“I’m a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I’m a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics.” – Richard Dawkins, atheistic scientist and author, on The Science Show (ABC Radio, 22 January 2000)
Note the ring of contradiction here. If Darwinism is true (as Richard Dawkins claims), why not be Darwinian always? If you are atheist, please examine whether any of the following contradictory behaviors are a part of your life. All atheists don't do all of the following, but the compulsive indulgence in even one of them should prompt you to ask whether atheism is true (If a belief system cannot be practiced consistently, then it is probably false).
For instance, atheist Richard Dawkins has written a book called "The God Delusion". Why bother about people's delusions if they are merely evolved ensembles of molecules that will lose their identity when they die? Thus, Dawkins' anguish at seeing so many people believing in God is inconsistent with his own atheistic worldview. One of my acquaintances, George Koshy, narrates how as a young atheist he presented his best arguments against God's existence to a Bible preacher. The preacher replied that he couldn't answer them, and George would have to take these arguments to God himself. So after going through all his arguments, George challenged God, if He existed, to answer them. He did get an answer, but not what he expected:
"A small voice asked me a question: 'If I do not exist, why are you arguing with me?'. I saw my folly of being eager to argue with a person who supposedly does not exist. The voice continued, 'You want to serve the enemy. I will throw him into the lake of fire one day. I want to make you one of my sons.' Stunned and speechless, I moved to the side of the street and said, 'Lord make me.' I surrendered my will to Him on that day."
The Bible says that God exists, and has a definite character. What's against that character is sin. The Bible records that when God created the first man and woman, they were naked, and not ashamed (Genesis 2:25). When they sinned, they started feeling ashamed, and God clothed them with skins (Genesis 3:1 onwards). Now here's the catch:-
Atheists (who deny the existence of God and sin) are also ashamed to walk around naked!! Dear atheist, don't try to hide behind the facts that wearing clothes is culturally acceptable, protective, warm, and so on. None of these things change the fact that you are ashamed to show yourself naked to others. You are being INCONSISTENT.
In all these cases, atheists are complaining that people are being treated wrongly. But since no morally binding "right way" or "wrong way" to treat people follows from atheism, atheists are thus being SELF-CONTRADICTORY.
If there is no God, and atheists think it's such a blessing for people to realize it, they should campaign equally against all gods. However, most virulent atheism is directed against the God of the Bible and His Son, Jesus Christ. Just do a google search for ridicule and hatred heaped against Jesus Christ, Mohammad, Allah, Buddha, Krishna, Confucius, etc and you'll get what I mean. This is all the more strange considering the large number of people that are being killed today in the name of Islam. In America, the same atheists who tried their best to remove every vestige of Christianity from public life are wholeheartedly introducing Islam into public life!
Natomas Pacific Pathways Prep (NP3) High School in California celebrated Hijab Day on January 28, 2015. This is not an isolated example. Here is another example.
"Hijab Day is a way of teaching tolerance and understanding of others," said principal Tom Rutter.
"It taught a lot about respecting one another and to accept that some people wear headscarves," claimed Amna, a student at NP3.
Education policy makers in America (who are mostly atheist) would never organize a school event to teach students to respect Christian practices or beliefs, such as Creation, the birth of Jesus, the sanctity of human life (including unborn life), sexual fidelity, etc. American atheists insist on "separation of church and state" but they apparently don't believe in "separation of Islam and state". This non-uniformity proves that atheism is not objective.
Atheists believe that the order of nature is a brutal struggle in which the fittest species survive, and others die. If that is the case, there is no need to feel bad about endangered animals on the brink of extinction. But atheists make a big fuss about the need to protect various species. They say that humans must not displace other species. But that's what has been going on for ages, and is the driving force for evolution (according to them)!! According to atheism, human life has no value, so it's no big deal if the human race becomes extinct. But atheists are alarmed that humanity may kill itself through the unsustainable use of the earth's resources or warfare. The same atheists who believe that evolution proceeds through a brutal struggle for the survival of the fittest are against cruelty to animals. Again, inconsistency!
SETI pioneer Professor Carl Sagan devised a set of four criteria that could be used to distinguish possible intelligent communications among the constant noise of radio static that comes from all parts of the sky. When those four criteria were applied to the information on the DNA molecule, it passed the test. Thus, atheists search for ETI, being willing to recognize design in the signals, but refuse to acknowledge design in the language of DNA. This is inconsistent. If (as the atheists claim) the design in DNA is only apparent, how do they know that the design in radio signals also is not apparent?
Some atheists respond that DNA is subject to evolution but radio signals aren't. But the only DNA evolution that has been actually observed is the deletion, inversion or transposition of a section, and "point" mutations. Radio waves can also undergo similar modifications due to repeated interference.
"On a train, a Russian officer sat in front of me. I had spoken to him about Christ only a few minutes when he broke out with a torrent of atheistic arguments. Quotations from Marx, Stalin, Voltaire, Darwin and others against the Bible flew from his mouth. He gave me no opportunity to contradict him. He spoke for nearly an hour to convince me that there is no God. When he had finished, I asked him, "IF there is no God, why do you pray when in trouble?" Like a thief surprised while stealing, he replied, "How do you know that I pray?" I did not allow him to escape. "I asked my question first. I asked why you pray. Please answer!" He bowed his head and acknowledged, "On the front, when we were encircled by the Germans, we all prayed! We did not know how to do it. So we said, 'God and spirit of mother'" - which is surely a good prayer in the sight of One who looks to the heart" – Richard Wurmbrand (see image), in Tortured for Christ, 30th anniversary edition, p23.
"I have seen innumerable atheists regretting on their deathbeds that they have been godless; they called on Christ. Can you imagine that a Christian could regret, when death is near, that he has been a Christian and call on Marx or Lenin to rescue him from his faith?... Lenin's books [prove] that, even after becoming prime minister of the Soviet Union, Lenin himself prayed when things were wrong" - ibid, p102.
With such a wide variety of self-contradictory behavior, not to mention their refusal to face the enormous Evidence for God, atheists confirm what the Bible has been saying for the last three thousand years:-
"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God'" – Psalm 14:1
If you cannot pursue your atheism to its logical end in your daily life, don't you think it is worth asking whether atheism is true in the first place?