☰ •••

Atheism Is NOT A Religion

Combating The Common Assertion That ‘Atheism Is A Religion’

Copyright © 2015 & 2018 by Wil C. Fry. All Rights Reserved.

Published 2015.04.27, Updated 2018.11.18

Home > Atheism Index > My Specific Position > Atheism Is NOT A Religion

 

Short Version: There are no reasonable definitions of “atheism” and “religion” that overlap. On the flip side, it is silly to say “theism is a religion” — theism is simply a belief in one or more gods. Neither atheism nor theism indicates a system or organized set of beliefs. Atheism and theism simply represent one-word answers to the question “Do you believe in God(s)?”

 

Introduction

There are many misconceptions and myths about atheism, but perhaps the silliest, most frustrating, and least conducive to conversation or debate is the assertion that “atheism is a religion” or “atheism is a belief system”, sometimes accompanied by “it requires faith to be an atheist”.

It’s frustrating in the same way that communicating complex concepts to someone who doesn't speak your language is frustrating. If words don’t mean the same thing to you that they mean to me then we cannot communicate. If someone asserts “ice is a liquid”, then you are arguing about definitions, not about ice or liquids.


Agreeing On Definitions

Before two parties can debate — or even agree upon — any subject, definitions must be agreed upon. On my definitions page, I listed a few relevant words and what they mean. I did not invent or change these definitions, though in a few cases I simplified.

Religion

There are several accepted definitions of religion (see OED), especially when the word is used loosely, as in the following example: “Football is a religion to him.” I think reasonable people can agree that the word is used metaphorically in such cases — “something very important”.

Religion is also used synonymously with faith or belief systems: “My religion is a private matter.”

However, I think most of us would agree that several factors must be present before something qualifies as a religion, in the strictest sense of the word:
If you’re not convinced all three are required for something to be a religion, think about any noun defined with only two of the factors (missing a third).

(1) Using only the first two factors (missing the organization), you have only a personal belief system. (2) Taking only the latter two factors (missing belief in the supernatural), you simply have an organization — it could be a photography club or VFW post. (3) With only the first and last items (missing rules/principles), you have an organization of people who believe the same thing, but it’s not necessarily a religion. It could be a branch of the Fellowship Of Christian Athletes. They might indeed have a set of rules for the organization, but the rules aren’t based on the beliefs.
Using this three-factor definition, you can accurately describe the world’s major and minor religions: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, and so on, and even branches within these major religions.

(Lest someone point out to me that “not all Buddhists believe in God, or even gods”, note that above I say “belief in the supernatural” and not necessarily gods. Buddhists, while some believe in a variety of gods and others don’t, definitely do believe in supernatural phenomenon.)

Further, almost all recognized religions serve a threefold purpose to their members — and I think even religious people will agree with these:
(Taking Christianity as an example, it [1] tells us God created the world and all life in it, [2] lists behaviors to avoid or emulate, and [3] describes various punishments/rewards both in this life and after death.)

Atheism

Merriam-Webster lists two definitions for atheism:
The Oxford English Dictionary has only one defintion:
The etymology, of course, is from Greek atheos, which means godless or without god. Most atheists I have known use either the Oxford definition or the first Merriam-Webster definition, as I did on my definitions page. It just means you don’t believe in gods. Atheism is not the antonym of religion. Atheism is the antonym of theism. Another way of saying it:
“Atheism is a ‘no’ answer to one question: ‘Do you believe in God?’ ”

 

Does Atheism Fit The Definition?

Even when used loosely — metaphorically — as in the football example above, “religion” still cannot be accurate to describe atheism. If you say “Atheism is a religion to him”, the key words are “to him”, and the word religion only means “something very important”. It just means atheism is very important to one person. Atheism is very well not important to all atheists, and being important doesn’t make something a religion.

Anyone who insists that the word can be used thusly to describe atheism as a religion must also apply it to any idea, object, or behavior that is very important to someone. Collecting stamps is a religion. Farming is a religion. Eating is a religion. Photography is a religion. Electricity is a religion.

If religion is used as a synonym for faith or belief, then it cannot possibly apply to atheism, since — by definition — atheism is a lack of such a belief.
If religion is used as a synonym for faith or belief, then it cannot possibly apply to atheism, since — by definition — atheism is a lack of such a belief.

If religion is defined more strictly, in the three-factor method I described above, then again it does not apply to atheism. There are indeed atheist organizations, and I’m sure some atheist groups have rules, but there is no belief, so it doesn’t fit.

In the same way, theism is not a religion. By definition, theism simply means “believing in a god or gods”. Many people believe in various gods, but do not belong to church organizations or attend services or participate in related rituals.

So no, atheism is not a religion, though it is indeed important to some atheists, and though there are indeed atheist organizations. Atheism itself simply means not believing in a god or gods.


Atheism Is A Belief System?

This arises from a semantic shift, whereby the believer says: “Atheists believe there is no god. That’s still belief!” Yet the actual definition says not believing in a god. If you’re using the word “atheist” to mean anything else, you’re being intentionally dishonest.

Being an atheist requires zero belief, zero action, nothing. The definition of the word is the lack of something (belief in god).
Being an atheist requires zero belief, zero action, nothing. The definition of the word is the lack of something (belief in god).

Even using the second definition of atheist — a “philosophical or religious position” — the position is “characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods”. So it still doesn’t count as a “belief system”, because the atheist is not believing anything, but rather remaining unconvinced that any god-claims are true.

This is not to say that atheists believe in nothing. That too is a popular misconception about atheism, which I dealt with elsewhere. Atheists believe all sorts of things; just not gods.


Atheism Requires More Faith Than Religion

Yes, this assertion is idiotic on its face, and self-contradictory. “Baldness requires more hair than being hairy” makes no sense whatsoever. “Abstinence requires more intercourse than being sexually active.” But many actual humans continue to trot out this tired statement. Why?

As an example, National Catholic Register writer Matthew Warner asserts this, saying it takes more faith to find a “finely prepared meal” and assume that nothing put it there than to believe someone put it there. On that, we agree — except of course that he’s using the meal as an analogy for the universe. The analogy breaks down quickly, not only because he used the word prepared (which by definition requires a preparer), but because we don’t know of any natural processes that would result in a seemingly prepared meal, and because we know exactly how meals are made — we watch them get prepared every day. The universe, on the other hand — we’ve never seen one built, but we know of plenty of natural processes (gravity, fusion, etc.) that could result in much of what we observe. And the rest is still being studied.

Regardless, atheism doesn’t require anyone to make any statement about the origin of the universe. It’s just the negative answer to one question.
Regardless, atheism doesn’t require anyone to make any statement about the origin of the universe. It’s just the negative answer to one question.

A Church of Christ writer goes further, listing a bunch of things that an atheist “must” believe. The first one, like the others, is incorrect: an atheist “must believe that God does not exist.” I’ve already covered this. He goes on to say we must believe certain things about the nature of matter, how life began, etc. None of these are required for someone to be an atheist, though many atheists actually do believe much of what he says they do. The reason of course, is that there is evidence of some of them, and the others follow logically from that evidence.

But atheism itself does not require that someone has thought through all of these big questions. Similarly theism doesn’t require that someone believe in the Virgin Birth Of Christ, or reincarnation, or a literal Hell. You can be a theist (believe in one or more gods) yet not believe those other things.

Further, “belief” and “faith” aren’t synonyms, though they’re used as such by the latter writer. Faith is confidence or belief not based on evidence. Belief is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists. The discerning reader will realize that belief doesn’t require evidence, but it can be involved. Faith on the other hand, by definition, means accepting the truth of something without evidence.

I believe all kinds of things, because I can see them, because I can verify them in some way. But I have very little faith in anything. Life has taught me to be skeptical of any claim without evidence.
I believe all kinds of things, because I can see them, because I can verify them in some way. But I have very little faith in anything. Life has taught me to be skeptical of any claim without evidence. Any claim without evidence sure could be true, but they’re untrue often enough that I no longer accept them at face value.

Not all claims need to be evaluated. If my neighbor tells me he played baseball in high school, I don’t feel a need to call around and find out if that’s true. It isn’t important (unless I’m hiring a baseball coach, perhaps). If a neighbor tells me the state has a law against owning more than four cats, again, the claim is irrelevant to me, because I don’t own cats. If I planned to buy five cats, then I would call an official or search online to find out what the law actually said.

But if one of your neighbors told you she once swallowed a full-scale 1967 Ford Mustang and that she will swallow your automobile unless you believe and obey her unquestioningly — you would actively disbelieve her. It’s not only an extraordinary claim, but like religion it’s a claim that aims to control you. You would require extraordinary evidence that not only had she eaten previous automobiles but that she would someone be able to read your thoughts to determine whether you believed her.

Similarly, it is an extraordinary claim to assert an all-powerful deity created and rules the universe, has very strict rules (many of them about genitalia!), and will certainly send me to either eternal punishment or eternal bliss after I die. Such an extraordinary claim can be actively disbelieved.


Conclusion

It’s not difficult to examine the definitions of atheism and religion and determine that atheism is not a religion. The same applies to “belief system” and atheism. Further saying that “atheism requires faith” or “more faith than religion” not only mistakes the definition of atheism, but also the definition of faith.

I strongly suspect that many of the theists making these assertions are aware of the actual definitions — that they use false ones in deflection attempts, hoping to derail discussion. It works, because it sends atheists off on tangents about semantics and word meanings. Doing so saves the religionist the trouble of losing the larger argument — about the curious and powerful lack of evidence for gods.

It is this suspicion of mine that urged me to create this webpage. In future encounters or discussions, I won’t be tempted to head down those pointless tangents; I can simply link to this page.

 



Back to: Definitions

Back to: Misconceptions About Atheism

Or use the ••• menu to navigate.



This is the updated version of this page. To see the original version, click here. Known edits are listed below.

Edits:





comments powered by Disqus