One of the claims of atheism is that it is a return to mother nature, i.e. it tries to reconnect man with Nature. But this claim is not true, because on what scientific and logical basis it was assumed that connecting with nature leads to atheism and denying the existence of God? What is the evidence for that?


Also, human beings are part of nature, and I don’t think atheism says that humans aren't part of nature! All those people have religions, and intuitively know of the existence of god, they differed in the kind and number of gods but they agreed in His existence, and atheism is an exception of the rule, excluded from human nature. 


Besides, the human mind is part of human beings, i.e. part of nature, and man's natural mind also intuitively knows that for each created there is a creator. Atheism, however, opposes that with no conclusive evidence from nature itself, and this is an unnatural position.


Moreover, why does atheism like changing nature by allowing to manipulate its laws in the name of science and gaining control? This is what Transhumanism propagates which is an atheistic doctrine. And why does Atheism waves the slogan of Man's victory over nature? Which is represented by Nietzsche's atheist superman who will overcome nature and become a god.


Human emotions, aren't they part of nature? They are the immaterial nature of Man in contrast to his material nature (body). Why does atheism oppresse the human feelings and doesn’t consider them proof of anything? It doesn’t even admit that the human emotion is independent and not even admit its existence! And its place is given to the mind and science. Atheism is even proud of overcoming feelings in the name of rationality, and that is an opposition to nature. Where is, then, the respect for nature and the desire to connect with it as atheism claims? It's just a way to pass unnoticed into the minds of people by misusing people's love of nature.


If atheism were the only method to fellow on earth, it would be, according to what is mentioned above, enough to ruin Earth, the environment, nature and human beings. Because it doesn’t respect nature's structure and laws and aspires to alter it. Atheism wants to rip apart the material nature, and the moral nature of humanity and yet it keeps claiming itself to be a natural position!

Which one really is wanted to go to the other: the atheist to nature or nature to the atheist who carries Nietzsche's desires?


Homosexuality isn’t found in nature because it has no purpose, and yet atheism defends it in the name of freedom. Also drugs and alcohol aren't part of Man's nature, they are artificial and poisonous, i.e. not natural, and the human body doesn’t need them as nutrition and they are harmful to it, but atheism sees no problem with them, it even encourages using them, as one of thousands of oppositions to nature from atheism.


Also, world literature since the beginning of history is centered around mainly on two major themes: God and Love. And both of them are denied by atheism because they are not susceptible for science labs.


One of man's genuine natural characteristics is the especial care given to values and morality. Atheism, however, wants interests to be ahead of morality, contrary to human nature, and doesn’t not admit morals as absolute facts.


Atheism wants to make up a forged history for nature, that serves atheism more than the truth, as in the unnatural and unscientific evolution theory. Atheism presents nature different than what it really is, and wants us to believe that bulls suddenly jumped into the sea and became whales! And fishes evolved to be humans. If we believe in that then we should believe in the myth of the mermaid as a missing link as its half fish - half human!

Atheism advocates struggle and tries to found it in nature, advocating power and Capitalism as a consequence, even though struggle isn’t dominant in nature, it's harmony and submission to the laws of nature that is dominant. The human nature hates fighting, it loves peace and harmony. Struggle destroys nature, look what wars did in the environment and living beings, things balance with each other, not struggle with each other. Atheism tries to depict that water is struggling with the soil, while it is actually consistent with the heights and swags of the earth.

Atheism distorted the true image of science and nature because of the idea of randomness, even though nature is built on order, else science would not exist, because science is a record of nature's order and laws.

Atheism is actually an enemy to nature




We do not live in matter, we live in our vision of it. Else we would have known matter instinctively. We live through our vision of the world, and this vision is immaterial. Matter, however, is existent, but that doesn't mean we are merely matter as Materialists claim. 

If we humans were originally material we wouldn’t need to study the laws of matter. We don’t study the laws of feelings; we instinctively know beauty, but we don’t instinctively know chemistry or geometry. This proves that we live in the realm of the soul not in the realm of matter. Everyone knows what is sad or funny without having to be given an introductory course in the comedy theater for example. But no one knows the components of the simple matter in front of them except through difficult study of physics. Even though if the causes of laughter are studied they would become a difficult science, how about the rest of moral, mental and psychological phenomena that everyone knows easily?

We are not products of matter, our minds are not evolved from matter even if we have material neurology. The nervous system is only a channel connecting our moral (immaterial) existence with our material existence.

It is a quite sufficient proof for this that man knows their mood, feelings and emotions better than their body. Almost all people go to the physician, but a lot less see the psychiatrist, which reveals the difference of percentage on the scale of knowledge. If you are in a psychological pain you can often identify the problem, but you don’t know what is going on when you have a back pain or shortness of breath except through what the doctor told you, let alone knowing the cure. Your diagnosis for your emotional problem is easier than diagnosing your physical problem. For example, you know that you are suffering from feelings of alienation for sure, but you don’t know that you are suffering from a blockage in the gall bladder except through what you learned from the doctor, and the doctor knew through what the tests and symptoms showed him/her .