To the atheists,  the reality and notions of God and religion which is a reference cornerstone of their values, have been extremely generous from an interesting perspective. Whether in rebellion, logic or from evidential standpoint most of their atheistic assertions or relevance are actually threatened by the absence of God or religion; that very same position they promote. The strongest proof of this is the fact that almost every atheist in denying or discounting the value of God and religion, is involuntarily trying to invent a caricature of those very same in order to fill the void seemingly created by their positions. Any dedicated and diligent probe of their  positions unfailingly  reveals the ‘necessity’ of God and religion to exist, even as a notion, for the atheist to have an identity.

Take as  a belated representation, the need for the existence of crime for there to be any relevance of the police and law enforcement agencies. Of course, the ultimate objective of all law enforcement agencies is purposed to eradicate crime, but ironically, any reality of a crime free society would mean that law enforcement agencies would seize to exist   This reality, to the atheist, is inherently and understandably unpalatable especially within the context of their need to ‘invent’ a God – alternative. Much like the chicken denying the possibility of its origin from an egg, the proof to atheists and atheism of a God is their own very existence and relevance. And since every argument and ground atheism builds its case on springs is limited or contained, unlike God, it very well suits its purposes  never to find boundaries of incidences with the reality of an infinite and unlimited God.

As to the intimate need of dismissing the existence of God or the necessity of religion because of tenets and personalities which may seemingly run counter to popular logic, their arguments also struggles to float in the testing seas of ‘absolute reasoning.’  Only God and religion claim absoluteness within this particular context, so to measure and constrain them within any scale that falls short of such absoluteness(of course they can only turn to science, perception or even senses) is laughably illogical. Aside from the atheistic contentions against the realities of God, the question of the necessity of an absolute entity is also deserving of dedicated contemplation. If religion and God were devices created by man to cater for his frailties and needs, then it would be a proven if God tries to justify and prove His existence as a necessity to man. Thus the debate and growing visibility of atheism is only being helped by religious groups who bother to engage or reason with atheists on these atheistic values and perception. It is a fact that most religion clearly define their beliefs and their dogmas, some of which concisely delineates between the personality of God. The greatest factor that possibly punches massive holes into the bottom of the atheists’ contention canoe is their venture in discrediting the spiritual realm. On this particular plane, the atheist is usually left derisive in the fact that physical values and sensory elements are totally inadequate or unwelcome in ascertaining the realities or claims of this medium. Atheists may claim immunity from the consequences and laws of the spiritual, but the fact that they have no proven means or argument of dispelling the ‘myth’ they ascribe to God is a persistent grindstone that will continue to wear away at the floorboards of their assertions.