Juliane Collins: Atheism is Cult-Like

It's pretty common to find religious theists accusing atheists of having a religion, but it's a bit less common to see the label "cult" used. Juliane Collins thought it was an appropriate choice of words, though, and added it to the claim that atheism is somehow like a religion. But just how sound are her assertions?

Juliane writes:

Many people think that Atheism is not a religion because it is defined as "Disbelief in the existence of God or gods", but to me it seems to go far beyond that. I have yet to meet a single atheist who did not have a soul purpose it was to attack the fundamentals of established religion.

I'm sure that the atheists she has met have been critical of religion. The question is, why does she imagine that because this is her experience with a few atheists in America, then that somehow defines atheism as a whole for all atheists across the entire planet? That's a bit like meeting some Roman Catholics in America then concluding that this defines all Christians everywhere.

She also doesn't seem to ask why atheists in America today might be so critical of organized religion. That might seem like an incidental question, but it's not -- the answer also explains why it might not be wise to treat such criticism as defining of religion. It would also require a bit more engagement with serious social, political, and religious issues rather just writing some superficial observations.

But I do believe that many regards to Atheism can be construed as "religious" or "cult-like" in nature. Without established religion, there would be little, if any, real Atheism.

And what do you suppose Juliane Collins thinks "real" atheism is? She already knows that it's defined as "disbleief in God or gods" and what is more "real" than that? It looks an awful lot like she's trying to insist that the criticism of religion she's seen among atheists in America is an atheism that's more "real" than any other atheism. But upon what basis or experience does she base such a conclusion? None that I can see.

Then there is the teeny, tiny fact that some atheists are members of organized religions. Some religions do not require atheism but are compatible with it -- like secular Judaism, some forms of Buddhism, and some forms of Hinduism. Then there are also religions were atheism is the norm, like the Raelians, Religious Humanism, and Ethical Culture.

Do atheists think that their "soul [sic] purpose" is to attack those religions? Of course not. But she probably didn't do enough research on atheism to even know about any of this. If you want to know what she thinks of "research," though, consider the fact that she regards wormholes as being on par with ghosts and is a young earth creationist who believes that common ancestry "is a fraud at its best".

Her own opinion of herself, in contrast, is quite high -- she thinks she's "one of the few that can both see [the flaws in Creation Science and Common Ancestry] and admit it." With that level of the Dunning-Kruger effect going on, it's unlikely that her research or knowledge will improve.

But what really shocks me, is the atheists who believe in Chrystal healing, Bigfoot, the Lochness Monster, ghosts, wormholes, etc.

The only thing that makes them Non-religious is the lack of belief in a deity.

Uh, no. The only thing that makes an atheist non-religious is lacking a religion -- and not all atheists lack religions. Belief in god is called theism, not religion -- and not all theists are religious.

What's more, atheism is not incompatible with all sorts of silly, supernatural, and/or paranormal beliefs. The only thing atheism is incompatible with is the active belief in at least one god of some sort. Belief in things like Bigfoot, ghosts, astrology, and similar things are not excluded. They may not be common, but they aren't excluded.

Very few atheists are literally purely scientific and fact-only people.

Who said they were? Juliane Collins has managed to arrive at one of the few accurate statements in her essay and she presents it as if it were a revelation. But if she had started with an accurate understanding of atheism, it wouldn't have been much of a revelation at all.

It's also a long, long way from where she started: the claims that atheism is "religious" or "cult-like". Where's her evidence? There isn't any.