The idea that atheism is a religion is one of the most common and ridiculous myths that religious believers try to spread. What’s especially annoying about this which separates it from just about all the other myths is that it requires such desperate twisting of logic and language that one has to wonder what is wrong with the people who repeat it.

Atheism Is A Religion is an abandoned blog I stumbled across. It hasn’t been updated since July, 2003, and considering the quality of the one and only post I can’t say that the internet community has lost anything. This blog shouldn’t disappear forever before that one post is properly dealt with:

A well defined philosophy of life which claims an answer to the key questions of life is by definition a religion. These questions include (but are not limited to)...

This particular statement is, I must admit, an improvement over some of the nonsense I have come across. The author has the good sense to recognize that religion involves philosophical speculation about important questions surrounding human life. What he completely misses are all the other things that tend to fall within the realm of religion: rituals, sacred objects/spaces/times, scriptures, morality, etc. I find the neglect of all of these factors completely inexplicable. Most introductory texts on the study of religion will mention at least most of them, which tells me that this author didn’t attempt even a scintilla of research before trying to write.

Does God exist?
Is Jesus God?
Did Jesus rise from the dead?
Is there a supernatural reality?
Is there life after death?
Can a bread and wine transubstantiated?

So, these are the “key questions of life” that, by definition, a religion tries to answer. There may be more, but every religion necessarily attempts to deal with these questions.

Notice anything interesting about them? That’s right, three of the six are specifically and exclusive Christian in nature. Hinduism doesn’t worry about whether Jesus is God. Taoism doesn’t worry about whether Jesus rose form the dead. Druids don’t worry about whether bread and wine can be transubstantiated. Thus, according to the author of this blog, those can’t be religions. Belief systems that existed before Christianity (and hence before those questions could even exist) couldn’t possible be religions. Belief systems that lack “God” (however defined) also can’t possible be religions.

Does that make sense? No, not in the slightest. Insisting that “Can a bread and wine transubstantiated?“ is a “key question of life” which abeliefsystem must claim to answer in order to qualify as a religion is one of the most ludicrous things I’ve ever read.

By their choice to answer these questions atheists have created their own religion. It is absurd to claim that certain answers to these questions are religious, while other answers to these questions are not religious. ANYONE who answers these questions and lives their life according to these answers has chosen a religion for their life. Any philosophy which casts a vote on these issues is a religion regardless of the actual vote.

Let’s assume for the moment that this silly definition of religion actually has some value. Does it allow us to conclude that atheism is a religion? The author certainly thinks so — but here is where logic starts being twisted as well as language. To begin with, not all answers bother offering answers to those questions. After all, not all atheists in the world have even bothered to consider them. Second, not all atheists who do answer those questions will offer the same answers. What kind of religion is it when there are so many different answers and responses? At the very least the author must argue that there are numerous atheist religions rather than simply “the religion of atheism.” Third, the mere fact that someone offers answers to these questions doesn’t mean that they “live their lives” according to the answers.

Since athesim is a religion can the US government legitimately purge "religion" from itself? Does this not establish the religion of atheism as the official religion of our country? Obviously the US government must incorporate some religious icons, practices, and culture. The alternative is to force atheism upon us all as the mandatory religion of our country. And despite their claims to the contrary this is precisely their agenda. They will strive to make all religion illegal in any and all aspects of our lives. They will force us all to become atheists.

Let’s assume for the moment that not only is the above definition of religion reasonable, but also establishes that atheism is a religion. Does this allow for the above conclusions on the relationship between atheism and the government? No, not for a second. Remember that this author is thinking of atheism being a specific philosophy with specific answers to specific questions. Atheism as the mere absence of belief in god(s) might arguably be a part of the government whenever gods aren’t mentioned, but atheism as the sort of philosophy the author presumes is not a part of the government.

What support is there for saying that the government must “obviously” include some religious icons, practices, and culture into what it does? This assertion is made without the slightest support and there’s no good reason to accept the truth of it. Of course, so is the claim that atheists seek to force atheism on every and “strive to make all religion illegal in any and all aspects of our lives.” That’s practically libelous in nature, but what can be expected from someone with such a warped understanding of logic and language? One can only conclude that his or her entire view of reality is warped as well.

Read More:

• Atheism 101
• Defining Atheism
• Questions About Atheism
• Myths About Atheism
• Atheism in Society
• News About Atheism and Atheists
• Rebuttals to Attacks on Atheism
• Separation of Church and State 101
• Church and State News