I've seen posts hovering around the place about Atheism and how we Atheists (or Brights, if you prefer, though I can't say it sits right with me as a label) should or shouldn't try to convert people to our way of thinking.
I came across this comment on, of all places, Facebook, and I think sums things up quite well:
You can't 'convert' someone to atheism. Atheism is like jazz…if it has to be explained to you, you'll never get it. You figure it out on your own, or not at all.
This, by the way, distinguishes it from any other system of belief.
I’m not sure I can agree with that.
There’s a difference between
proofandexplanationand I think Atheism definitely bears the burden of explanation.Of course, explaining Atheism requires references to religion, but I don’t find that surprising. After all, if it wasn’t for a long history religious belief, Atheism wouldn’t even be necessary.
I think that the point the original author was making was that even if A. N. Atheist explains to his friend St. John Catholic why the universe works the way it does and how science and logic, etc., can explain it, only St. John Catholic can come to the conclusions necessary for him to say ‘you’re right; I’ll go with that explanation.’
… Does that make Atheism a ground state for humanity, then? I suppose it’s one of those things that you can’t define without its opposite. Just as "nothing" has no meaning without "something", so atheism cannot exist without theism. I’m sure there’s a significance in that, but I’m not going to delve into it
.