Religious people often claim or imply that atheism is a religion and that Richard Dawkins is the Pope of atheism. The interesting thing is that often when they make these claims, they are attempting to be derogatory and yet they are adherence to a religion themselves and have their own religious leaders. In some sense, it seems like they know that religion is a bad thing and so they try to label the non-religious, religious as if to excuse their bad behavior by claiming that everyone else is doing it too.
I guess these religious people are under the impression that everyone must have a religion. If they are willing to admit that not everyone has a religion, then they must concede that atheism is not a religion, but rather the lack of belief in a deity or deities. One label used to show that one is not religious is atheism. Claiming otherwise is sort of like saying that not having a hobby is considered to be a hobby in and of itself. As the old saying goes, “if atheism is a religion then non-stamp collecting is a hobby.”
On the other hand, what we often get is that these religious people will find some vague definition of religion in some dictionary which they can shoehorn atheism into. For example, one vague definition I found among many much more specific definitions is the following: “Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience.”
Here the religious believer will insist that atheism is something believed in and followed devoutly. Because someone like myself is promoting an end to religion through education (as opposed to by force or legal means) they seem to think this is a devout following of something. In fact, they often claim that the something that atheists are devoutly following is a doctrine of nothing. This is not the case. While there is no doctrine of atheism, that isn’t to say that there is a doctrine of no doctrine. Many atheists hold themselves to certain values and do have value systems. Humanism and rationalism are values systems that many atheists share and choose to form a community around. However, not all atheists are humanists or rationalists.
One problem with using such vague definitions of religion is that almost anything can be shoehorned into that definition. For example, using the definition above, sports fans of particular teams could be considered a religion. The fans of the Philadelphia Eagles for example believe strongly in their team. They follow the team devotedly and they have codes of conduct all their own full of rituals and even holidays (the playoffs and the superbowl).
The fact is the atheism is not a religion by any practical use of the term. While Richard Dawkins is a great spokes person and educator for reason, science, and humanism, he is not a religious figure and certainly not the Pope of atheism. Atheism is a label created as a contrast to theism and in recent years, many atheists have started to form communities of our own which promote science, reason, humanism, and skepticism. These are not religious communities but we often discuss religious ideas and discuss religious criticism in these communities. We have become a community which has to deal with religion because religion has forced itself opon us all.
If you enjoy this article, please consider sharing the link and subscribing to the Philly Atheist Examiner column using the ”Subscribe” button above so that you can be notified about new articles.
Atheism 101 Articles:
Atheism 101: What is the difference between atheism and agnosticism?
Atheism 101: Why do atheists care about religion?
Atheism 101: Is there moral grounding without God?
Atheism 101: What happens when we die?
Atheism 101: The Purpose of Life
Atheism 101: The Nature of Good and Evil
Atheism 101: The Problem of Evil
Atheism 101: Is the Bible the inspired word of God?
Atheism 101: The anti-intellectualism of religion
Atheism 101: Why has Christianity demonized nudity, sex and sexuality?
Atheism 101: How to respond to the lord, liar, lunatic argument?
Atheism 101: Does it take more faith to be an atheist?
Atheism 101: What came before the Universe?
Atheism 101: How to respond to the ex-atheist
Atheism 101: The “No True Scotsman” Fallacy
Atheism 101: Refuting Presupposition Theology
Atheism 101: Refuting Dispensational Theology
On Faith Series:
On Faith: Re-evaluating the Afghanistan War
On Faith: The morality of tweeting the death penalty
On Faith: Do animals have souls and rights?
On Faith: Religion and the oil spill
On Faith: Sarah Palin’s feminism, faith, and abortion
On Faith: National day of prayer and masturbation
On Faith: Can religion handle sex?
On Faith: Is the media biased against the Catholic Church?
On Faith: Is the Pope above the law?
On Faith: What is heaven like?
On Faith: Disbelief in the pulpit
On Faith: Catholic Church’s attempt to blackmail Washington fails
On Faith: Is proselytizing overseas religious freedom or coercion?
On Faith: Should religion have a role be in U.S. foreign affairs?
On Faith: Should the president be a religious figure?
On Faith: Does God allow Haiti to suffer?
On Faith: Media biased against Christians?
On Faith: Free speech vs. God
On Faith: Religion’s Impact 2009
On Faith: Climate change a moral issue?
On Faith: Good News -- Oral Roberts is dead
On Faith: Just war or holy war in Afghanistan?
On Faith: A crèche in the White House?
On Faith: Swiss ban on Islamic minarets
On Faith: holidays or holy days?
Comments
Does it really matter what a bunch people who worship the "Great Monkey in the Sky" choose to call us?
It's too bad that a lack of belief is not anything at all. By referring to atheism as something that does not exist, it is a bit ironic to those like myself who are actually atheists and believe there is no god. I know there is no such thing/object that is a lack of something.
Yes atheism is not a religion. But Staks here hasn't yet figured out what atheism is. I lack 32 arms too, but lacking 32 arms is not what I, or anything, is. Staks' atheism has less chance of existing than a god does.
Greg, we have danced this dance before and you are the only atheist who defines the term in such a way. I stand by my previous article on this topic.
Haha, Dawkins the Pope of atheism? I can honestly say I've never heard that before. However, it is a pretty ridiculous claim.
Hitchens is clearly the Pope.
:) j/k j/k :) Good article
I don't understand the confusion over the word? Non theist, A theist. We put A in front of many words that mean non or not - amoral, asymptomatic, asymmetrical. What am I missing?
I think you got it Nikki, but some people really don't.
I feel your pain, Staks.
The social theory of Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Walter Block---three (Jewish) atheists, by the way---is to politics what atheism is to religion: politics (permitting government to do what would be criminal if done by individuals) is evil, and life would be better without it. Yet often when I try to apply their ideas to a given situation, the response is, "I don't want to talk politics."
I guess people most easily define the negative in terms of the positive. One could say atheism and theism are two worldviews, but "worldview" doesn't have the emotional punch that "religion" does. "We're talking worldviews" probably won't replace "we're discussing religion" anytime soon.
Science! is the religion. Atheism is one of the tenets of Science! It actually is a clever way to keep the Scientists! from worshiping idols. "Thou shalt have no other gods before Quantifiable Data" That Big White Guy in the Sky is a story. The Truth is Material Existence. There are many Prophets of Science! You will know them by the Repeatability of their Results. They use the ritual of the Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study, mainly, though there are many other rituals. There are false prophets, who try to interpret the Quantifiable Data for their own purposes. There are also throngs of ignorant followers of Science! who like those in the Abrahamic religions claim theirs is the only true religion without actually practicing it. They just have "faith" that it's correct.
Science sets out to prove its claims; Religion only answers questions with superstition and threats if you don't believe. Religionists are worried because Science is getting perceptibly closer to being able to answer the questions they thought only they could address: the beginning of the universe, life, what happens after death, etc. Science isn't a religion, but it is the death knell of religion and that's why they're running scared.
I like how Youtube contributor NonStampCollector puts it:
Saying atheism is a religion is like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.
I believe that God is hiding somewhere in the boobquake photos, and I shall search until I find Him! Is that a religion?
Greg you do realize your embracing irrationality with your statement every bit as much as when a Christian says they KNOW God does exist right? How do you know? What evidence do you have that God does not exist? You have no evidence that God does not exist. Can you draw a logical conclusion from no evidence? Last time I checked Appeal to Ignorance was a logical FALLACY that something can not be proven or disproven DOES NOT prove or disprove that it exists. Yes it is the burden of the believer to prove the existence of God but you can't claim a lack of evidence proves he doesn't exist while even pretending to be a critical thinker. That's the single greatest example of how extrodinarily irrational many atheists are.
Daniel don't be ubsurd. Science is NOT a religion and atheism is NOT an aspect of science. A great many important scientists were Christians and other religious men (far more then the number that were atheists) and a number of very good scientists are (continued)
are today. The false dichotomy of science and religion as mutually exclusive is a lie (and one of the few lies both theists and atheists both like to spread).
I know some atheist is going to tell me that religion has to prove God not the other way around but again thats not my point. The point is the door swings both ways. For a religious person to claim that the existence of God is fact they have to prove it (they can't say he exists because no one has proved he hasn't) but anyone who claims that the non existence of God is a fact also needs to prove it (they can't say he doesn't exist because no one has proved he has). Despite what so many atheists seem to think just saying God doesn't exist doesn't prove you are a logical person.
As for is atheism a religion? It can be, humanism certainly is extremely close to many definitions of religion, mostly its a philisophical belief. Its certainly not based on proof just the belief that God does not exist.
Kevin, please see my Atheism 101 articles on the difference between atheism and agnosticism & Presupposition Theology.
staks, please see richard dawkins on atheism. it is indeed an empty set, and he[admittedly] is agnostic[not 100% there is no god]. claiming certainty is dogmatic, and a theist ploy. there should be no strident "atheists" by this definition. what there should be are people who realize the diminishing probability of theism.
through a purely atheistic ontology greg is correct.
seriously...
i have written pages about being classified as the opposite of something that doesn't exist. what the hell is that? meaningless. just because someone dreams up a scenario where a and b exist, doesn't mean i'm in opposition to it[as i reject it] when it's not established reality. they are delusional...that's all.
even the question it self sounds created by a Theist ... It's an absurd question to start with .. I like the statement that if Atheism , not believing in a god, is a religion ... then it would stand to reason that Not collecting stamps is a wonderful hobby !!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!