“Nones,” over the last couple of decades, has been the fastest growing religious category in America. The term “nones” is now used to refer to people who are religiously unaffiliated. Most of the people in this category consider themselves Agnostics, with Atheists coming in a close second. While there is a semantic difference between Agnostics and Atheists, in practical terms they are the same. Atheists will come right out and say, “There is no God.” Agnostics, on the other hand, typically fudge their position by saying they don’t know whether or not there is a God, but see no evidence of it. So while they won’t definitively state, “There is no God,” non-belief is their practical position, and they live life “as if” that were true.
Currently about 28% of Americans fall into the “nones” category. That percentage has risen from 16% in 2007. The decline of those claiming to be Christians largely mirrors the rise of the “nones.”
The massive growth in the number of “nones” has brought with it an inordinate influence on society. One of the most prominent practical influences has to do with the moral fiber of the nation. Since Atheism recognizes no objective moral authority, moral relativity has become the default approach to defining morality in the country. This, by extension, has flavored the operation of virtually all of America’s societal institutions – family, media, education, arts and entertainment, government, business, and even a large number of churches. All this together accounts for the reasons why such things as sexual immorality, cheating in business, increase in crime, wokeness in society, graft in government, lying in the media, churches drifting away from a focus on Christ, and a downward spiral in education are happening. It is the natural outcome of the relativistic morality of Atheism.
But Atheism is not true – and it cannot be true. While many Atheists will fight tooth and nail to defend their faith, it simply cannot be true. In fact, many, if not most, will even fight to defend their belief that Atheism is not even a faith position.
The posture they take is that “Atheism is not a belief, but rather is a lack of belief in God.” Well, they certainly don’t believe in God, but those who claim it is not a belief system simply don’t understand the nature of their own beliefs. By saying they don’t believe in God, they are merely saying what they don’t believe while ignoring what they do believe. Some people do that out of ignorance of their own beliefs, but others use it as a cover to keep from having to defend their indefensible atheistic beliefs.
The Basis of Atheistic Belief
Expressed in a positive statement, what they do believe is that the natural universe, operating by natural laws, is all that exists. If that is actually true, then ultimately, when knowledge and technology become advanced enough, it will be possible to come to a complete understanding of everything that exists in all of reality using empirical science.
The only problem is, there is no science to back up that belief. In fact, there is no evidence for it at all. Atheism begins with a set of assumptions that cannot be demonstrated using the scientific method, not with actual science. Thus, it cannot be proven based on its own requirements. To believe that Atheism is true, one must believe it by faith.
Essentially, most scientists in modern times have equated naturalistic philosophy with science. But they are not the same thing. Science is a methodology, not a belief system. It is the use of observation and experimentation to discover things about the natural universe. Naturalistic philosophy, on the other hand, is the belief that the natural universe, operating by natural laws, is all that exists. When these are conflated, the assertion is made that Christianity and science contradict one another. That is simply not true. Christians believe in the scientific method as fully as any naturalistic Atheist. Where the contradiction lies is between Christianity and naturalistic philosophy.
In particular, there are four things that naturalistic Atheism assumes to be true that it cannot demonstrate using science: the origin of the natural universe, the origin of life, the naturalistic evolution of existing life forms, and the origin of consciousness.
1. The Origin of the Natural Universe
Obviously, Christians believe that God created the natural universe out of nothing. Naturalistic Atheists on the other hand, by definition, believe that somehow the existence of the natural universe is able to be accounted for by natural processes.
However, there is no known natural law that would allow for natural matter and energy to emerge out of nothing. The only possibilities are:
a. there was already something in existence that could account for a natural origin of the universe (though this only pushes the question further back in time)
b. natural matter and energy are eternal (that is, there never was “nothing” in the first place)
c. there is some natural law that can allow something to emerge out of nothing that we have not yet discovered.
So, what do all of these options have in common? They have in common the fact that there is no science to demonstrate the possibility of any of them. All of the possibilities are 100% pure speculation. If someone is going to believe any of them, they have to believe by faith.
2. The Origin of Life
Evolutionary scientists have for years been trying to discover how life could have emerged out of non-life. They have speculated about the particular elements that would have been necessary for life to emerge, how they managed to combine, and what forces could have existed on the earth to start the process. They have also speculated about what kind of ancient environment would have been necessary and where on the earth that might have happened. On top of that, they have run experiments to actually try to create life out of non-life.
So convinced are these evolutionists of the truth of their belief, that even much of the modern space program is dedicated to discovering evidence of life on other planets. For instance, virtually all of the Mars rovers have experiments designed to detect life. Beyond that, the various space based telescopes were also built and are operated with that goal in mind.
For all of their effort, however, there has never been one shred of empirical evidence that life emerged, or even could emerge, out of non-life. Their belief is simply an assumption that it is possible based on their naturalistic presuppositions. That belief has no scientific basis whatsoever. Anyone who believes it is possible must believe it by faith.
3. The Natural Evolutionary Development of Existing Life Forms
If there is a hill that atheistic evolutionary scientists are willing to die on, it is that of naturalistic evolution. In modern times, the vast majority of scientists are convinced that life forms are able to evolve from less complex to more complex forms. This belief is both assumed and taught at virtually every level of education, and nearly all academic textbooks that deal with the topic teach as if it is a proven fact.
Beyond that, virtually every peer reviewed scientific journal that touches on this subject in any respect are busy publishing article after article trying to prove that point. The amount of speculation about how it could happen could probably be counted in the millions of pages. In fact, there is hardly any major science journal that will even accept an article contradicting that viewpoint.
There is only one problem, there has never been one shred of actual proof that naturalistic evolution is even possible. Every last attempted explanation of how it could be possible is pure speculation. There simply is no science that has ever shown that it is possible for less complex life forms to evolve into more complex ones. Anyone who believes that must believe it by faith.
4. The Origin of Consciousness
As great a gap as there is between non-living chemicals and life, there is an equally large span between non-conscious life forms and those that are conscious. And equally as daunting is the gap between merely conscious life and self-conscious life (human beings).
Once again, naturalistic Atheists are at a loss as how to account for the fact of consciousness and/or self-consciousness. They are compelled by their naturalistic presuppositions to believe that it is somehow possible for consciousness to evolve from non-consciousness based on natural evolutionary processes, but once again they have absolutely no science to back it up. In order to believe in the natural origin of consciousness, they must believe by faith.
So Where Are We?
While Atheists are loathe to admit to their Atheism being a religious faith, there is no other possible conclusion. Their philosophy requires that they acknowledge that the natural universe, operating by natural laws, is all that exists. At the same time, they can’t account for the validity of their most basic beliefs based on natural laws. The best they can do is speculate about it.
Atheism is a faith system, and it cannot be true based on its own philosophical requirements. Those who push it to the exclusion of belief in God are, ultimately, nothing more than religious zealots.
© 2025 Freddy Davis