The Persistent And Incorrect Belief That Atheism Is A Religion

Suppose I were to tell you that I didn't believe in hockey as a hobby. Suppose I were to then laugh at you for watching hockey, telling you that you're a moron for buying tickets to what is obviously a false hobby.

Suppose that I bought billboard ads to tell the world that they all need to stop watching hockey because hockey made no sense at all. Suppose I formed associations made up of people who agreed with my assertion that hockey was not a true hobby. We charged membership fees, printed newsletters, wrote blogs, and issued press releases, all centered on the idea that people should get on board and accept the idea that hockey was outdated and akin to watching unicorns.

Now, suppose you were to suggest to me that heckling hockey fans was my hobby. No way, I reply. I simply don't believe that hockey is a hobby. Even though I enjoy making fun of hockey fans, and even though I read anti-hockey news and write anti-hockey articles, and get together with other anti-hockey fans to discuss anti-hockey, there's no relation between what I do and what hockey fans do.

If it quacks like a duck.

@ atheisnt What? This is jibberish. It is impossible to make the comparisons you postulate.

Im an atheist and agree with the author but the article is poorly written. it has fraqments and grammatical errors

BUT - if Atheism were to be classified as a religion - could we all be tax exempt??

:)

Al - the word is 'propensity', not 'profundity'.

Well reasoned and stated.

Having dealt with the "lack of a belief is a belief" argument many times, I have come to the conclusion that a large part of the problem is the believer's frame of reference.

When I say "I do not believe in any gods," many xians hear "I reject your God!" (It is not my intent to single out the xians, but I live in North Carolina, where they predominate), thereby not only insulting them for their beliefs, but specifically leaving myself open to their God's well known bad temper---a condition that their proselytizing obligation finds anathema. Thus, they effectively define my nonbelief in terms of their own belief.

Describing myself as a "nonbeliever" gives me the opportunity to ask something along the lines of "Do you believe we are being visited by radiant three-eyed flying thrombats from the planet Gnocknor?". When the invariable response "No, of course not!" is given, I get to ask: "Well, I don't either, so what shall we call that common belief system?"

I then point out that there is literally an infinite number of imaginary things in which I do not believe---gods are just one small part.

"There exists only one definition of atheism, and that is simply the lack of a belief in a deity."

That statement is no less persistent and incorrect than saying Atheism is a religion.

Atheism means to be without theology, to be without theo, or God. It has nothing to do with belief.

One can be asexual and yet sex still exists. It is not something one believes exists or not.

Whether gods exists or not is irrelevant to my being atheist. I am without religion. If there exists "only one definition of atheism", for me, it is the literal one, to be without theology and that has nothing to do with believing or not believing.

As Dr. Sagan says, belief is the opposite of knowledge. I do not waste time and energy believing or not believing something I can never know to be true or not.

The only problem is that the United States Supreme Court does agree that Atheism is a religion. Here is case law,
The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion"

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2722, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (2005).

I think Al's argument fails to address the crux of the claim made by religionists who accuse atheists of just being another religion.

I am an atheist. For me that means *not* just that I have no belief in a deity, but rather that I *believe* that deities do not exist. This belief is an *extension* of my belief that the universe can only be understood as an experience of natural phenomena.

Al correctly points out that it is necessary to first define what we mean by a religion. Loosely enough defined, even being a scientist is a religion, in which case *my* understanding of science would mean that my atheism is part of my religion. However, I think that defining religion in that sense makes it a meaningless word.

That doesn't mean that atheism couldn't derive from a religion. Buddhism, for example, has many sects that categorically deny the existence of deities. They are clearly religions, and at the same time atheistic organizations. I do not believe that this is what theists mean when they accuse atheists of just being another religion.

What religionists are really saying is that a lack of belief in a deity, or even a belief that deities do not exist, is also an exercise of faith, no different from their own belief in a deity.

Let us take a person who never heard of such a thing as a deity. This person is clearly an atheist. He doesn't have to examine evidence to test any particular belief, so his atheism is not an exercise of faith. One might say that atheism is the default state of a human mind. However, in the context of most people's experience, that isn't the case. Most of us know of the concept of deities, not because we met one, but because we were told about them, kind of like we were told of the Special Theory of Relativity. Most of us have never personally examined any of the evidence, even assuming we were competent to understand what it means, but at some point, we had to decide if we wanted to believe, or not, and many of us chose to believe, in spite of the fact that it contravenes our daily experience.

Essentially, my belief that the universe can only be understood as an experience of natural phenomena is not a belief I can exhaustively test. I can, however, rely on daily experience which piles up evidence that this belief is probably true, and rely on the testimony of others whose assertions on this matter I trust.

A person who believes in a deity also sees every experience in terms of their belief, and each experience becomes an affirmation of that belief. They also rely on the testimony of others.

We atheists scoff, "But theists believe all kinds of nonsensical magic stuff that is clearly contrary to the evidence. Their faith amounts to willfull self-delusion!" Perhaps that is the case for most theists. However, the implication that atheists are never deluded is clearly not a given.

I think the answer theists are looking for is this: "Atheism is not a religion, no more than theism is a religion. Either atheism or theism may be part of a religion. But if you ask, is my atheism an excercise of faith, just like your theism, then I must tell you, I do not believe that it is. I have decided that there is no reason for me to embrace a belief in a deity for which the only evidence comes from people whose experience I do not share."

Personally I add that the deities most people believe in are apparently dangerous psychopaths who should not be encouraged, whether or not they exist. ^_^

Eh, some people are clueless about what atheism really is. Its simply means having no belief in god, therefore its not a religion but a lack of religion. There are no tenets, no holy book, nothing. No god no religion.

Hi - I just joined so hello everyone!
I think that it is important to counter the current and very prevalent efforts to label atheism as religion. I've been having these arguments lately too. I just have 2 comments to try to add my 2 cents to all of your argumentation, if you can use it.
1- While I agree with the author when he says that these people show "a lack of intellelectual savvy that is common found in very young children." I think that kind of jab should be avoided if we want to be heard.
2- My main argument with these religious people is that as a scientist, I try to base my hypotheses (NOT beliefs - which imply acceptance without evidence) on observations and probabilities. The biggest difference between them and me is that my hypotheses welcome change at any moment, based on new evidence, whereas they deny evidence to adhere to ancient beliefs. In other words, our world view does not include dogma precisely because we allow our world view to change according to the evidence.
I hope that you can use and/or develop some of these arguments.
G'nite!

The base problem is that people cannot fully divorce one set of beliefs from there other sets of beliefs and the line between what is religious and not religious is arbitrary.

Atheists have plenty of beliefs that are not generally considered 'religious' (e.g., democracy, the state, science, etc.). These beliefs are all premised on some set of axioms that cannot be proved, but are simply accepted. Even Euclidean Geometry has unprovable axioms. These axioms might be logical and reasonable, but still no more provable that the existence of god. In fact, these axioms are often easily disproved for certain situations (e.g., non-Euclidean Geometry), but people continue to believe because their belief works for the situation they're in. That still doesn't make that belief 'right'.

This is an excellent essay. However, there is one bit I would remove. You said, "The religious leader has a goal of uniting his congregation under one dogmatic banner where there is no room for congregational interaction, skepticism or free thought." This is most definitely not true for all religions, is not central to your argument, and gives a religious reader something to argue with.