Chapter 1: The Misconceptions of Atheism

Atheism often comes with a slew of clichés. Phrases like “Atheism isn’t a belief; it’s merely a lack of belief” or “Theists are just atheists towards one more god” circulate frequently. While these statements hold some truth, they only skim the surface. Atheism, though technically the absence of belief in a deity, creates a void that cannot simply be overlooked. Ironically, many who champion these ideas find that atheism becomes their primary identity, a position that is both undefined yet distinctly theirs.

The belief popularized by Richard Dawkins—that we can dismiss theism as naive and carry on morally and culturally from where Christianity left off—has proven to be more complicated than anticipated. Dawkins’ simplistic philosophical assertions fail to confront thinkers like Nietzsche, who foresaw the ramifications of a world without God:

“Where has God gone?” he lamented. “We have killed him — you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder?”

Nietzsche, much like Dawkins, harbored a disdain for Christianity, albeit for different reasons. Dawkins critiques the faith for its apparent lack of scientific validity, often attacking strawman arguments and creationists, while simultaneously identifying himself as a “cultural Christian” and recognizing Jesus as a moral figure. In contrast, Nietzsche viewed Christianity's compassion for the weak as contemptible. He asserted in The Antichrist that “the weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it… What is more harmful than any vice? Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak — Christianity.” Nietzsche’s vision demanded that in the wake of our “killing of God,” we must “become gods simply to appear worthy of it.”

However, as Dawkins exemplifies, many in the Western world resist confronting the vacuum that the absence of God creates. Instead, they prefer to cling to a set of broadly Christian principles while enjoying the benefits of a society founded on religious tenets. Many even refuse to acknowledge this reality, claiming that morality is an inherent quality. The fact that numerous societies throughout history have embraced values contrary to our own does not seem to concern us.

Nevertheless, wishing for vestigial Christian values does not validate the underlying metaphysical or historical truths. If Christianity has indeed proven to be rationally untenable, we must grapple with questions that extend beyond those posed by evangelists. But have we genuinely rejected religion due to its rational shortcomings, or is this merely a narrative we tell ourselves?

As I have discussed in my writings on Western religious history, our shift away from specific religions often relates more to contingent facts than to groundbreaking ideas. While Darwinism has certainly severed some ties between religion and science, the fissures can be traced back to the Reformation, and many justifications for our current stance are anachronistic—much of our reasoning remains rooted in religious belief. The resurgence of deism and Epicureanism during the Enlightenment reframed economics, science, history, and politics, creating a pronounced division as Gottfried Ephraim Lessing described it—a “broad ugly ditch” where atoms collide, and the divine becomes entirely separate from the natural order.

Today, we find ourselves entrenched in the awkward iterations of theism that emerged during the Enlightenment, even among believers. For instance, the “Intelligent Design” movement aligns more closely with a deist perspective than with a more nuanced understanding of theism that traces back to thinkers like Aquinas.

Yet here we are, preferring to believe that we have transcended religion through our own monumental realizations. However, unless we embrace Nietzsche’s notion of the Übermensch, we remain as philosophically and politically fragmented as ever, tossed about by technology that appears to control us rather than the other way around. AI seems poised not to usher in a flourishing humanity but to overwhelm us with its potential, leaving us too politically divided to even recognize our challenges, let alone address them.

One prevalent belief in the post-war era has been a sense of “freedom”—a rather ironic term for an age characterized by mass commercialization where many feel less free than ever. Individualism has little room for God, as God embodies an external moral framework. In an era of “my body, my choice,” moral relativism is accepted without acknowledgment, welcomed through our own intoxication with the notion of pure, unfettered autonomy.

Yet we seldom pause to question what this freedom truly signifies. How can anyone genuinely be free? We may convince ourselves that we have broken free from the constraints of religion, but unless we surrender to a world governed solely by power dynamics, true freedom necessitates a moral framework within which we operate.

Most religions advocate for some form of free will, even the stern Calvinism of Christianity cannot escape the paradox of choice. Nevertheless, this freedom is bounded by an actual moral reality. Dante’s worldview illustrates that behind our physical existence lies a moral realm, a pathway between justice and love that we all traverse, intentionally or not.

We often dismiss the transcendent. Dante’s insights may seem irrelevant to us, but how then do we envision the consequences of our actions? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder?

It is time for those who aim to dismantle what has brought us to our current state to propose something more substantial than “Atheism isn’t a belief; it’s just the absence of belief.” While this may hold some truth, no one truly believes in nothing. Each of us is navigating a path toward something. What will that path be?

Chapter 2: The Illusion of Freedom in Modernity

The first video titled "Atheist Debates - Does God have Free Will?" delves into the intersection of free will and atheism, exploring the implications of a godless existence on our understanding of autonomy and morality.

The second video titled "Why THIS Atheist Doesn't Believe" offers personal insights from an atheist's perspective, examining the reasons behind a rejection of faith and the quest for meaning in a secular world.