Atheism Is A Religion

You have to understand what this is really all about (in my opinion).

Atheism is not an absence of belief – it is a religion in and of itself.

It is a belief system, that desires to impose itself on others – pure and simple.

Modern “Atheism” is a religion engaged in a crusade, just as radical Muslims are. Neither of these belief systems or religions are compatible with modern tolerance. Both are radicalizing and viral.


That is the first thing to remember. Many atheists hate. It comes from their OWN belief and applies it to others.

But how could someone hate without some basis of faith that their view is right and that the other is wrong.

This is the definition of bigotry. Bigotry is the fact of having and expressing strong beliefs and disliking other people who have different beliefs or a different way of life:

If you can see it for what it is, then you can begin to understand it and counter it if you believe in God.

Applied Atheism Is Religious Discrimination

And the way to counter atheism is to treat is as religious discrimination – they are attempting to discriminate against other regions by imposing their own.

You cannot argue with religious zealots – regardless of their faith. Extreme Islamists, Atheists, or others – and yes there are plenty of zealots in all major faiths. But the atheist, just like their predecessors National Socialism cannot allow your faith to coexist with theirs. Yes, the extermination of religion or faiths was a core precept of NAZISM or today’s Socialist, and it extends into the atheist of today.

How To Stand Firm

First, let me state that the author – me – is not religious nor an atheist. I do not propose to tell you what is real in this context. However, I recognize the value of humanizing faith, both in day to day morality and in guiding civilization.

But as we have seen, faith is being used as a weapon again. The views of others are wrong and therefore must be FORCED to conform. Religion is free and each person can practice what they believe as long as it does no harm – that is an argument that will never end.

But in my view, the way to push back on fanatical atheism is to USE your right to faith against them and to properly identify Atheism as a religious belief system, and argue that they are discriminating – that they are not stating a system of intellectual logic. Atheism ironically is a belief system and is, therefore, a religion of anti-religion – a paradox to be sure, but none the less, very real.

According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

“Atheism” is typically defined in terms of “theism”. Theism, in turn, is best understood as a proposition—something that is either true or false.

It is often defined as “the belief that God exists”, but here “belief” means “something believed”. It refers to the propositional content of belief, not to the attitude or psychological state of believing. This is why it makes sense to say that theism is true or false and to argue for or against theism. If, however, “atheism” is defined in terms of theism and theism is the proposition that God exists and not the psychological condition of believing that there is a God, then it follows that atheism is not the absence of the psychological condition of believing that God exists (more on this below). The “a-” in “atheism” must be understood as negation instead of absence, as “not” instead of “without”. Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods).

This definition has the added virtue of making atheism a direct answer to one of the most important metaphysical questions in philosophy of religion, namely, “Is there a God?” There are only two possible direct answers to this question: “yes”, which is theism, and “no”, which is atheism. Answers like “I don’t know”, “no one knows”, “I don’t care”, “an affirmative answer has never been established”, or “the question is meaningless” are not direct answers to this question.

While identifying atheism with the metaphysical claim that there is no God (or that there are no gods) is particularly useful for doing philosophy, it is important to recognize that the term “atheism” is polysemous—i.e., it has more than one related meaning—even within philosophy. For example, many writers at least implicitly identify atheism with a positive metaphysical theory like naturalism or even materialism. Given this sense of the word, the meaning of “atheism” is not straightforwardly derived from the meaning of “theism”. While this might seem etymologically bizarre, perhaps a case can be made for the claim that something like (metaphysical) naturalism was originally labeled “atheism” only because of the cultural dominance of non-naturalist forms of theism, not because the view being labeled was nothing more than the denial of theism. On this view, there would have been atheists even if no theists ever existed—they just wouldn’t have been called “atheists”. (Baggini [2003] suggests this line of thought, though his “official” definition is the standard metaphysical one.) Although this definition of “atheism” is a legitimate one, it is often accompanied by fallacious inferences from the (alleged) falsity or probable falsity of atheism (= naturalism) to the truth or probable truth of theism.

It is important to note that both of these “theisms” are philosophical assumptions. Both are based upon a lack of direct evidence – hence both are beliefs in their respective positions. There is no direct proof that God exists, there is no direct proof that God does not exist. Both require assumption, interpretation, and BELIEF!

Departing even more radically from the norm in philosophy, a few philosophers and quite a few non-philosophers claim that “atheism” shouldn’t be defined as a proposition at all, even if theism is a proposition. Instead, “atheism” should be defined as a psychological state: the state of not believing in the existence of God (or gods). This view was famously proposed by the philosopher Antony Flew and arguably played a role in his (1972) defense of an alleged presumption of “atheism”. The editors of the Oxford Handbook of Atheism (Bullivant & Ruse 2013) also favor this definition and one of them, Stephen Bullivant (2013), defends it on grounds of scholarly utility. His argument is that this definition can best serve as an umbrella term for a wide variety of positions that have been identified with atheism. Scholars can then use adjectives like “strong” and “weak” to develop a taxonomy that differentiates various specific atheisms. Unfortunately, this argument overlooks the fact that, if atheism is defined as a psychological state, then no proposition can count as a form of atheism because a proposition is not a psychological state. This undermines his argument in defense of Flew’s definition; for it implies that what he calls “strong atheism”—the proposition (or belief in the sense of “something believed”) that there is no God—is not really a variety of atheism at all. In short, his proposed “umbrella” term leaves strong atheism out in the rain.

Another important aspect to remember is that all perception – ALL PERCEPTION – is psychological. Meaning it is an artifact of our brains. We humans never see the real, only what our minds allow us to see. Thus all perception of god or of Not-God are our own perceptions based upon our internal thought.

Although Flew’s definition of “atheism” fails as an umbrella term, it is certainly a legitimate definition in the sense that it reports how a significant number of people use the term. Again, there is more than one “correct” definition of “atheism”. The issue for philosophy is which definition is the most useful for scholarly or, more narrowly, philosophical purposes. In other contexts, of course, the issue of how to define “atheism” or “atheist” may look very different. For example, in some contexts the crucial issue may be which definition of “atheist” (as opposed to “atheism”) is the most useful politically, especially in light of the bigotry that those who identify as atheists face. The fact that there is strength in numbers may recommend a very inclusive definition of “atheist” that brings anyone who is not a theist into the fold. Having said that, one would think that it would further no good cause, political or otherwise, to attack fellow non-theists who do not identify as atheists simply because they choose to use the term “atheist” in some other, equally legitimate sense.

The argument that “atheists” face bigotry is certainly true – in the purest sense, but so are atheists bigots in their own way – they apply their own bigotry against theists and theologians in their attempts to force the Not-God beliefs on those that believe in God (in whichever form).

If atheism is usually and best understood in philosophy as the metaphysical claim that God does not exist, then what, one might wonder, should philosophers do with the popular term, “New Atheism”? Philosophers write articles on and have devoted journal issues (French & Wettstein 2013) to the New Atheism, but there is nothing close to a consensus on how that term should be defined. Fortunately, there is no real need for one, because the term “New Atheism” does not pick out some distinctive philosophical position or phenomenon. Instead, it is a popular label for a movement prominently represented by four authors—Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens—whose work is uniformly critical of religion, but beyond that appears to be unified only by timing and popularity. Further, one might question what is new about the New Atheism. The specific criticisms of religion and of arguments used to defend religion are not new. For example, an arguably more sophisticated and convincing version of Dawkins’ central atheistic argument can be found in Hume’s Dialogues (Wielenberg 2009). Also, while Dennett (2006) makes a passionate call for the scientific study of religion as a natural phenomenon, such study existed long before this call. Indeed, even the cognitive science of religion was well established by the 1990s, and the anthropology of religion can be traced back at least to the nineteenth century. Shifting from content to style, many are surprised by the militancy of some New Atheists, but there were plenty of aggressive atheists who were quite disrespectful to religion long before Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens. (Dennett is not especially militant.) Finally, the stereotype that New Atheism is religious or quasi-religious or ideological in some unprecedented way is clearly a false one and one that New Atheists reject. (For elaboration of these points, see Zenk 2013.)

Consider, religions are founded in fully acknowledged belief systems, and as such, there are almost an infinite number of belief systems. Even in a major religion, there are MANY different schools of thought or doctrine, thus each religion has sub-religions or sub-beliefs. By contrast, if atheism was the abense of religion – meaning there is no God – there could never be any variance in this – no differing views – because it would be an absolute truth that there is no God. Yet we see wide varieties in the “belief” (philosophy) in atheism. This alone defines atheism as being subject to individual perceptions, individual philosophy, individual belief – and labels it for what it is – it is a belief – it is a religion in and of itself!

Another subcategory of atheism is “friendly atheism”, which William Rowe (1979) defines as the position that, although God does not exist, some (intellectually sophisticated) people are justified in believing that God exists. Rowe, a friendly atheist himself, contrasts friendly atheism with unfriendly atheism and indifferent atheism. Unfriendly atheism is the view that atheism is true and that no (sophisticated) theistic belief is justified. In spite of its highly misleading name, this view might be held by the friendliest, most open-minded and religiously tolerant person imaginable. Finally, although Rowe refers to “indifferent atheism” as a “position”, it is not a proposition but instead a psychological state, specifically, the state of being an atheist who is neither friendly nor unfriendly—that is, who neither believes that friendly atheism is true nor believes that unfriendly atheism is true.

Perhaps an even more interesting distinction is between pro-God atheism and anti-God atheism. A pro-God atheist like John Schellenberg (who coined the term) is someone who in some real sense loves God or at least the idea of God, who tries very hard to imagine what sorts of wonderful worlds such a being might create (instead of just assuming that such a being would create a world something like the world we observe), and who (at least partly) for that very reason believes that God does not exist. Such an atheist might be sympathetic to the following sentiments:

It is an insult to God to believe in God. For on the one hand it is to suppose that he has perpetrated acts of incalculable cruelty. On the other hand, it is to suppose that he has perversely given his human creatures an instrument—their intellect—which must inevitably lead them, if they are dispassionate and honest, to deny his existence. It is tempting to conclude that if he exists, it is the atheists and agnostics that he loves best, among those with any pretensions to education. For they are the ones who have taken him most seriously. (Strawson 1990)

By contrast, anti-God atheists like Thomas Nagel (1997: 130–131) find the whole idea of a God offensive and hence not only believe but also hope very much that no such being exists. Nagel is often called an “antitheist” (e.g., Kahane 2011), but that term is purposely avoided here, as it has many different senses (Kahane 2011: note 9). Also, in none of those senses is one required to be an atheist in order to be an antitheist, so antitheism is not a variety of atheism.


A reasonable person can accept that some believe that there is no God. They can accept this, as we accept other competing faiths. There are countless faiths, just as there are countless humans – each one believing in what they believe. As long as there are tolerant and do no harm, nor force others to accept their faith then we can coexist.

However, we have seen countless examples of one faith attempting to destroy others. By definition this is descriminatory.

Religion can only be viewed through a lens of tolerance and civil morality. People can believe what they want as long as it does not harm – what civilization has decreed as being the standard for that.

But far to much of today’s atheism is on this crusade to force out all religion from public life. And this is religious discrimination by definition.

It will be vital for everyone of faith – any faith to think about this and really try to understand this.

Our next U.S. election is as much a question of survival of religion as anything else. So make sure that you are voting for the side that respects your faith.