You’ve misunderstood what I was saying. I was responding to your claim that atheism is just the negative point that there’s no good reason to be a theist. I was pointing out that atheists are also people rather than just that negative claim. Atheists on average are also secular humanists, neoliberals, philosophical naturalists, and so forth. Therefore, the atheistic worldview as a whole is subject to criticism; hence the critiques of carefree secularism by the likes of Sade, Dostoevsky, Nietzsche, Freud, Marx, and Orwell.
I’m quite certain your father had a lot more going on in his mind than the mere negative conviction that theism is irrational. That was my point. You had wanted to respond to my point, that atheists have philosophical matters to attend to besides discrediting religion, by saying that no, “the only point that atheists make” is that negative one. Nun uh, I’m afraid the dominant secular society has positive philosophical assumptions that are subject to criticism.
Again, looking into those presuppositions isn’t for everyone. I understand you think philosophy is a waste of time, because you believe we should ask questions only if they’re likely to have definite, useful, indeed upbeat answers. Should we go ahead and dispose of art on the grounds of such philistinism or is your opposition to the arts arbitrarily limited to religion and philosophy? Or perhaps you’ve not quite thought that through.
By all means, work on ensuring our survival. Leave the subversive philosophical questioning to those who are preoccupied with the fear that a species may not deserve to survive if it’s focused too much on the efficiency of its means and not enough on the merit of its ends.
Congratulations on your book! I see from your Medium page that you’re into poetry. I dabble. Here’s one that ties together some of these themes: