

b. The universe (time, space, matter) began to exist.

c. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

d. The cause must transcend time and be intentional, powerful and immaterial.

e. God.

7. How can atheists explain our desire for heavenly joy?

When we are thirsty, we have a means of satisfying our thirst. When we are hungry, we have a means of satisfying our hunger. We have natural ways to satisfy every desire in this natural world. Yet, as C.S. Lewis said, “If we find ourselves with a desire that nothing in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is we were made for another world.”

8. What is the best explanation for the minimal facts surrounding Jesus’ resurrection?

Roman pagans, Jews, and Christians in Jesus’ time have all have indicated that Jesus’ tomb was found empty – and multiple sources have indicated that second class women made that important discovery. In fact, Paul stated that five hundred people witnessed Jesus over the next forty days after He rose from the dead. Many Biblical and extra-biblical sources have indicated that early Christians preached illegally in support of Jesus for decades, braving beatings, stoning, crucifixions, beheading, and being burned to death.

Gary Habermas uses the minimal facts argument in support of Jesus’ resurrection. Even the most skeptical scholars agree upon these minimal facts.

  1. Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate.
  2. He suffered, died, and was buried.
  3. His apostles said He rose from the grave and appeared to them multiple times over a period of days.
  4. They preached for Jesus for decades, despite widespread and brutal persecution.
  5. Most of His apostles were martyred for their beliefs. We have extra-biblical support for the martyrdoms of Peter, James (Jesus’ ½ brother) and Paul.

The only way to explain ALL of the minimal facts is that Jesus resurrected.

“And then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” – John 8:32


Hofstede, G. (1980; 2001). Culture’s Consequences.  Comparing Values, Behaviors, and Institutions Across Nations. Tilberg University, Netherlands. Sage Publications.

House, R.J., Hanges, P.J. Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W. & Gupta, V. (2004) Culture, Leadership, and Organizations. The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Sage Publications.

Overbye, D. (1998). A famous Einstein “fudge” returns to haunt cosmology. The New York Times. May 26.

Ross, H. (2018). The Creator and the Cosmos. Corvina, CA: Reasons to Believe.

Schwartz, S.H. (1992). Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in Twenty Countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25. Accessed May 28, 2018 at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=

Schwartz, Shalom H. (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture2 (1). doi:10.9707/2307-0919.1116.

Trompenaars, F. & Hampden-Turner, C. (1993; 2012). Riding the Waves of Culture: Understanding Diversity in Global Business. McGraw-Hill Companies.






13 Replies to “8 Questions Atheists Cannot Plausibly Answer”

  1. Thanks for putting these together. I’ve found that atheists indeed don’t have answers to these questions and many others.

    What I see from atheists is nonsense. Ranting on about by confirmation bias, not a true scotsman, bayesianism, jesus never existed, or God has never been proved in a science journal?

    We can’t forget sky daddy, word salads, science denier, liar, “there’s no evidence”, “we have no burden of proof”, slavery, infanticide, genocide, talking animals, the sun standing still, something about Ken Ham, and an unreasonable prejudice against the bronze age (& goat herding).


    Liked by 1 person

    1. Well looks like many atheists responded with details answers. Now is your chance to attempt to refute them. You can do it here.


  2. To start with, any claim by an apologist that secular knowledge can’t explain something is merely god of the gaps. It in no way implies that a mythical biblical explanation is valid for what we don’t or can’t know. Moreover, most of the eight issues are much better explained through secular knowledge.
    1. Evolution of a moral sense. The theist argument of a commonality of moral beliefs is not valid in that evolution also predicts a base commonality of moral sentiment in the same way there is a commonality of the faculty of reason. Hume had it generally right that morality is an innate and inarticulate inner sense that can be refined over time through articulation. This accounts for the gradual but inexorable movement toward tolerance and individual liberty, whereas biblical morality, if it were truly recognized, is static. Christianity, however, tacitly adopts this progression through silence about biblical moral precepts such as genocide, slavery, stoning of heretics and homosexuals, villainization of outsiders, etc. which we have rejected as repugnant. Evolution has shown how mammals have evolved to various degrees the ability to work cooperatively as a result of inherited senses of empathy and fairness, corresponding to Hume’s unarticulated sensibility.
    2. A meaningful answer to this question requires far more space than available here, but it is now highly questionable that the universe does follow an orderly and mathematical plan. It is also highly questionable that reason and mathematics are anything beyond our subjective ordering of unordered sense data.
    3. I know of very few atheists who think we are nothing more than vehicles of procreation. To the contrary, I feel sorry for the poverty of thought among theists who can only find meaning through ancient myth and superstition.
    4. This is not essentially a religious question.
    5. This error results from the failure to distinguish metaphor from literal meaning. DNA is not a code, but simply self-reproducing nucleotides, mean nothing in themselves, and convey no information to a decoder. It’s current state of evolution is not surprising given a 4-billion-year history.


    6. This can easily be dismissed as mere god of the gaps, but modern physics has made enough headway to dismiss it scientific grounds. The theist argument ultimately comes down to prime mover, which besides being a blatant fallacy of special pleading, relies on ignorance of physics. We will probably never know the state of affairs before the big bang, but we do know that it did not contain the current laws of physics, including time, space a causality. This renders the question of first cause nonsense. There are, however, plausible theories of how the big bang could self-actualize without resorting to supernatural causes, and supernatural or otherworldly causes are always the least probable.

    7. In the same way we explain moral sensibility. Aesthetics and curiosity are inherited sensibilities that are refined through contemplation and articulation. There is no need to invent a god to understand this,
    8. This question rests on falsely asserted claims. There is no direct evidence from any eyewitness or contemporaneous writing that anybody saw an arisen Jesus. In fact, there is very little if any evidence of anything at all about Jesus. The most likely explanation is myth creation during the first two centuries after the event.


      1. This is William Lain Craig’s favorite move: reduction to a strawman and denial to avoid addressing the real argument. Not that Evolution and god of the gaps doesn’t suffice, but you ignore the physics, epistemology and argumentation.


  3. 1, social evolution explains the various moral standards we have.

    2. a universe would necessarily have properties that make rational sense within the context of that universe.

    3. all values are subjective references.

    4. neither has more value than the other. we simply recognize the rights of a woman’s bodily sovereignty. it’s one of those socially evolved standards, see #1.

    5. evolution.

    6. how can anybody?

    7. there is no such thing.

    8. there was no resurrection. the jesus story is a mythology, possibly one surrounding some vague real people or events of which nothing is known for certain, being composed entirely of hearsay.


  4. 1. Not applicable. Mistaken or faulty assumption.
    2. Not applicable. Mistaken or faulty assumption.
    3. Not applicable. Mistaken or faulty assumption.
    4. Not applicable. Mistaken or faulty assumption.
    5. Not applicable. Mistaken or faulty assumption.
    6. Not applicable. Mistaken or faulty assumption.
    7. Not applicable. Mistaken or faulty assumption.
    8. Not applicable. Mistaken or faulty assumption.


  5. out-group helping behaviors
    In group behaviors are reinforced by the group, while out-group helping behaviors generally are single event spur of the moment occurrences. They are an effect from the in group behavior training. Individuals who are not part of a ‘caring’ group will be less inclined to express out group helping behavior.

    You would have a point if the out group helping behavior amounted to equal or more than the in group helping behavior. This is not the case, so you can not use it to suggest that objective morality is anything other than religious upbringing. (And caring behavior is expressed in non human creatures, with no religion.)

    Fine tuned universe?
    Of course one can not make a determination with a set of one. We only have one universe to work with, there might be other universes where the rules of existence are totally different and still function well enough to produce life. But the worse part you are jumping straight to a god doing stuff without showing that a god is even possible. You have to prove that Spiderman is real before you are allowed to talk about what he does or how he does things. If you accept that Spiderman is real, then it is acceptable for you to discuss his actions. If you can not do that, then why should your views on his actions matter at all?

    Everyone, religious included, understand and accept there is no purpose for life. But everyone makes their own purpose and follows that to their best ability. Yes, biology seems to offer no purpose. So what? I get to create my own purpose and I am will defend my choices here. Just like you, I hope.

    My view, as a male, is that there are only three humans who have any say in this matter. The Mother, the father and the attending medical doctor. The Father can offer his opinion only and must bow to the decisions of the Mother and the medical doctor. The Mother has the final say on the decision and her will is the only one that really matters. The medical doctor is there to inform on purely medical grounds, including whether or not the mother is competent to understand the complete process. So every single human who is not one of these three people, has no business in this discuss.

    Ordered DNA?
    Sorry, this shows a complete lack in understanding of biology. I might suggest that you spend some time studying in this field from recognized experts in this area. Dawkins and Gould are worthwhile people to learn from here. If you really want this question answered. And Atheists are not expected to answer it, you will be better served asking this of actual biologists and listening to what they will teach you.

    Big Bang?
    How about taking that we have no idea how it happened and you then explain how your God did what he did, using what tools, skills and abilities on what type of ‘stuff’ over what period to create the universe. If you can do that and the answer is as detailed as anything science can come up, then you might have something to talk about.

    Heavenly Joy?
    This a nonsense. Have you even consider what heaven would be like or even how long you will be there? I am willing to bet that you have never really give it a considered thought. Do you even understand how long eternity is? And what that would mean to you?

    Consider soccer, and playing the position of left flank. In heaven you could train to become the best left flank player in all of history, you have enough time to do that. And then you can have all that skill and knowledge removed and do it all over again for the right flank position. You could continue to do this for every position in a soccer team, becoming the best possible player of that position. And once you have done all that, you start again from the first position, but this time you wear a different shade of shirt, you continue through all positions in this new colour shirt. Once that is done, then you start again, changing the colour of the shirt, until you have trained in all possible colours of shirt. Then repeat with your pants and then with your socks and boots. Do all possible combinations while training to be the best possible player of that position. Eventually you will have done the training in every possible combination. Now you start again in a different sport and repeat the whole process over again, in all combinations. Continue until you have done every possible activity that humans can ever do.

    Once you have done all this, and trillions of eons of training has passed you by, remember that you have the rest of eternity before you. Do you not think that you will become mindlessly bored and seek annihilation?

    Why would anyone want to go to heaven, knowing this?


  6. Explain DNA? Did you say that it’s 3.5 perfectly ordered letters?
    What if I proved that I can make SEVEN billion different changes and each and every one of those is JUST as perfect. Would that destroy your question number 5?

    Ok, I submit the human genome. No two humans on the planet have precisely the same DNA. Every person walking or sitting or sleeping right now has a unique genome. Their ordered letters are different from each and every other person.

    That’s 7 billion changes, UNIQUE changes.

    Nice fail there.


    1. Most of these ‘questions’ have long since been debunked as not unanswerable.

      For instance question number 2 is premised on a fiction. The universe isn’t necessarily predictable, nor orderly, nor rational. I won’t even address delayed-choice experiments and how ONE object can go along multiple paths at once..

      The vast (overwhelming) majority of events in the universe are inherently unpredictable.
      We can’t predict WHEN a photon will be emitted from an excited atom, nor when an unstable radioactive atom will break down.
      We can’t determine the position and velocity of an electron at the same time. It’s literally impossible to know both those things at the same time.

      Thermodynamics and much of modern physics is based on the fact that we can only (at best) come up with statistical probabilities that let us get sufficiently accurate answers. It’s how all of quantum-physics works (see Feynman diagrams, for instance). We can’t even model (predict) gravitational systems with more than TWO bodies (like the sun and earth with even just the Earth’s moon!).

      Much is irrational and illogical in quantum mechanics. It’s not predictable.

      You think it’s all of those things because you have a grade-school appreciation of those. Tell me, for instance HOW it’s rational that the dz2 electron orbital can ‘exist’ at all (clue they ONLY exist because it’s probabilistic!).

      If our universe were intelligently designed, then it wouldn’t need any of those characteristics.
      In fact, if there was a god, then he could make a universe that is ENTIRELY irrational and nothing would make sense at all, but would still work despite — and THAT would be singularly more telling.


  7. 1. What explains our objective morality?

    There is no objective morality. Morality is effectually based on empathy and a sense of fairness. The Bible says Yahweh’s moral law is based on love (Matthew 22:36-40) and a sense of fairness (Luke 6:31), both of which are subjective. We hate rape and murder because evolution has developed empathy, love, pity, and sympathy in us, as well as guilt, shame, and remorse. This keeps us from wanting to rape and murder each other (except when the brain malfunctions or is overcome by an animal instinct), and to work together to put a stop to them.

    “2. If an atheist’s position is that the universe is the product of chance and necessity (instead of the product of intelligence), how can he or she explain the fact that the universe is structured rationally, logically and with mathematical precision and predictability?”

    I don’t know what the universe is a product of, or if it ever began to exist in the first place. If it did begin to exist, I expect that an orderly and complex eternal multiverse that obeys laws gave rise to it, but I do not know this to be the case. Since the multiverse has laws, our universe should have laws, and those laws give rise to mathematics, logic, and rationality. I don’t see how chaos and disorder has been shown to be the default state of reality.

    3. If atheists adhere to the belief that the purpose of human life is merely to procreate and survive, is it possible to determine that human life has any more value than animal life – since animals share the same basic purpose?

    I don’t think the purpose of mankind is to merely procreate. I also don’t believe in objective purpose and meaning, and consider them human affairs of a subjective nature. Humans are animals, and animals are valuable when they have intelligence, emotions, consciousness, and an ability to suffer. I raise animals up, and consider some species to be people, as opposed to lowering humans to a lesser status.

    4. Why have so many atheists determined that the life of a fetus in a mother’s womb is less valuable than the life of his or her mother? Age discrimination? When is a human considered a human to them?

    I imagine it is because they find it hard to believe that a fetus with a brain the size of a pea has the mind of a human. I don’t know when a fetus is considered a human for other atheists, because atheists don’t have a common view on the subject. The only thing all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods, and whatever else an atheist believes has little to do with their lack of belief in God or gods.

    Note that the ancient Jews held that a fetus was not a person until it was born, and took ‘the Breath of Life’ to become ‘infused with the spirit’. They considered a fetus a ‘limb’, an ‘extension of the woman’s thigh’ until it took its first breath. That is why the penalty for causing an unwanted miscarriage was less than for killing a born person. The Bible also has a forced abortion ceremony performed by a priest using a magical potion that causes the womb to discharge and go barren if the woman cheated on her husband. Finally, from the Christian perspective, since aborted fetuses go to Heaven, and get to have a perfect childhood there, the best thing you could ever do for a fetus is to abort it. You save it from evil and Hell. Also, note that miscarriages outnumber abortions, so it seems God cares little if a fetus makes it to birth (it is also evidence against intelligent design – imagine a car line that failed to make a car properly 20% of the time).

    5. How can atheists explain the ordering of our DNA?

    Atheists usually go with the scientific explanation for the ordering of DNA. DNA is the product of mutation and natural selection. Scientists have observed DNA being produced by evolution, and all the evidence indicates that DNA is ordered by mutation and natural selection. Evolution has been observed in controlled and uncontrolled conditions in the lab and field, including speciation, beneficial mutations, and increases in a genome, and is therefore an indisputable fact. The theory, which explains the fact, is supported by all the evidence, observations, predictions, experiments, and relevant facts. Please note that nobody has found an example of intelligent information in DNA, as if something akin to ‘I love you’ exists anywhere in it. It is a false to confuse the physical information about the DNA molecule with intelligent information, code, or language created by an intelligence.

    6. How can atheists explain the force that powered the Big Bang of the universe?

    I don’t have an explanation for it, but there are a few options to pick from, so ‘God did it’ is not the only thing to consider. For example, the Big Bang could have arisen from a timeless and empty eternal space due to a law of gravity, or may be the product of eternal inflation in a larger universe or multiverse. We simply don’t know, and that includes theists.

    7. How can atheists explain our desire for heavenly joy?

    Our desire to live happily is a product of evolution. We seek a life that is healthy, where the threat level is low, food is plentiful, and we all get along, because those are good for our survival. Heaven is just an exaggeration of a decent life on Earth.

    8. What is the best explanation for the minimal facts surrounding Jesus’ resurrection?

    I am not convinced that the resurrection is even remotely a fact, or that there is sufficient evidence to warrant belief. As it is, the resurrection is irrelevant to whether or not God exists, and thus is irrelevant to atheism, because it doesn’t prove anything more than that someone could appear to be injured and dead long enough to be placed in a tomb with a stone rolled in front of it. It does nothing to show that Jesus was actually dead, nothing to show he created the universe, and nothing to show that he is the greatest of all beings in existence. The problem with the Bible is that it doesn’t give any examples of evidence for the existence of God or gods, and thus has no argument against atheism. Nowhere in the Bible does Yahweh or Jesus prove they are God, even if all the stories of miracles and resurrections are true. Parting a tiny speck of water on a tiny speck of dust floating in a gigantic universe is not a God-sized miracle, but stopping the expansion of the universe might be.

    I could just as easily explain the resurrection by saying that Jesus was a shape-shifting alien who could appear to be injured and dead when he in fact was not. Perhaps he had a super advanced nanotechnology body that could not only make large crowds hallucinate miracles, it could shut down for a time before booting back up. Or, Jesus was replaced with a look alike shape-shifting alien via teleportation after he was placed in the tomb, and he never actually rose from the dead. In other words, the gospel, even if true, fails to show that God exists. Also, for all we know, every god can do what Jesus did, and Jesus is just a lesser god that was lying for attention and adoration, perhaps because Jesus was the Jewish Satan in human disguise, coming as an angel of light.


  8. I’m an atheist, and forgive me if I read it incorrectly.

    I can’t prove anything really, I can’t change people’s minds. But I can give reasons to.
    Parents, the people who teach you from the day you were born (if you find offense to this, I am SO sorry). My parents taught me about Christianity, and I believed them. Until, Middle School. Middle School is a confusing place, relationships from left to right, the insecurities, anxiety. I began to question God’s existence, coming up with reasons to back myself up. Although, I never shared my reasons.

    And now I believe that God doesn’t exist, and I can list the reasons. And if there’s something you think is wrong, please tell me!

    1. If God is real (and hates evil) why doesn’t he sweep it all away into a trash bin?

    2. We don’t have any proof for anything, not even Christians. Well, maybe some proof, like ‘If God doesn’t exist, why do we exist?’ And I think that’s a very good question, in which I can answer: You see, if God doesn’t exist, then God doesn’t exist, you’d be living a lie. But I can’t necessarily prove God doesn’t exist, so I may be wrong. But I believe I am right.

    3. This isn’t a reason, but I’ll just say it:

    People are people, don’t put LABELS on them, just accept differences. What I do, is I just don’t care if someone is Christian, I love them just the same, even if an argument comes up! And plus, you can’t just NOT sin, that’s crazy talk (no offense). LBGTQ+, different races, different opinions, just don’t care about. If you find it ludicrous, then don’t say anything about it, just keep it to yourself.

    Anyways, that’s all. I’m still a young person, so I may change my thoughts on this, but I hope you find some… inspiration…?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s