It is of course no more the ultimate aim of atheism to disprove the existence of God than it is of theism to prove same but instead the ultimate aim of each philosophy surely is to recommend a solution to the human predicament – inasmuch as each necessarily is constrained by the preconception that a solution is possible – through advocating for a means of reconciliation with our mortality. In the case of religion, such a solution is advocated via the prospect of a meaningful after-life and, in the case of atheism, via the combination of a humanist focus on realising the potential for fulfilment offered by the life experience together with the inculcation of a mature stoicism in the face of our ineluctable demise.

Setting aside the claims of religion, my objection to the prescription of atheism is that, given that the extremes of adversity possible in human life exceed what is vicariously conceivable, so then its recommendation of stoicism as a solution to our predicament is by definition platitudinous – this apart from the inconsistency, in the context of its claim to being rationally based, that it proceeds in common with religion from the fundamental preconception referred to above. The fact that in practice it would be litteraly impossible for any atheistic doctrine to escape its imprisoning adherence to such a preconception and, instead, formulate an attitude of disinterested openess towards the possibility that there may or may not in principle exist a solution to our human predicament via a valid reconciliation towards mortality serves to further undermine the credibility of the atheistic claim that its doctrine is independant of human pschycological need and ultimately rationally based.

The preconception that there must in principle exist a valid means of reconciliation with the fact of our mortality derives of course from the incomprehensibility of the alternative idea - in the face of which it would become impossible for humans to sustain a constructive existence. So it is I think striking to see the accomodations being made in both religious and atheistic arguments, sometimes subliminally, so as to engineer the required answer - that such reconciliation is possible.

But isn't my argument - that it is self-evident we are incapable of comprehending the idea that there exists in principle no way to validly reconcile ourselves to our mortality and that effectively therefore this reduces the prescriptions of atheism to a set of preconceptions - undermined by my own personal capacity here to apparantly comprehend same, in that I am arguing that this nihilism may in principle be the case? Well know, partly because I am rescued by what I privately consider to be evidence for the constructive survival of consciousness after death - but mainly because there exists of course a fundamental distinction between our ability to rationalise something and our ability to pschycologically comprehend same, this then permitting the most indefensible inconsistencies of attitude. Like I am aware, that were I personally to find myself engulfed in a sufficiently terrible predicament then, notwithstanding my absolute rational conviction that the claims of religion are litteraly false, I would nonetheless cry out to God to save me - and that with a desperateness I presently cannot vicariously suspect. If, no matter your convictions, you personally think otherwise of yourself then I would say you are mistaken.