Misunderstanding Movies

I was reading movie reviews and discussion over at Roger Ebert's page and came across this letter opining on "No Country for Old Men". The letter-writer is offering the idea that the unemotional, unstoppable killing-machine in the movie, Anton Chigurh, is an atheist. He then makes this ridiculous conclusion.

I see it [the book, "No Country for Old Men"] as a modern classic, a deep meditation on the natural conclusion of atheism (the recklessly craven positioning of self for purposes of survival) and the believers who dare to exist for causes outside of self, an endeavor that "No Country" makes clear is noble indeed but corrosive to the soul.

Huh? Here we have yet another person who doesn't seem to understand what atheism is. The only "conclusion" of atheism is a lack of belief in any gods. That's it. Atheism says nothing about the positioning of self for survival or even if personal survival is a positive, worthwhile goal. Atheism no more says anything about these issues then does a lack of belief in unicorns.

And the condescending "believers who dare to exist for causes outside of self" is just insulting. Non-believers can and do exist for selfless causes every day. Better to exist for actual causes than to make one's cause kissing up to an unproven, fickle, invisible sky-god handing out golden tickets allowing you the privilege of an eternity of worshipping him.

Just another day in America.