'Why I Am Not an Atheist' exposes incoherence of non-belief



Atheism likes to present itself as the adult in the room. Faith, by contrast, is cast as a childish indulgence for people afraid of the dark.

Christopher Beha’s "Why I Am Not an Atheist" examines this framing and demonstrates, with real precision, why atheism itself may be the most adolescent worldview of them all.

Atheism has a curious habit. It borrows Christian language — dignity, justice, compassion — while denying the metaphysical foundation that gives those words meaning.

This isn’t a book of defensive apologetics. Beha doesn’t hurl Scripture at doubters or claim that God can be demonstrated like a physics equation. Instead, he treats atheism as a coherent position and then tests it against reality. He walks its reasoning to its natural conclusion and reports back on the damage. What he finds there isn’t liberation but emptiness — sometimes dressed up as sophistication, sometimes as certainty, but emptiness all the same.

Godless

Beha’s journey begins in familiar territory. Like many sane, decent people, he wanted honesty. He wanted to “look the world frankly in the face,” to set aside inherited beliefs that, at that stage of his life, he believed couldn’t withstand scrutiny. God, to him, seemed unnecessary. Worse, He seemed embarrassing. Atheism, on the other hand, felt like intellectual courage.

Beha embraced the godless creed at first, wholeheartedly. But it didn’t take long for cracks to appear.

Rather than joining the professional atheist class — the permanently outraged and faintly condescending set, à la Harris and Dawkins, who mistake self-indulgence for insight — Beha asks a far riskier question: What replaces God once He’s gone? Not as a thought exercise, but in real life. In daily choices. In suffering. In death.

Here, the book begins to shine.

Motion and chaos

Beha identifies two dominant atheist positions. The first is scientific materialism, which holds that only what can be measured is real. Everything else — mind, love, conscience, beauty — is reduced to physical process. Choice becomes brain chemistry. Human life is explained as motion and chance, sorted into probabilities.

The second is a newer, trendier alternative: romantic idealism. Instead of reducing the world to atoms, it centers everything on the self. Meaning is something you create. Truth is something you feel. The highest good is authenticity, and the highest crime is judgment. God disappears, and the individual assumes His place.

Both, Beha argues, fail in opposite but equally revealing ways.

Materialism reduces the human person to a biological incident. Consciousness becomes a chemical glitch. Love becomes an evolutionary strategy. It is an impressively sterile system, one that explains everything except why anyone should bother getting out of bed.

Romantic idealism reacts against this coldness by putting the individual will on the throne. The view seems warmer, and perhaps it is, but it is still incoherent. If everyone creates meaning, meaning ceases to exist. If truth is personal, truth dissolves. The self becomes both king and casualty, crowned with responsibility and locked in solitude.

Between them, Beha shows, modern atheism swings between delusion and despair. That may explain why so many of its most visible champions — from Bill Maher to Ricky Gervais to Penn Jillette — sound less liberated than irritated. Atheism can take things apart, but it can’t hold them together.

RELATED: Did science just accidentally stumble upon what Christians already knew?

CSA-Printstock/Getty Images

Philosophical freeloading

What makes this critique effective is Beha’s refusal to hide behind abstractions. He doesn’t pretend that these systems fail only in theory. They fail in lived experience. They fail when existential angst arrives uninvited.

Atheism, Beha observes, has a curious habit. It borrows Christian language — dignity, justice, compassion — while denying the metaphysical foundation that gives those words meaning. It wants human rights without a human giver. What looks like intellectual bravery is closer to philosophical freeloading.

Beha is especially critical of the arrogance that often accompanies unbelief. Atheism flatters itself as fearless while demanding a strangely narrow universe — one small enough to fit inside a laboratory or a podcast episode. Anything that resists measurement is dismissed as childish. Transcendence is treated as something reserved for uncultured troglodytes.

Christianity, by contrast, has never sold comfort by making reality smaller. It doesn’t reduce the world to what feels manageable. It claims that meaning is real whether we want it or not, that God isn’t a projection of human wishes, and that right and wrong aren’t personal inventions. It doesn’t erase suffering. Instead, it meets it head-on. To be alive is to bear pain, and to bear pain is to be alive.

The way back

It is from within that hard-earned contrast — after years in the wilderness of unbelief — that Beha finds his way back, not to a vague faith, but to Christianity itself and finally to the Catholic Church. This isn’t a story of conquest. It’s an acknowledgment that atheism, however confident it sounds, left him more miserable and taught him to call that misery freedom — something he came to see clearly when his brother Jim nearly died in a car crash and later when he himself faced death with stage-three lymphoma.

Crucially, Beha isn’t arguing that faith banishes doubt. He would laugh at that idea. He remains a skeptic in the classical sense — aware of human limits, suspicious of tidy conclusions, allergic to ideological shortcuts. Faith, as he presents it, is the decision to live as though truth, goodness, and meaning are not clever hallucinations generated by neurons killing time.

For conservative Christians, "Why I Am Not an Atheist" matters because it doesn’t preach. It doesn’t wring its hands over secularism or bulldoze unbelievers. It does something far more damaging: It lets atheism talk, at length. Given enough space, its confidence begins to crack, its claims lose shape, and its bravado gives way to a worldview that can’t deliver what it promises. Atheism isn’t undone here by counterargument, but by relentless exposure.

In an age when disbelief markets itself as adulthood and faith as regression, Beha offers a bracing reversal. Atheism, he suggests, is a creed without the slightest bit of substance, built entirely on what it denies.

Christianity, whatever one’s denomination, remains the only worldview bold enough to say that life matters, suffering is not pointless, and belief answers to what is, not what we want.

New Atheists Like Sam Harris Have Nothing Meaningful To Offer Americans

A two-hour discussion between Sam Harris and Ross Douthat revealed just how much the world has changed since the rise of the New Atheists.

George Soros ADMITS he’s an atheist



When you hear the name George Soros, one of the words that comes to mind is “globalist.” However, despite his obvious intentions for the world, what few know is what truly fuels his ideology.

“You think ‘open borders,’ which is accurate, but that doesn’t actually describe what he believes. He’s been somewhat reticent to admit publicly what his beliefs are. And so, some people will be like, ‘Oh, he’s a communist. He’s a Marxist. He’s a socialist,’” BlazeTV host Liz Wheeler says on “The Liz Wheeler Show.”

“Well, not exactly. ... In a sense, it would be easier if he were because it would be easier to define and identify the various parts of his ideology and his work, but he’s not. So, what is he? Because globalism and open borders — that’s not really an end. That’s a means to an end,” she continues.

That’s why Wheeler has done a deep dive into Soros’ background, and in doing so she stumbled on a 1998 interview Soros did on “60 Minutes.”


“Are you religious?” the interviewer asked.

“No,” Soros replied.

“Do you believe in God?” the interviewer pressed further.

“No,” Soros again replied, short and quick.

“Soros told us he believes God was created by man, not the other way around, which may be why he thinks he can smooth out the world’s imperfections,” the interviewer narrated.

“So, not to sound preachy here, not to sound religious, but George Soros’ hatred of the United States and our norms and our traditions and our sovereignty is based on hatred of the foundational principles on which our country was built, that of God and Christianity,” Wheeler says.

“And isn’t this always the case? It’s always a hatred of God that motivates them. That’s why they killed Charlie,” she continues.

“They want to destroy all definitions of objective reality, because that is written by God. That’s natural law,” she adds. “That’s why they’re seething with hatred at the United States, because we’re built as a Christian nation to allow us to glorify God. That’s why they want to dehumanize us, because we are made in the image of God.”

Want more from Liz Wheeler?

To enjoy more of Liz’s based commentary, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Faith in the age of science: Why God still matters



Once an outspoken atheist, Stanford bioengineering professor Annelise Barron was deeply influenced by Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens — before rediscovering God through personal tragedy and the limits of science.

“I lost someone super close to me in a very shocking way to suicide two and a half years ago. And because he had killed himself, I suddenly became super anxious — like, is he in hell? You know, because this is what you vaguely hear, like, if you kill yourself, this is a cardinal sin,” Barron tells BlazeTV host Nicole Shanahan on “Back to the People.”

“So I started researching it and reading the Bible, and I just, you know, had an incredible revival of my own faith based on thinking about that question,” she explains.


And when Barron began hearing the testimonials of other believers who survived tragic circumstances that science couldn’t explain, her faith deepened further.

“What’s astonishing is, like, from one moment to the next, if you ask for help in a sincere way, you ask for healing, it can be given. And whether it’s an addiction or a disease or, you know, a habit that you’re not happy with — so I am just 100% certain that God is real and that He does love each one of us,” Barron tells Shanahan.

“All He wants from us is to be in closer relationship with Him. And I think it’s extraordinary how that can help your personal happiness,” she adds.

Shanahan couldn’t agree more, explaining that the healing she’s “found in full faith of Jesus as savior” can’t be replicated “through any other bioengineered mechanism.”

“I believe that,” Barron agrees.

Want more from Nicole Shanahan?

To enjoy more of Nicole's compelling blend of empathy, curiosity, and enlightenment, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Charlie Kirk's murder proves why atheism is a complete failure



Why is human life valuable?

Alex O’Connor, an online atheist whose popularity has skyrocketed in recent years, recently said this: “I call myself an ethical emotivist, by which I mean that I think ethical statements — statements like ‘Murder is wrong’, ‘Charity is good’, or ‘You shouldn’t steal’ — are expressions of emotional attitudes, and nothing more. They are not objective truth-claims.”

What Christianity provides, and atheism lacks, is an objective standard that can be universally held up to defend human life.

O’Connor, by all accounts, is an upstanding member of society. Not only does he not kill or steal, but he has become famous for treating his debate opponents with respect, especially in comparison to famous atheist polemicists like Christopher Hitchens. He should be applauded for that.

But in his morally relativistic view, human life is only as valuable as his emotions, or anyone else’s emotions, permit.

Tyler Robinson, the alleged assassin of Charlie Kirk, had a very different set of emotions from Alex O’Connor. Whatever respect O’Connor subjectively chooses to show for human beings, Robinson allegedly chose the opposite. Robinson allegedly believed — subjectively — that the value of human life ended where his political resentments began.

If you’re Alex O’Connor, what would you say to a political assassin? How would you convince him that he’s wrong to devalue human life?

Objectively, you couldn’t. Because O’Connor doesn’t think the statement “human life has value” is objectively true, but rather a matter of personal tastes. Even if he personally finds Robinson’s alleged views and actions repugnant, he couldn’t point to any objective standard to justify that.

The trouble with atheism isn’t that atheists personally live immoral lives. Everyone has met atheists who are good spouses, good parents, and good citizens. The problem is that atheism can't provide an objective defense to the proposition that all human life should be valued by everybody all the time.

According to atheist Richard Dawkins, “We are survival machines — robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes.”

People discard machines routinely without any thought at all — laptops, phones, iPads, cars, and many other things. Drive down to the local junkyard and look at the decaying and forgotten corpses of old Toyota Camrys. No one mourns them, no one gave them a funeral, no one had moral qualms about throwing them away.

If Dawkins’ description of human beings as “survival machines” and “robot vehicles blindly programmed” is accurate, then why would human beings be any different from those Toyota Camrys?

Atheism has no answer to that question — but Christianity does.

RELATED: Why atheism can't explain the one thing that matters

AlessandroPhoto/iStock/Getty Images Plus

In his landmark work "Theology of the Body," Pope John Paul II said this:

Man, whom God created male and female, bears the divine image imprinted on his body "from the beginning."

This is a restatement of Genesis 1:26, which is the foundation of Christian anthropology. In this verse, God declares: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” Man has objective dignity because man bears the divine image.

Romans 5:8 goes on to say: “But God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us.” This shows that even serious moral failings do not eliminate the objective dignity of a human being.

"Dignitas Infinita," a Vatican document released in 2024 and approved by Pope Francis, further states that “every human person possesses an infinite dignity, inalienably grounded in his or her very being, which prevails in and beyond every circumstance, state, or situation the person may ever encounter.”

If Christianity is true, then God is the author of truth itself. And if God is the author of truth itself, and he has assigned infinite dignity to all human beings, then that dignity is a universal truth not dependent on the emotions or whims of any person.

Of course, this does not guarantee that Christians will live by that. Many so-called Christians have warped ideas of what their faith demands. Some use it as a cloak for their political ideology. Vance Boelter, who allegedly murdered former Minnesota Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, seemingly had no respect for human life.

But what Christianity provides, and atheism lacks, is an objective standard that can be universally held up to defend human life against anyone who threatens it. It provides an objective way to say “Tyler Robinson is wrong,” instead of “I personally don’t like what Tyler Robinson [allegedly] did.”

This matters deeply at the societal level, and the data bears it out.

According to Pew Research, in 1972, 90% of U.S. adults identified as Christians, while 5% identified as religiously unaffiliated. By 2022, the percentage of Christians had shrunk to 63% while the religiously unaffiliated percentage had risen to 29%. This is mirrored in other Western countries, often even more precipitously: 90% of Canadians in 1971 identified as Christian, according to census data, with only 4% identifying as non-religious. By 2021, the Christian percentage was just 52% and the non-religious percentage had risen to 34%.

Of course, “religiously unaffiliated” or “non-religious” are nebulous terms that might not refer to atheism in the strictest sense, but at best, they refer to a vague and subjective worldview that, like atheism, allows for someone to assign his own subjective morality, or lack thereof.

The effects of this shift can be seen with the explosion of abortions in the U.S. that coincided with the acceleration of secularism in the 1970s and 1980s. According to the Guttmacher Institute, abortions skyrocketed from 744,000 in 1973, the year Roe v. Wade was handed down, to a peak of 1.6 million in 1990, and to this day they remain well above the 1973 levels, though they have mercifully declined in recent years.

Euthanasia has gained immense popularity in the secular age as well. A horrifying report in the Atlantic — hardly a conservative publication — described how Canadians of all walks of life are requesting doctors to kill them in order to end some form of physical or emotional suffering they are experiencing.

In fact, under Canada’s euthanasia law, mental illness alone will be sufficient for eligibility by 2027 to terminate one’s own life with the help of doctors.

Mass shootings have dramatically increased as secularism has spread. While humans have been killing each other since the fall of man, such killing has usually had a clear motive of some kind: defeating another nation in battle or seeking some form of regime change.

Mass shootings, however, represent a nihilistic form of violence apparently driven by narcissism that has no clear precedent in human history. According to the Violence Project, there were only five mass shootings between 1965 and 1969, but that number rose to 33 between 2015 and 2019 — a shocking increase of over 600%.

Nearly everyone condemns mass shootings, though unfortunately, the same cannot be said about abortion or euthanasia.

But in an atheistic paradigm, can that condemnation be based on anything other than personal emotions, as O’Connor admits his opposition to murder is based on?

RELATED: How the godless elite let the truth slip about atheism

Viktor Aheiev/iStock/Getty Images Plus

As people increasingly treat the value of human life as subjective, consistent with O’Connor’s “emotivist” view, it seems that more and more people are willing to subjectively insert exceptions into their worldview — situations where life can, in fact, be discarded like an old Toyota Camry.

Does this prove Christianity? Not by itself. Just because something would be helpful if it were true doesn’t mean it’s true.

But at the very least, it should make people open to hearing the arguments for Christianity. It should make people want it to be true, and it should move them to investigate the evidence for why it might be. Many people dislike religion and plug their ears when the topic comes up. But the alternative is too dark to just casually accept without any consideration.

Why is human life valuable? In today’s chaotic age, a subjective answer to that question is simply not enough.

Science's God-denying narrative just got crushed again



Scientists have made a discovery that should shake the foundations of modern biology.

When organisms die, some of their cells might not simply shut off like light bulbs. Instead, they reorganize, build new structures, solve problems, and make decisions. These researchers call it a “third state” of existence.

Once you accept that life itself shows signs of intention, you must also acknowledge that there is an Intender.

But to anyone steeped in Christian thought, it sounds less like a new scientific category and more like an old truth, a glimpse of the life that refuses to be reduced to chemicals and chance.

Mind in matter

Consider the strange case of xenobots, tiny clusters of frog cells lifted from their natural role and placed in a lab dish. They were expected to wither.

Instead, they began to move, formed patterns, and worked together in ways that showed clear intention.

Dr. William Miller calls this consciousness. Not the kind of awareness you and I possess, but the raw ability to adapt, to choose, to pursue a purpose. When placed outside their usual role, cells don’t behave like blind molecules colliding at random. They behave like agents. They cooperate. They solve problems. They move toward goals.

That fact alone shatters one of materialism’s deepest dogmas.

The evolution lie

For more than a century, the reigning narrative has been that consciousness is a late arrival on the evolutionary stage. It's nothing more than an accidental byproduct of brain complexity, born only after countless mutations stumbled into neurons, then into networks, then into awareness.

The atheist worldview depends on this sequence. It argues that life has no inherent meaning because what we call “mind” is simply chemistry scaled up. In this view, free will is an illusion generated by firing synapses.

But these cells expose the lie of that story.

If consciousness exists at the cellular level, then it doesn’t wait for brains. It doesn’t emerge as a lucky accident after billions of years of trial and error. It’s present from the beginning, written into life at its smallest scale.

That flips the entire evolutionary tale on its head. Instead of matter groping toward mind, we see mind animating matter. Instead of dead particles producing life, we see life infused with purpose at the very first step.

The intender revealed

What if mind, not matter, is primary? This is a profoundly important question, one that doesn’t just challenge the materialist narrative but annihilates it. Once you accept that life itself shows signs of intention, you must also acknowledge that there is an Intender.

The real shock is that these cells don’t compete; they collaborate. They don’t claw for survival but sacrifice for a greater whole. Every one of the 30 trillion cells in your body could, in theory, serve itself — yet they don’t. They choose unity. Skin cells shield. Heart cells pump. Brain cells think. All of them working in harmony with no central command.

RELATED: The Dawkins delusion: Why atheism can't explain the one thing that matters

vchal/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Random mutation cannot account for this. Natural selection doesn’t explain why self-interest gives way to selflessness billions of times a day inside your body. Something is directing the orchestra.

And consider the scale of the information problem. DNA contains more information than our minds could possibly fathom. Cellular machinery reads, copies, and executes these instructions with astonishing speed and near-perfect accuracy, millions of times every second. Our best computers look painfully clumsy beside such precision.

Materialists insist that this miracle of information arranged itself over billions of years. But information doesn’t just organize itself. A letter always points back to an author, a painting to a painter, and a symphony to a composer.

God's living code

The xenobot research confirms this reality. It's what some scientists call “biological agency.” And where does this awareness come from? Scientists can describe what it does, but not where it begins. They can measure its effects, but not locate its source.

Christianity, on the other hand, has always given the only coherent answer: Consciousness originates in God, the eternal, self-existent Being who imprinted His image on creation, a God who designed life not as machinery but as community.

The Bible says humans are made in God’s image, reflecting His consciousness, His creativity, His moral compass. What Miller and others are now uncovering is that this reflection stretches deeper than we imagined. Every cell of your body participates in it. Right now, as you read these words, trillions of cells are making choices, collaborating without rest, preserving your existence.

Some might view this as a fortunate accident, another curious quirk in the endless lottery of evolution.

But randomness doesn’t yield purpose. Blind collisions don’t generate systems that adapt, collaborate, and surrender for one another with unfailing order. What we see isn’t chaos but choreography, not accident but authorship.

I see it as divine purpose. The God signal has been there all along, humming beneath the fabric of life. And now even the microscopes are beginning to see it: design in the details, direction in the data, destiny in the DNA.

Lee Strobel’s top supernatural stories to challenge your atheist friends



Atheists believe the universe is made up of only physical material. Souls, spirits, divinity, the afterlife — it’s all fiction.

But how do they reckon with phenomena — those hair-raising moments that shatter physics and turn our brains inside out? How do they make sense of miracles, like the terminal cancer patient who’s healed after prayer or the clinically dead person who wakes up with knowledge impossible for him to have?

The hardened skeptics will clutch their materialist beliefs even tighter, insisting there must be some scientific explanation. The more curious ones who allow themselves to venture down mystical rabbit holes, however, often find themselves in the position where disavowing the supernatural takes more effort than acknowledging its existence.

That was Lee Strobel — famous Christian apologist and author of the beloved book “The Case for Christ.” He set out to debunk Christianity, but his rigorous investigation into miracles and the veracity of biblical claims shattered his atheist beliefs and led him to the feet of Jesus.

In this fascinating interview with Glenn Beck, Lee shares several documented cases of miracles and wild stories that will challenge even the most committed atheist.

Proof of the soul

“There are 900 scholarly articles published in peer-reviewed medical and scientific journals over the last 40 years on the topic of near-death experiences. These are cases where a person is clinically dead — generally, no brain waves, no respiration, no heartbeat. Some of them have been on the way to the morgue. ... But then they’re revived,” Lee says.

“And when they come back, they say, ‘I was conscious the whole time. I was watching them try to resuscitate my body in the hospital.”’

Glenn and Lee revisit the spine-chilling story of a Hispanic woman named Maria, who suffered a severe heart attack in the 1970s and was resuscitated at a hospital in Seattle. When she regained consciousness, Maria reported having an out-of-body experience, claiming her spirit floated around the emergency room while she was being operated on.

Skeptics dismissed her initially, but then Maria told them there was a sticker on the top of the ceiling fan blade in her hospital room — a detail invisible from the ground. Hospital staff brought in a ladder and beheld the sticker exactly as Maria had described it.

Lee shares another story of a young girl who drowned in a YMCA swimming pool.

“[The doctors] just were keeping her body basically alive until they figured out what to do,” he says.

But three days later, she was miraculously revived. She told hospital staff that she was “conscious the whole time,” Lee recounts. But they scoffed at the girl until she began sharing confirmed details about what her parents were doing at home while she was clinically dead in the hospital.

The girl knew that her mother made chicken and rice for dinner; she knew what specific clothes her family was wearing and that her little brother had played with his G.I. Joe toys while alone in his room — “things she could not have known unless her body, unless her spirit really did follow them home.”

Documented miracles

In his recent book “Seeing the Supernatural,” Lee shares the story of a woman who was blind from birth due to an incurable condition.

“She married a pastor. And one night they’re getting ready to go to bed, and he comes over. ... He puts his hand on her shoulder, and he begins to cry and begins to pray, and he says, ‘God, I know you can heal my wife. I know you can do it, and I pray you do it tonight.’ And with that, she opened her eyes with perfect eyesight,” Lee says, adding that her vision was perfect for the remainder of her life.

“How do you explain that?” he asks.

He then shares another “well-documented case” of a woman named Doris, who had a deathbed vision.

“She sees the heavens open up, and she sees angelic beings, and she sees her father, who had died a couple years earlier. ... And then she gets this puzzled look on her face, and she said, ‘Wait a minute. What’s Vita doing there?”’ Lee recounts.

Vita was Doris’ sister, who had died a couple of weeks earlier. However, Doris’ family hadn’t told her the news for fear that it would worsen her waning condition.

Doris is one of many documented cases of people who “see something in the realm to come that they could not have known about.”

Radical redemption

Evel Knievel — the American daredevil and stunt performer famous for his death-defying motorcycle jumps in the 1960s and 1970s — radically encountered God at the very end of his life.

“He was a drunk. He was a womanizer and once beat up a business associate with a baseball bat and went to jail for assault,” Lee says, retelling the icon’s incredible conversion story.

Just a few months before his death, Knievel was “on the beach in Florida, and God spoke to him and said, ‘Robert ... I’ve saved you more times than you’ll ever know. Now, you need to come to me through my son, Jesus.”’

Freaked out by this profound spiritual encounter, Knievel called Frank Gifford, a renowned sportscaster and Christian, to ask about Jesus and Christianity. Gifford pointed him to Lee’s famous book “The Case for Christ,” and he came to faith in Jesus after reading it.

Knievel had a “180-degree change — more than anybody I’d ever seen in my life,” Lee says, noting that he and Knievel became friends as a result.

He was baptized in California’s Crystal Cathedral, and after he gave his powerful testimony, roughly 700 people spontaneously came forward to be baptized during the same service.

Angelic and demonic encounters

Well-known psychiatrist Dr. Richard Gallagher, who’s also a professor of psychiatry at New York Medical College and a psychoanalyst on the faculty of Columbia University, has a hair-raising story about his first demon encounter that set him on a 25-year journey of studying the demonic.

He and his wife had two cats, who had never had an issue getting along with one another. One night, however, they randomly began to savagely attack each other, shocking Gallagher and his wife, who had to put the cats in separate rooms to stop the fighting.

The very next morning, Dr. Gallagher had an appointment to psychiatrically examine a woman named Julia, who claimed to be the high priestess of a satanic cult.

“She looks up at him, and she sneers, and she says, ‘How’d you like those cats last night?’” Lee says.

Later that day, Dr. Gallagher was speaking to a Catholic priest about Julia on the phone, and during their call, a “satanic voice” interrupted and said, “You let her go. She’s ours.”

After years of studying the demonic, Dr. Gallagher has accumulated many terrifying stories of demon possession. He’s documented a case where “a petite woman ... picked up a 217-pound Lutheran deacon and threw him across a room” and a case where “eight eyewitnesses saw a demon-possessed person levitate off a bed for half an hour.”

But there are just as many stories of angelic encounters too. One, which was documented in a doctoral dissertation, tells the story of a young girl in the hospital asking her mother if she could see the angels. “They’re so beautiful. Listen to their singing,” she told her mother, who was skeptical but played along.

“Oh, yeah, yeah, I see them. Look at their big wings,” she told her daughter, who confusedly responded, “Oh Mommy, you don’t have to lie. They don’t have big wings.”

“She went on to describe these angels in great detail. You would think if this was just something coming from the subconscious mind of a little kid, they would imagine what an angel would look like to them from a cartoon,” Lee says, but “that’s not what they see.”

To hear more documented cases of miraculous occurrences, as well as Glenn and Lee’s personal experiences with the supernatural, watch the interview above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Dawkins delusion: Why atheism can't explain the one thing that matters



Consciousness is the ultimate wonder and the deepest mystery — even for the devout. Not dark matter or quantum mechanics, but the fact that you are reading these words, that there is something it feels like to be you.

Believers may affirm that God made man in His image, and I agree, yet the question remains: Why should dust, shaped by divine hands, open its eyes and know itself? Why breathe into us not only life, but the inner life — the hidden sanctuary where thought, memory, and prayer rise and take flight?

The mystery matter can't master

Scientists can catalogue every neuron. They can trace every chemical cascade and chart every flicker of electricity racing through the brain. They can build diagrams so precise you could almost mistake them for the thing itself.

Yet none of it explains the one detail that matters most — that there is an inside.

That matter, when shaped in a certain way, suddenly gazes back at the universe and says, “I am.” Perception isn’t just the processing of inputs. It’s the lived immediacy of them: the taste of coffee, the ache of loss, the terror before a fall. These are realities experienced, not merely computed.

Some argue this is a puzzle that can be solved. All we need is more funding, more computational power, and more time, the argument goes.

What nonsense.

Disdain and disbelief cannot erase the fact that to be aware is to stand in a place where the finite brushes the infinite.

The answer, it turns out, has been staring at us all along. Consciousness isn’t an accident of biology. It’s a fundamental part of reality, present before the first atom came to be. Matter doesn’t simply wake up by chance. It’s animated by something older, deeper, and impossible to quantify.

Call it spirit. Call it soul. Call it God.

The Dawkins delusion

For the Richard Dawkinses of this world — those allergic to religion — “God” sounds like a convenient escape hatch, a quick patch over the gaps in our understanding.

Yet the theological view is anything but a shortcut. It doesn’t merely declare, “God made man and switched on the lights.” It suggests that the light itself — the act of knowing — is the purpose. Awareness is the link between dust and divinity, binding the created to the Creator.

In other words, consciousness is no evolutionary afterthought but the central drama of existence, the stage on which heaven and earth meet within the human soul.

RELATED: Richard Dawkins' atheism collides with reality

francescoch/iStock/Getty Images Plus

This changes everything.

If awareness is fundamental, then the mind is not just an observer of the universe. It is a participant in it, a co-creator. The inner life becomes more than a collection of survival tricks honed by natural selection. It becomes the very arena in which the material and the divine meet.

Every moment of thought, every flicker of self-recognition, is a point of contact with something infinite.

That idea unsettles people because it shifts responsibility onto each conscious being. If awareness is a sacred link — which it is — then how we use it carries weight beyond anything science can quantify. The ethics of thought, intention, and attention move to the center. A life squandered in distraction or cruelty becomes much more than a personal failure.

In this view, it becomes the misuse of something unimaginably rare.

The sacred spark

Even our most advanced machines make the contrast clear.

They can mimic conversation, create art, and solve problems at rapid speeds, yet they remain completely vacant. There is no inner witness, no “I” behind the code. Their outputs may dazzle, but no one is there to be moved, to care, to suffer, or to rejoice. Set beside a single conscious breath, a single human glance, the difference is profound. And perhaps that’s the point. Consciousness is not about speed or efficiency. It is about relationship — between mind and world, self and other, creature and Creator.

For centuries, Christian mystics have spoken of the soul as a mirror made to catch and reflect the light of God.

Teresa of Ávila wrote of the “interior castle” with its deepest chamber reserved for union with Christ. John of the Cross spoke of stripping away every lesser light until only God’s radiance remained. The German theologian Meister Eckhart called it the “spark of the soul,” a place untouched by sin where God’s presence burns brightest.

In their eyes, consciousness isn’t a random flicker of awareness. It's the faculty by which the creature knows the Creator, the meeting place of heaven and earth within the human heart.

We are alive because He willed it, aware because He designed our awareness, and we are lit from within by His light.

Modern science has given us remarkable tools to study the mechanisms of the mind, but the mechanism is not the mystery. The circuitry is not the song. You can dismantle a radio and never hear the music that once flowed through it. Likewise, you can map the brain and never touch the consciousness that animates it.

That gap — the chasm between matter in motion and the breath of being — is where the divine dwells.

Conscious by creation

We live in an age that prefers to compress the mystery into whatever measurements our tools can take. It's the spirit of 2025, an era when meaning is traded for metrics and a culture drifting toward nihilism mistakes data for doctrine.

But we must let the mystery magnify us and let it widen our grasp of what it means to be alive. Consciousness is a bridge between two eternities — the dust God shaped us from and the divinity that calls us home. To stand in the middle is to bear the weight of the world and feel the pull of the world that awaits.

Atheists will no doubt roll their eyes, but the reality remains: Disdain and disbelief cannot erase the fact that to be aware is to stand in a place where the finite brushes the infinite.

We are not bystanders in God’s creation. We move through it as participants, shaping its story as it shapes us. We are alive because He willed it, aware because He designed our awareness, and we are lit from within by His light.

Every thought, every act of attention, every choice is a line in the ongoing dialogue between Creator and created, a conversation that will echo into eternity.

Was 'Scooby-Doo' actually atheist propaganda for children?



Does "Scooby-Doo" teach children the core philosophical tenets of atheism?

I recently saw an atheist claim that "Scooby-Doo" was created to teach children about rationality and skepticism because every episode begins with a supernatural event — like a haunting ghost and unexplained phenomena — and ends with a "natural explanation" (i.e., it's just a person in a mask).

I saw this claim on Reddit:

I just realized scooby-doo was made to teach kids skepticism and rationality

Suddenly it makes sense why my ultra religious mother ended up forbidding me from watching it as a kid. Last night, it suddenly occurred to me based on what I could vaguely recall about the show before I was banned from it that every episode was about something supernatural happening and then getting proven to have a non-supernatural cause. I looked it up and it turns out that was exactly the case.

This argument got me thinking and raised two important questions:

  1. Is "Scooby-Doo" naturalist propaganda for children?
  2. How strongly does the plot of a generic "Scooby-Doo" episode bolster the argument for naturalism?

Subversive Scooby

When you stop and think about it, "Scooby-Doo" is actually kind of subversive.

It teaches children that whenever we think something is supernatural, it really just has a natural explanation. It drills into young minds that the right answer is always the non-supernatural one. The ghosts are never real, the curses are always fake, and the monsters are just people in costumes.

There's always a natural explanation. And by reinforcing this idea over and over, it teaches children that believing anything supernatural is irrational.

God isn’t one more cause among the many other causes in the universe. He’s not just another thing pushing particles around.

"Scooby-Doo" is not a neutral show. It's naturalistic indoctrination.

And here's why that's a problem: The argument that “every time we investigate, we find a natural explanation, so everything must have a natural explanation" is the same argument atheists use to claim that God isn't real.

Fatal flaw

The subversive argument of the "Scooby-Doo" plot is not only a problem because it's the same one that atheists use, but it's a problem because it's not a good argument.

In fact, it's a really bad one.

First, even if you grant for the sake of argument that a natural explanation is found on the other side of a supernatural cause, it doesn't require that all explanations are natural. That's just logically invalid. It's like saying, "All the swans I’ve seen are white; therefore all swans must be white," or, "Every time I walk into a house, I see carpet; therefore all houses have carpet."

These are inductive overreaches. It’s completely fallacious reasoning. Still, there's an even deeper problem.

RELATED: How Joe Rogan dismantled the Big Bang with one sentence — and made atheists squirm

ra2studio/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Atheists believe that if God existed, then we should be able to see him directly intervening in the world in a visible, testable way. They think that if we hear a weird sound in the attic, we should be able to climb up there and find God directly causing the sound.

But this is a bizarre line of logic, because that's not how God is understood in theism. God isn’t one more cause among the many other causes in the universe. He’s not just another thing pushing particles around. Instead, God is the one who makes the whole universe possible in the first place.

Worldmaker

Consider J.R.R. Tolkien. When you read "The Lord of the Rings," you don't see Tolkien himself in the story. Rather, you see Frodo walking to Mordor, Gandalf giving advice, and Aragorn being born from parents. You’d never see Tolkien manipulating Middle-earth — he’s nowhere to be seen.

If you lived in that world, you might think based on your experience that everything was caused by something else in that world. The characters have their own internal causes, and yet their ultimate existence and explanation is found in what? J.R.R. Tolkien. He brought all of it into being.

Notice that even though Tolkien is the ultimate explanation for everything in his world, you cannot find him directly causing anything in his world.

That’s how God relates to our world. He’s the reason anything exists at all. Just as Tolkien is the cause of everything in Middle-earth without being a character in it, God is the cause of everything in our universe without being a natural object within it.

So to expect that you can "see God" in the chain of natural causes is like tearing apart the pages of a novel looking for the author's actual fingerprints.

The final answer

Still, there is a much bigger philosophical problem with this argument that atheists hate to acknowledge.

If you say that everything has an explanation, then you are forced to ask: Where does the chain of explanations stop?

Sure, perhaps natural things are explained by other natural things. But what explains those? And what explains the natural things that explain those natural things? It's a circular argument that results in infinite regress, which produces contradictions and ultimately explains nothing.

That's not rational.

There has to be something at the end of the chain, something that explains everything else but is not explained by anything else. Something that exists by the necessity of its own nature.

If the supernatural foundation of all reality has a mind, then that’s God.

That thing, whatever it is, must be radically different from everything else. It’s not one more link in the chain — it’s the foundation of the chain. And if it’s not caused, not contingent, and not dependent on anything else, then it's not "natural." It's supernatural, and it's fundamentally different from all of the "natural" stuff.

Once you realize this, you're forced to consider: Does this supernatural foundation have a mind?

And what do you find in the universe it caused? You find minds. Information embedded in DNA. Consciousness. Reason. Intelligibility. Purpose. Order. Morality.

None of these things we would expect to get from mindless matter. These are exactly the things an intelligent mind produces. We know this because we ourselves possess minds. So if the fundamental cause of everything contains the power to bring forth minds, intelligibility, and moral reality, then the most reasonable conclusion is that it, too, has a mind.

And if the supernatural foundation of all reality has a mind, then that’s God.

Maybe the real mystery isn't whether or not "Scooby-Doo" was debunking ghosts. The real mystery is why so many atheists think that repeating a cartoon plotline counts as an argument against the existence of God.

'Left-wing lesbian atheists': Oasis singer mocks liberal comedian who said he stole her audience



Oasis singer Noel Gallagher mocked a progressive comedian who claimed Oasis was the reason no one was showing up to her shows.

Kate Smurthwaite describes herself as a "comedian, writer, activist." Audiences may remember her from a plethora of culture-war clips dating back almost a decade, where she defended feminism, political correctness, and more, often resulting in her ridicule.

Smurthwaite was attempting the stand-up comedy portion of her career at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival last week, and unfortunately her show coincided with an Oasis concert during the band's comeback tour stop in Scotland.

'What kind of a culture have we become?'

Smurthwaite posted a video from a venue last Wednesday that showed an empty room 25 minutes after her show was supposed to have started.

"This is the Oasis effect," she claimed. "Big groups of people in Oasis shirts are not interested in my show or anybody else's."

While Smurthwaite called it "heartbreaking" to have to cancel her shows, the Oasis singer — who is not known to bite his tongue — addressed her claims to a massive crowd in Edinburgh just two days later.

"Are there any left-wing lesbian atheists?" Gallagher asked the crowd, appearing in black and white on a massive screen.

RELATED: Wake-up call: This is what happens when Christians are afraid to offend

Gallagher then looked to see how many of Smurthwaite's fans had made it to the Oasis show as opposed to going to hers.

"Can we get a show of hands, please? ... Not a f**king one."

"What kind of a culture have we become?" Gallagher sarcastically asked. "Disgraceful."

The artist immediately dedicated his next song to "lesbian atheists."

Gallagher did not seem to be far off, as Smurthwaite has been described in a favorable tone as a "left-wing, feminist, atheist, polyamorous comedian and activist."

RELATED: New York City’s likely next mayor wants to ‘globalize the intifada’

Photo by OLI SCARFF/AFP via Getty Images

In a follow-up video that showed off her armpit hair, Smurthwaite complained that the Oasis concert should not have been scheduled at the same time as the art festival, and that news outlets have "twisted the story" surrounding her claims.

She expanded on her original gripe that Oasis should be more considerate of fellow performers, adding that the story had been "spun to [sound] like, 'horrendous feminist comedian can't get an audience for her show because she's woke and she's not funny and nobody's interested and she's not as good as Oasis and she's bitter about it and she's furious.'"

Smurthwaite said the news coverage was overshadowing more important issues facing the United Kingdom, such as "climate change" and "horrendous racist immigration policies."

According to commenters on YouTube, the Oasis song Gallagher dedicated to the "lesbian atheists" was the 2000 single "Where Did It All Go Wrong?"

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!