Questions to Ask an Atheist

Questions to Ask an Atheist

Questions to Ask an Atheist provides you with 100 questions to ask an atheist.

This article will be divided into 3 categories: Logic, morality, and science.

There are, however, a couple of questions that will stop the discussion before it begins. They are: Isn’t science something that can be observed and repeated? Then within that framework, what evidence is there for Marco Evolution? I’m not talking about adaptation (small changes within a species), but for one species becoming another? If Macro Evolution is true, there should be thousands of intermediate life forms all around us! Can you show me just one example?

The fact is, there is NO observable evidence for Macro Evolution, therefore it is not science; it requires blind faith, which makes it a religion for the foolish (Psalm 14:1).    

Introduction to logic…

In order to have a rational discussion with someone, we must begin by thinking logically and rationally. The Christian can be as confident as a lion because of God’s laws of logic, nature, and morality are self-evident. Let’s look at what these laws are and then, (God willing) we will see the insurmountable problems they pose for the unbeliever.

The law of logic

A rational debate would be impossible without the laws of logic. The first law of logic is the law of non-contradiction. This law states that all contradictions are false.

You cannot say, “My wife is home and my wife is not home.” Either both statements are wrong (maybe I’m not married), or one is right and the other is wrong.  Both statements cannot be true at the same time, in the same sense. That is simple logic.

If you think this through carefully, only the biblical worldview can account for these laws.

But wait, the atheist can say, I believe the first law of logic and I don’t believe in God or the Bible! That may be true, however, in an evolutionary worldview, the atheist cannot provide a reason why logic would exist at all. The rationale for logic is only found in a biblical worldview.

The Bible clearly states that two antithetical positions cannot both be correct. Here is a perfect example from I John 2:21:

I have not written to you because you do not know the truth, but because you do know it, and because no lie is of the truth.

According to the Bible (and sound logic), something is either true or it’s false it cannot be both true and false at the same time. The evolutionary worldview provides no objective standard of truth and falsehood, right and wrong, or good and evil.

The evolutionist (if he is honest, which is an oxymoron) must borrow from the Bible for these concepts to be rationale. The idea that we should or should not be rational at all depends on the universal laws of logic and the moral laws of God.

To be rational means you are able to give a reasonable answer for why something is true or false.

Section #1. Logic. Let the questions begin:

1. If I prove the Bible is true and God exists, would you want to become a Christian?

A. If they say, “No.” Then you ask, “Why not?”

B. Then, you’re not interested in truth?

C. What are some of the obvious implications of your answer?

D. Then, isn’t your real problem a matter of the will and not the intellect?

2. So, you believe that nobody, plus nothing, equals everything? 

3. Which is more complex, the worlds fastest super-computer, the worlds most advanced robotic system, the Space Shuttle, or, an Earthworm?

Answer: The earthworm. Nobody knows how to make an earthworm. The DNA and its reproductive system is beyond anything ever created by man.

a. How much more complex is a human compared to an earthworm?

b. What would you think of me if I firmly believed that the Space Shuttle, the supercomputer and the most advanced robotic system was the result of random mindless chance rather than an intelligent designer?

4. Of all the knowledge contained in the 70 million books and articles (much of it written by scholars and experts in their fields) found in the Library of Congress, and of all the knowledge yet to be discovered, what percentage of that knowledge do you think you possess? (My thanks to Ray Comfort for that one).

a. What percentage of the universe have you explored?

b. For someone to say that God does not exist, wouldn’t they need to be omniscient?

c. Since you are not omniscient, what evidence can you offer that God does not exist?

d. Since you cannot do that, doesn’t that make you an agnostic rather than an atheist?

e. So, then, wouldn’t you agree that there is no such thing as an atheist?

5. Do you believe there is bias in the media? Could there also be bias in laboratories and college classrooms?

6. Did you know that many prominent atheistic scientists admit to believing evolution even though they know it’s not true? 

Prominent evolutionist George Wald, biochemist and Nobel Laureate from Harvard University admits he believes and teaches a lie,

“When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility…Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion—that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God…I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”

7. What do you call someone like this?

8. What do you think this mans real problem is? 

9. The real answer comes from the famous atheist Aldous Huxley, who speaks for all atheists (whether they like it or not) in this priceless quote,

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have mean­ing; consequently assumed it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption … The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem of pure metaphysics; he is also concerned to prove there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my con­temporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system, and liberation from a cer­tain system of morality. We objected to the morality be­cause it interfered with our sexual freedom.”

10. Here is another invaluable insight on what can drive atheism. The question is, are atheists born, or do they evolve?

“A study was done a while back into all the famous atheists of history, Jean Paul Sartre, Camus, Friedrich Nietzsche, Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Madalyn Murray O’Hare, and every single one of them had something in common. They either lost their father when they were young, their father abandoned their family, or they had a terrible relationship with their father. That is very interesting because often these doubts aren’t really driven by intellectual questions; they are being driven by an emotional issue that really blocks them from wanting to relate to a heavenly father because they feel so abandoned, or cheated, or hurt by their earthly father.”

11. You are walking along the beach. You see in the sand the words, “God loves you.” Could the waves roll up on the beach cause that to happen by chance, or would it be far more rational to believe that someone just came by with a stick (or a finger) and wrote that in the sand?

12. You see the faces of four Presidents carved in solid rock on the top of Mt. Rushmore. You have two choices:

A. A scientist with a Ph.D. in geology tells you that this is the result of millions of years of erosion from the wind and the rain. The similarity to the president’s faces is a coincidence.

B. A 16-year-old boy looks at it and says, that was obviously carved out by a gifted and very intelligent artist trained in the art of sculpting.

1. Which answer is more rational: chance or intelligent design?

2. What would you think of me if I denied the great works of art were created by the great masters, that they all happened by chance?

3. When you see a skyscraper like Sears Tower in Chicago, isn’t that empirical proof there was a designer and a builder, even though you’ve never seen him?

4. Think about what you are seeing in this picture. How does that logic not also apply to this system of sun, moon, and stars?

 The power and the wisdom of God

5. Can you honestly say that you believe this system so vast, complex, and orderly could have made itself?

6. There are an estimated 100-400 billion stars in the Milky Way Galaxy. The entire galaxy of stars rotates at a speed that will allow them to complete one revolution every 250 million years. They all stay in place like a giant cosmic Ferris Wheel.

a. What causes that to happen? Why don’t they collide? How much power do you think is required to drive this system?

b. Does that look like an intelligent design/system to you?

c. The sun (a small star) consumes 400-700 billion tons of hydrogen per second. Multiply that by 100-400 billion (the number of stars in our galaxy, then by the trillions of other galaxies also revolving in place). Where did it all come from?

Exposing the denial, the hypocrisy, the illogical and irrational “thinking “of atheists:

1. The moral relativist (atheist) says, “Everything is relative; there are no absolutes.” Isn’t saying “All things are relative” an absolute statement?

2. Is that a contradiction? So then, that is a false statement. Isn’t that true?

3. When you say, “It’s wrong for you to impose your morals on me,” aren’t you trying to impose your morals on me by saying that?

4.How about this one, “There is no such thing as right or wrong.” Is that right or wrong?

5. Here’s another good one. “All truth is a matter of one’s own opinion, just like I prefer chocolate over vanilla.” That is subjective and appropriate for personal preferences like food. But that same rationale breaks down when applied to objective truth such as morality.

6. You cannot say, “That was a wonderful dinner party,” and in the same breath, speaking of Hitler’s murdering six million innocent people, say, “That was a wonderful holocaust. Let’s do it again soon!”

7.  The relativist would argue, “Everybody can believe whatever he wants!” Why then are they trying to get us to believe what they want?

8. The relativist claims that everyone should be free to do whatever he pleases. Ask that same person how he feels if someone cuts in line in front of him.

9. Suppose the relativist comes home to find his home has been burglarized, his wife and children have been beaten, raped, and then murdered. Do you think you would hear, “Oh well, who am I to impose my views on this person? Tolerance is what we need here. His views on robbery, rape, and murder are just as valid as mine?”

10. How about philosophers who read books that say life has no meaning. Are these books meaningful?

11. How can college professors tell their students, “There are no absolutes when it comes to right and wrong,” and then turn around and grade their papers? Whose standard will they use to determine my grade, his or mine?

12. If there is no such thing as absolute moral truth, would you mind if your spouse was relatively faithful?

13. Would it bother you if your bank statements were relatively accurate?

 Section #2 Morality

This section is under construction

  1. Have you ever told a lie?
  2. How many lies do you think you have told in your life?
  3. What would happen to our world if everyone always told the truth starting tomorrow?
  4. Have you ever stolen anything?
  5. If they answer no…Have you ever wasted time at work? Is that not a form of stealing from your employer? So, have you ever stolen anything?
  6. What would happen to our world if everyone stopped stealing tomorrow?
  7. Have you ever looked at a woman other than your wife and lusted after her?
  8. Is it wrong to lie and steal and cheat?
  9. Do you think everyone knows it’s wrong to steal, lie and cheat?
  10. How is that possible and doesn’t that sound like an absolute standard of right and wrong that applies to all people? If everyone knows its wrong, why does everyone do it? The Bible calls it sin. Is it universal and true of all of us?
  11. Do you see you need of God’s forgiveness for the things you have done in secret?
  12. Do you know that the Bible says, that God is willing to forgive you because Jesus took the punishment you deserve so God could legally forgive you without compromising His justice?
  13. If there is no God, then there is no moral law. If there is no God, then life is meaningless and the world is an inexplicable riddle. But if you read the Bible and believe God, the history of the human race is satisfactorily explained. Does that make sense?
  14. Morality is absolutely true because God wrote the Ten Commandments on tablets of stone and on the heart of every man. How do you account for the fact that every man knows in his heart it is wrong to murder, it is wrong to steal, and it is wrong to lie?
  15. Every man knows it is wrong to have another man’s wife. That is universal, unchanging, indisputable, timeless,  absolute, moral truth. You know it’s true, I know you know it’s true, and God’s knows you know it’s true. Isn’t that true?
  16. 16. Why do all men die?

Section #3 Science

1. Try to imagine nothing exists. No earth, sun, moon, stars, or galaxies. There are no elements such as carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, or oxygen. No such things as time, space, or matter. No universe, no God, there is nothing! If there was ever a time when nothing but nothing existed, then what would exist now? 

a. There is one thing that all scientists, philosophers, and theologians agree on, and it’s this: you only have two choices: either God is eternal and uncreated, or matter is eternal and uncreated, right?

b. Einstein’s Theory of Relativity which is a mathematical equation (math being a perfect science) provided proof that the universe and time itself had a beginning. Since we know that nothing comes from nothing, what option does that leave you? 

c. Einstein’s discovery revealed that we live in a three-dimensional world–time, space and matter (which is energy). Interestingly, the Bible starts out, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”  In the beginning (that’s time), God created (that’s energy) the heavens (that’s space) and the earth (that’s matter). How do you suppose the Bible got that right? 

2. If the material universe is all that there is and all there ever will be as Carl Sagan claimed, then why is the material universe governed by immaterial laws?

a. Where did these laws (not suggestions) come from?

b. Don’t these laws show power, authority, design, and mathematical precision beyond anything man can conceive of?

 3How and when did life begin?

A. How do you know that?

B. What existed before that?

C. If at one time nothing existed, how could anything exist now?

D. Where did the chemicals come from for life to begin?

E. What are the odds of them coming together by chance to form life from non-living matter?

(F.Y.I. Using the laws of mathematical probability, the odds of the random assembly of genes, both physical and chemical, coming together for spontaneous generation to occur, is not within the realm of possibility.)

4. Do you believe in the resurrection of the dead?

A. Why not?

B. What is, spontaneous generation?

(F.Y.I. Spontaneous generation is the idea that living cells sprang spontaneously from non-living matter, something evolutionists must believe).

C. How is spontaneous generation significantly different from the idea of the resurrection of the dead?

D. Has spontaneous generation ever been observed in a laboratory?

E. What evidence do you have to support the idea of spontaneous generation?

F. Since spontaneous generation has never been observed in a laboratory, how can it be called a scientific fact?

G. Since it requires faith to believe that, how is that significantly different from religion?

H. If scientists ever were successful in producing a living cell from non-living matter, wouldn’t that only serve to confirm that intelligence was necessary to produce it?

5. Can you explain the differences between a hypothesis, a theory, and a scientific law?

(F.Y.I. A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation, but has not been proven. A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis when that hypothesis has been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to that law.) Some scientific laws, or “laws of nature,” include the law of gravity, the laws of motion, and the laws of thermodynamics.

6. Can you explain the difference between Micro-Evolution and Macro-Evolution?

A. What scientific evidence is there that Macro-Evolution has ever occurred?

B. Can you provide one observable example of macro-evolution occurring today?

C. Why don’t we see hundreds and even thousands of transitional forms of animals (or humans) walking around today?

D. If man evolved from apes, why do apes still exist?

E. Since Macro-Evolution has never been observed, how can it be taught as science?

7. What did Darwin say the fossil record would certainly reveal if his theory of Macro-Evolution were true?

         A. Isn’t it true that Darwin said, in essence, that his theory of Macro-Evolution would stand or fall on what the fossil record would show?

B. How do you account for the fact that there are virtually no fossils showing any intermediate forms?

C. Isn’t it true that the fossil record reveals fully formed kinds in their own right?

8. Can you explain the laws of thermodynamics?

(F.Y.I. Many atheists believe that matter and energy originated from nothing. The first law of thermodynamics states, “matter and energy are neither created nor destroyed.”)

According to Isaac Asimov, “Another way of stating the second law is: The universe is constantly becoming more disorderly.” According to the second law, energy could not be eternal, because the universe is running down like a clock.

9. Have the laws of thermodynamics ever been proven wrong?

A. How do you explain the clear contradiction between the laws of thermodynamics, which are among the most well-established laws of science, and the theory of  Macro-Evolution?

10.  What is energy?

A. Astronomers tell us that there are 100 billion galaxies in the “known universe,” and hundreds of billions of stars in each galaxy. According to the laws of thermodynamics, if energy can neither be created nor destroyed, where did all the energy in the universe come from?

11. Why is it that the vast majority of us die between the ages of 40 and 80, no matter where we live or what we eat?

A. If evolution were true, why don’t we see some people who live in relatively unpolluted areas living to be 200 to 300 years old?

12. What do we know about cells today that Darwin did not?

F.Y.I. Darwin believed that life could have originated by chance, in large part because he mistakenly believed that cells were very simple life forms.

A. So then, was Darwin correct in his assessment of the simplicity of cells?

B. Since Darwin was wrong about cells, which are the basic building blocks of life, how does that affect his theory of Macro-Evolution?

 13. “Logic and mathematics are abstract principles that have been discovered rather than invented. We cannot do science, communicate, or navigate this world without them. They appear to stand outside of nature to describe and measure it. As Albert Einstein said, “The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible.”

14. “What is the source of math and logic? The existence of this remarkably fine-tuned universe aside, how is it that we have these ‘languages of reality’ to so elegantly describe and interact with it?”

15. For more than 50 years, scientists from the S.E.T.I. program (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) have been using radio telescopes to send out radio signals across the universe, hoping to receive radio transmissions back. If these scientists ever received a radio signal with a pattern as simple as the musical notes from the children’s song, “Twinkle twinkle little star, how I wonder what you are,” they would unashamed, unabashedly, without fear or reservation, proudly announce to the world that they have positively identified intelligent life in outer space!

A repeated pattern that simple, coming from something or someone they have never seen, would rule out random chance because coded information requires intelligence.  Yet, these same scientists can look at the pattern found in a  cell’s DNA, knowing that within every cell there is a code with three billion bits of information that not only determine your genetic makeup, but continually instruct your cell’s behavior, then turn around and deny that this is the result of an intelligent designer. How do you account for that?

Be sure to check out our book, Answering Atheism With questions at:

16. Do you think this could be the “Missing Link?”

Once I was a tadpole begining to begin. Then I was a frog with my tail tucked in. Then I was a monkey in a bannana tree, now I'm a professor with a PhD.

Once I was a tadpole beginning to begin. Then I was a frog with my tail tucked in. Then I was a monkey in a banana tree, now I’m a professor with a Ph.D.

Atheists are not born they evolve

People are not born atheists, it is a conscience, and deliberate choice to become an atheist, just as one chooses to accept Christ. While some atheists may try to deny it, like it or not, atheism requires faith.  It is a belief system just as any other religion. The atheist has faith alone, through his intellect alone, that God does not exist.

When reasoning with an atheist, we must help them see the obvious fallacies inherent in their faith. Here is a great point from Ron Rhodes.

  • Some atheists categorically state that there is no God, and all atheists, by definition, believe it. And yet, this assertion is logically indefensible. A person would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say from his own pool of knowledge that there is no God. Only someone who is capable of being in all places at the same time – with a perfect knowledge of all that is in the universe – can make such a statement based on the facts. To put it another way, a person would have to be God in order to say there is no God.

Questions are better than answers when dealing with difficult and deceived people. So, a good question to ask is, “The Library of Congress has more than 70 million books most of which are were written by scholars and experts in their field of academics. What percentage of that information do you think you have in your mind?  Whatever there is you can follow-up with, “Do you think that God may exist outside of your knowledge and experience?” It’s a rhetorical question but wait for his answer. Then you can ask, “If I could show you that it is more rational to believe in God than in no God would you be willing to look at the evidence? If he says “No” then you can gently point out that it is his will, not his intellect that is the problem.

Another common excuse atheists use it the question of evil. “If God is good and all-powerful, why is there is so much evil in the world?” Many atheists like to use this but it does not work.

Ron Rhodes…

A good approach to an argument like this is to say something to this effect: “Since you brought up this issue, the burden lies on you to prove that evil actually exists in the world. So let me ask you: by what criteria do you judge some things to be evil and other things not to be evil? By what process do you distinguish evil from good?” The atheist may hedge and say: “I just know that some things are evil. It’s obvious.” Don’t accept such an evasive answer. Insist that he tell you how he knows that some things are evil. He must be forced to face the illogical foundation of his belief system.

After he struggles with this a few moments, point out to him that it is impossible to distinguish evil from good unless one has an infinite reference point which is absolutely good. Otherwise one is like a boat at sea on a cloudy night without a compass (i.e., there would be no way to distinguish north from south without the absolute reference point of the compass needle).

The infinite reference point for distinguishing good from evil can only be found in the person of God, for God alone can exhaust the definition of “absolutely good.” If God does not exist, then there are no moral absolutes by which one has the right to judge something (or someone) as being evil. More specifically, if God does not exist, there is no ultimate basis to judge the crimes of Hitler. Seen in this light, the reality of evil actually requires the existence of God, rather than disproving it.

At this point, the atheist may raise the objection that if God does in fact exist, then why hasn’t He dealt with the problem of evil in the world. You can disarm this objection by pointing out that God is dealing with the problem of evil but in a progressive way. The false assumption on the part of the atheist is that God’s only choice is to deal with evil all at once in a single act. God, however, is dealing with the problem of evil throughout all human history. One day in the future, Christ will return, strip power away from the wicked, and hold all men and women accountable for the things they did during their time on earth. Justice will ultimately prevail. Those who enter eternity without having trusted in Christ for salvation will understand just how effectively God has dealt with the problem of evil.

If the atheist responds that it shouldn’t take all of human history for an omnipotent God to solve the problem of evil, you might respond by saying: “Ok. Let’s do it your way. Hypothetically speaking, let’s say that at this very moment, God declared that all evil in the world will now simply cease to exist. Every human being on the planet – present company included – would simply vanish into oblivion. Would this solution be preferable to you?”

The atheist may argue that a better solution must surely be available. He may even suggest that God could have created man in such a way that man would never sin, thus avoiding evil altogether. This idea can be countered by pointing out that such a scenario would mean that man is no longer man. He would no longer have the capacity to make choices. This scenario would require that God create robots who act only in programmed ways.

If the atheist persists and says there must be a better solution to the problem of evil, suggest a simple test. Give him about five minutes to formulate a solution to the problem of evil that (1) does not destroy human freedom, or (2) cause God to violate His nature (e.g., His attributes of absolute holiness, justice, and mercy) in some way. After five minutes, ask him what he came up with. Don’t expect much of an answer.

Your goal, of course, is not simply to tear down the atheist’s belief system. After demonstrating some of the logical impossibilities of his claims, share with him some of the logical evidence for redemption in Jesus Christ, and the infinite benefits that it brings. Perhaps through your witness and prayers, his faith in atheism will be overturned by a newfound faith in Christ.

What Makes Atheism Irrational?

Three points:

  1. Why is there something rather than nothing? The material world exists. This is not an illusion. 

Q: Do you think the material world exists?

Q: Do you think the things that exist have always existed?

Q: What caused things to come into existence?

A: Only two possibilities, either something caused it or, nothing caused it. What do you think?

  1. The Problem of evil.

Q: What would be one of the most morally reprehensible act you can think of?

Q: When you say this is evil, are you describing the actions themselves, or, are you simply describing your own personal feelings about those actions, or, are you defining what your cultures point of view is?

  1. If they are describing their own personal point of view or, their own cultures point of view, then the objection to the problem of evil just disappeared.
  2. What they are doing that point is defining subjective evil not objective evil.

The argument of evil as an argument against God’s existence requires evil to be objective. For evil to be objective then good must be objective as well.

As an atheist where do you get objective morality, moral absolutes, moral laws, that have intrinsic value in a world where all that exists is time, space and matter?

You cannot have moral law without a moral lawgiver. How do you get “good” and “evil” “virtue” or, “vice” from biology?

How do you get “right” and “wrong” from genetic mutations and natural selection?

For evil to be a legitimate argument i.e., a real problem that affects us all, it must be objective evil, that is, independent, or, outside of the mind.

Subjective evil is dependent on the individual mind. It’s your opinion or the opinion of the group.

Evolution can only produce relativistic morality, and if relativism is true then there is no problem with evil because what is evil to you may not be evil to me.

Followed through to its logical conclusion, you would not be able to say that what Hitler did was wrong or, evil. In fact, Adolph believed what he was doing was right and good, by expediting the evolutionary process because he believed he was removing the weaker races.

  1. Consciousness cannot be accounted for in an atheistic worldview.
  1. Some think consciousness is an illusion.

Q: What is an illusion?

Q: Isn’t an illusion (like a mirage) when your consciousness is appeared to falsely?

Q: Can rocks have illusions?  Can an unconsciousness person have an illusion?

Q; If consciousness is having an illusion, is the illusion of having an illusion, and how would you know you were having one?

Illustration:   Student to the lecturer, “How do I know I even exist?” Lecturer, “Whom shall I say is asking?”

Picture your mother washing dishes at the kitchen sink.  What color was her hair? Was she doing them by hand or loading them in the dishwasher?

How about guilt? Have you ever felt guilty?

The solution is repentance and forgiveness.

That is why Christianity is the most logical and satisfying answer to the ultimate question.

Now, where was your mother just now? Was she in your brain? No. If we cut open your brain would we see your mother in there?

When an atheist speaks on matters of morality from his own worldview, in order for his argument to make sense he must borrow from the Biblical worldview.  And that is because he lives in God’s world and doesn’t even know it.  And ultimately his argument is a complete contradiction.  Take Richard Dawkins as an example.  He is the famous British evolutionist atheist from Oxford University.  His atheism forces him to say that there is no such thing as an absolute standard of morality.  And under very next page he is telling us how immoral God is.  He says God is a sadomasochistic, homophobic, anti-woman, a cosmic bully, and an ethnic cleanser etc.  Where does he get that from?  None of these accusations of God being immoral make sense in an amoral atheist worldview.  If there is no morality how can you deny the existence of God on the basis of morality?

Objective reality and morality can only come from a Biblical worldview something he says does not exist.  So here we have Richard Dawkins living in a contradiction.  Any thinking person can look at the real world and realize that if something is evil then there must be something good to measure it by.

The atheist who refuses to believe in God on the basis that God is immoral yet says there is no morality is a walking contradiction and he does not even realize it not because he can’t see it, it’s because he won’t see it. He can’t see the forest because of the trees.

Plants produce plants. Plants cannot become animals.  Animals produce animals, they cannot become men.  Humans produce humans. Man cannot become God.

Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. ”