Aggressive atheism in a wide-spread sense is a relatively modern phenomenon, with no culpable doctrine existing before the 16th and 17th centuries. The current movement, headed by extreme rationalists (most notably Richard Dawkins) is particularly zealous in its beliefs, and intent on disproving any sense or value in religion. This missionary approach does, however, beg the question – at what point does the deification of logic place it on the same pedestal as a god? Aggressive, or missionary, atheism is to a much lesser extent following the same pattern of almost all religions; it needs followers to survive as a political, economic, or social force, and as a result will do anything to gain them. Dawkins in particular follows the creed of the atheist with self-righteous fury, vehemently denying the existence of any god or the point of religion as a whole. One of the central atheist arguments can be summarized by Christopher Hitchens, who states that ‘what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof’. The integral logic of this argument can, of course, be used in the counter-argument. Aggressive atheism is flawed simply because absence of proof is neither reason for belief, or denial. This now religious, or cultish, nature of atheism, with Dawkins as head and Logic as god, is particularly worrying; with as much proof for their arguments as that of Christianity, or Islam, these views are being forced upon others, and scorn heaped upon those who disagree. Even the argument that religion has no value is a flawed one; there may well be no God, Muhammad may not have been the prophet of a religious deity – but religion as a social focus, at the very least, is certainly not irrelevant. Imagine a western civilization without the church; it provided the first schools, the first social hubs, and the first refuges for lepers, outcasts and the lost. Even now, religion brings hope and happiness to untold millions the world over – and the existence of any supernatural entity is completely irrelevant to this. Of course in counter-argument religion has also caused untold millions of deaths, but can anyone honestly say that the savage elements of human nature would not have found another excuse to wage war and inflict genocide?
This is where an atheist’s argument is truly flawed. Nobody can prove, or disprove, the existence of any kind of god. That is a fact. If religion brings content and hope to so many, and atheists are genuinely content with rationality, there should be no need for conflict. The world has developed (partly) beyond this basic tribalism of conversion and a missionary need to prove oneself. Atheism and religions as a base are perfectly acceptable, if flawed, systems of belief. This overwhelming desire from both sides to convert others needs to stop as the two can co-exist – or better yet, everyone could become agnostic.
