Atheists Presupposing Naturalism

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Atheists and most evolutionists presuppose the philosophy of naturalism in their approaches to evidence. Their worldview demands it since they reject anything that indicates intelligent design — or worse to them, the God of the Bible. As we have seen, the commitment of Darwin's acolytes to naturalism is more important to them than properly interpreting evidence.

Atheists and evolutionists argue from a naturalistic viewpoint, and they act like this gives them a superior position over the rest of us. One example is examined in detail.
The Three Philosophers by Giorgio Barbarelli da Castelfranco, 1509
Atheists consider themselves messengers of reason, and you will frequently find them online touting their wisdom and intelligence because they reject God. However, our Creator does not have a passel of respect for their alleged wisdom (Rom. 1:18-23, Psalm 14:1, Prov. 1:8, 1 Cor. 1:19-21). It is amazing how they seek their identities in slapping leather with the God they claim does not exist.


In The Ultimate Proof of Creation, Dr. Jason Lisle discusses a kind of checklist that he calls AIP. The A is for arbitrariness. Dr Lisle states,
In logical reasoning, no one is permitted to be arbitrary. That is, we cannot simply assert a claim that has no reason behind it and expect others to accept that claim. Our beliefs must have justification. Rational debate would be impossible if the two opponents decided they didn’t need to give a reason for their position. If each person simply assumed what he was trying to prove, then there would be no point in arguing. Yet many evolutionists believe a number of things with no logical reason at all. It is unfair (and irrational) for an evolutionist to ask a creationist to provide a reason for his position, if the evolutionist himself is unwilling or unable to do the same thing. Such arbitrariness must be exposed as a fatal flaw in non-biblical worldviews.*
Atheists use loaded terminology to describe themselves as rational, "brights", freethinkers, and so on. Somehow, they are "better" and "smarter" than Christians (especially biblical creationists) or theists in general by the simple question-begging assertion that they are smarter; they claim that we do not use reason because we believe the Bible. That kind of foolish assertion has been refuted here and in many other places repeatedly.

Indeed, it is not uncommon for Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ and Satan's Handmaidens to patrol the internet, seeking Christians, creationists, and proponents of Intelligent Design to harass. If you pay attention, they frequently make arbitrary assertions (many of which are outdated or utterly false from the get-go). Sometimes we correct them on their own mythology

Well, these supposed lovers of reason appeal to science and empirical facts for the most part, and often stack the deck as to which kind of evidence are acceptable. When given a response, they like to move the goalposts and say the answers were not up to their tendentious standards. Atheists and evolutionists may claim to "follow where the evidence leads", but only as long as it is compatible with naturalism and materialism. What is ironic is that by boxing in their thinking, they are unable to reach logical and valid conclusions.

One of the atheopathic Pages on Fazebook like to share posts from Christians and creationists so they can mock us. (Ironically, by sharing the posts, they are indirectly spreading the gospel message.) The owner prefers to remain anonymous, possibly because the poor logic (especially straw man arguments) of the Page's denizens is exposed and they seldom have answers above the level of ad hominems, ridicule, more straw man arguments, and purulent rhetoric. Intelligent discourse is not their strong suit (Prov 18:2). Let's take a look at a comment from a thread on that Page.
Used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes (click for larger)
On Good Friday in 2020, I posted a link to a video at The Question Evolution Project on miracles at the crucifixion of Jesus. The derision included arbitrary assertions based on naturalism, which in turn rejects miracles. They were averse to considering any evidence. I even linked to a video that answered some of the atheist's questions (and more). Why should they read material or watch videos? After all, we should be aware of their wondrous powers — they don't need to examine the evidence because atheism (Prov. 18:13). Don't you know who they are?

Sarcasm aside for now, atheists and evolutionists use ridicule as a knee-jerk reaction. They are fond of the hit-and-run use of laughing emoticons. It seems that in their minds, fleering gives them the superior intellectual and moral positions. This is coming from a naturalistic worldview as well as hatred of God and his people. The specific comment to consider it, "Ridiculous statements require ridicule".

A good question to ask is, "What logical or empirical process brought him to that conclusion?" This illustrates the arbitrary and self-serving nature of that comment. The question I used here can be modified and used for other assertions as well.

What is worse in this case can be found in two parts. First, "ridiculous statements". By what standard? Because he is an atheist with a materialistic worldview, people like him are intellectually superior? Not hardly! Calling something of this nature seems like a personal preference and a childish attitude of, "My worldview can beat up your worldview!" The other significant word is deserve. Who appointed him (or other atheists) the judge, jury, and executioner? Such things are driven by arrogance, not logic.

Inconsistency and Preconditions

The letter I is for inconsistency. For example, the laws of logic are not material things, so for a naturalist to appeal to logic or utilize mathematics, he or she is being inconsistent — logic and math are not material things. The letter P is for preconditions of intelligibility. Everything make sense in the biblical creationist worldview, but atheism and evolutionism cannot account for, and be consistent, by using immaterial concepts. They are actually admitting that their worldview is fundamentally flawed, and they are standing on our worldview. See "Logic and the Bible" for more, and see the follow-up linked at the end of that article.

Internal Worldview Critique

One thing that atheists hate about presuppositional apologists is that we try to show them the inconsistencies in their worldview, and how they fail to uphold reason and logic. I just showed you some of that by pointing out the fallacies and asking questions. Recently, Clinton Richard Dawkins made an absurd attack on God's existence by saying that after President Trump called for a national day of prayer to deal with COVID-19, the death toll went up. That straw man argument was arrogant and exceptionally ignorant. Helpful hint for anyone: if you're going to try to show how someone is wrong, at least understand the subject you are claiming to refute.

Those of us who engage with atheists and evolutionists, you will see that they cannot give a cogent response. Abuse, distraction, straw man, prejudicial conjecture, other fallacies are utlizied, but keep them on topic and see what happens. (Use your discernment to see if there is intellectual honesty and someone is spiritually seeking behind the bluster, or if you are being baited into wasting your time.) One atheist railed to Creation Ministries International with a list of reasons he denies God. Part of this seemed to be based on emotions and ignorance, and like most atheists and anti-creationists, he did not do his homework. He received a response anyway, which you can see at "Duplicity in the Bible?

Like other biblical creationists, I am not opposed to honest questions. Most knowledgeable biblical creationists know the subject and are aware that resources are available. But angry atheists who are attempting to justify their rebellion against God? I don't have time for that negativity. They need to humble themselves and repent before the God they know exists (Rom. 1:18-23).

* Third printing, February 2010, Master Books, Chapter 5, Page 92 according to my Kindle.