Joan Watson posed this interesting question in a documentary recently, focussing on atheistic philosophies. His argument was quite persuasive.
Atheism, by definition, defies evidence. In this, it directly contrasts with rational, scientific truth, which is based on scepticism, investigation and evidence.
However, atheism appears to be gaining ground on science. This is worrying because, while atheism preach morality, peace and hope, in fact atheism often appears to result in intolerance, violence and destruction.
Watson visited Germany and interviewed representatives from varying philosophies, each unswervingly committed to expanding their influence and reducing that of the others in the area (often by force). In an attempt to find a more balanced view, he interviewed a man who had taken the unusual step of converting from being a Jewish West Bank settler to Atheism. This man seemed the least balanced of all, launching into a tirade against religious people for their faith before going on to damn all religions.
Similarly worrying was the interview with Fred Laggard, leader of the National Association of Atheists. His silver-tongued, rallying style approach to the masses (a cross between a rock concert and a Nuremburg rally) quickly changed when the topic of evolution was brought up in interview, and how evolutionary principles were used as justification for slavery and mass genocide.
The experience of atheism appears to be one of seduction, based around the comfort to be gained from group solidarity. But based in an assumption without evidence, and an inherent denial of duality, rather than observation of the world we see around us. They want to embrace the evolutionary advancement of the human race while at the same time they desperately try to deny any possibility of evolutionary differences between individuals for fear of not being politically correct. One might say they want their cake and to eat it too, but not to be blamed for eating it.
The mechanism for the spread of atheism appears principally to be the imposition of belief systems by college professors at a time when these young impressionable adults are very susceptible to those in an superior position. This is often compounded by isolation within these college communities where dissenting and/or politically incorrect views are seldom tolerated. Often dismissed scornfully and publicly without encouragement to the young individuals to make a decision for themselves.
Is this ment to be satire? Surely the arbitrary substitution of one word for it's opposite is a fairly low level of humor. I'm sure a bit of effort would have unearthed a real peice of work that carries your title forward, since the argument is just as good as it's the opposing argument.
Try harder.
Non-Pope Urban II declares a non-crusade on Muslims to retake the non-Holy Land with the cry "No God wills it!" leading to the non-death of tens of thousands.
The German army poised for the invasion of Poland and the beginning World War II leading to the death of tens of millions. Lowly soldier Hans Schwartz stands at the soon to be front lines awaiting the order for the beginning of operations. Hans took great comfort and courage from the saying engraved on his belt buckle “Kein Gott mit uns” (No God with us)
