In February, an interesting conversation took place in the letters to the editor section of this paper, originating with "Christianity doesn't need column to incite reaction" (SN 2/7).

The author of that letter imagined atheism and religion as two bars of metal. He argued that atheism is initially very attractive ("shiny"), but a close examination reveals it to be "ugly" on the inside. Religion, in contrast, is said to be unappealing on the surface, but solid gold underneath.

The problems with this "argument" are numerous and rather obvious; however, even conspicuously bad arguments can be helpful when they illustrate common misconceptions.

It's important to point out, as another letter writer did in "Analogy misses concept of atheism completely" (SN 2/20), that atheism is not a competing belief system — it's not a belief at all. Atheism only has meaning in contrast and response to belief in god(s).

For example, I don't believe benevolent fairies from the trans-dimensional domain alpha-prime are preparing to whisk humanity to their paradisal home for all eternity. To the best of my knowledge, no one believes that. It's not a disprovable claim, making it a possibility. But lacking any reliable evidence for such beings, it's rational to withhold belief.

We are all "nonbelievers" of these fairies from alpha-prime. However, such nonbelief does not constitute a "belief system" that impacts the way we live our lives or informs our opinions on matters of politics or morality.

Our nonbelief in these fairies — and an infinite variety of imaginable assertions — doesn't require a name because no one actually believes in them. However, if children were systematically indoctrinated (e.g. "Jesus Camp") to have faith in the existence of such fairies, within a culture that unquestioningly believed, then it would become necessary to create a word to describe those who doubted or withheld belief. Such people might be called fairy-agnostics or just killjoy skeptics.

Atheism, like "a-fairyism," isn't a belief; it's merely the absence or rejection of a particular belief or set of beliefs.

Christians and atheists have far more in common than they may realize. We all lack belief in virtually every concept of god that has ever been imagined. Despite the fact that it's impossible to disprove the existence of Thor, Vishnu, Zeus, Ra, Mithra, Baal and the rest, we all agree that evidence doesn't justify belief. Atheists simply go one further, adding the sky god Yahweh to the long list of highly improbable entities.

Getting back to the "bars of metal" letter, the assertion that atheism is initially attractive whereas religion is initially unappealing seems curiously backward. This notion also was embraced by a subsequent letter writer in "Disbelief in God due to lack of proof shows gall" (SN 2/21). The author of that letter wrote, "I would assert that atheism is indeed 'ugly' or else atheists would not bother to cover it in a pleasing veneer."

Pleasing veneer? Seriously? Rationalists, naturalists, materialists and many atheists believe the likely outcome of our deaths will be the permanent eradication of our conscious and thinking existence. Our bodies will rot away, there will be no reunion with lost loved ones, no cosmic justice, righting of wrongs, punishments or rewards. When we die, that's it — no "grand plan," nothing "watching over us." No one gets out alive.

For many, those probabilities represent a rather terrifying collection of concepts. Terrifying enough, evidently, to persuade the frightened into believing a variety of unsupported stories promising a rosier reality.

Traditionally, religion — not atheism — has offered "pleasing veneers," specifically designed to ease anxieties inherent in the human condition, with promises of eternal life in paradise.

It's worth pointing out that the "ugliness," "beauty" or emotional comfort of an assertion has no impact on reality. In attempting to determine "truth," rationalists don't concern themselves with the emotional aesthetics of an argument; only the strength of evidence matters. As the French philosopher Albert Camus noted, "Seeking what is true is not seeking what is desirable."

For those who need religious assurances — the majority of humanity, it seems — I'm genuinely glad they have them, as long as they don't impose their faith on others. However, a growing number of us don't require fantastical beliefs or emotional crutches. Our earthly material lives are enough.

John Bice is an MSU staff member and State News columnist. Reach him at bice@msu.edu.