Actually it doesn't. If it rendered it moot there would only be one viable alternative. Instead I present two (or arguably three if we want to factor in straight out ignorance., which i guess could easily function as an extra option for any list of viable alternatives on any subject you care to mention) Once again, if that was the case you would only see one option - instead you see two or three Why bias yourself to the "hammer"? I simply explained two things and you have suddenly gone on a tirade about how one option encompasses the other without really explaining the reasoning behind your selection (apart from it resonating with your values). Perhaps if the OP was "why do atheists need a god" your comments would be relevant but atm they are a bit out of place. Go back to the OP and you will see that it offers arguments for not needing god on the assumption that god exists. IOW I think you have lost track of this thread if you think its pertinent to atheists Both outlines are presented in the same conceptual manner. It's not clear what your point is. If notions of theory and application were non-different I think things would be quite whacky ... I have never encountered (nor have I known anyone - unless they are in to wearing tin foil hats or something ) who when encountering a problem, like say the inevitability of attachment to something, thinks "I got to get my brain stimulated". Rather they usually tackle the problem in terms of action in an environment. Now try explaining any of the said activities purely in the language of brain activity (without resorting to pseudo science) There is no solution to molars rotting Mr Denture If you would prefer living in a house with a lock on the door as opposed to one without you are certainly not a stranger to this concept So why delay the inevitable .. unless of course you have a preference for existence over non-existence ... an obvious attachment that indicates a bias no doubt ... Yeah, compared to existence, non-existence sucks big time .... Existence in an environment/consciousness that isn't governed by temporary attachment and existence of course ... kind of makes your boast of living twice as long as your ancestor like a retinal after image of an extinguished candle I guess I took it for granted that any discussions of problems would encompass living entities. Tell me, if someone spoke of the problems of New York, would you bring to their attention that if you remove all the inhabitants and life forms from the city precincts you would have no problems there? Material solutions for material attachment simply translates into postponed trauma at best and exacerbated trauma at worst.