Atheism the RELIGION of don't believe!

To my way of thinking a belief system or religion is a belief held by a singular entity or group. We form groups by association of common traits...Be it Zionism, Buddhism, Archaeology, Philosophy, and so on. Groups each have a unique practice, system or trait that separates them from other groups. Within each group there is some kind of unique commonality. Groups are defined by these unique common traits. There are also groups within larger groups, an example of this could be Religion. Within religion we find many smaller groups, some of these are Protestant Christianity, Catholicism, Judaism, or Muslims... but what about Atheists...

Is Atheism a belief system? Is it a Religion?

I'm beginning to believe it is. They have a 'Faith' in the non-existence of God that is very similar to the opposing 'Faith' or belief in the existence of God held by Christians, Muslims, and Jews. In my experience, they all cite the same logic, just from opposite ends. "just look around, the proof is everywhere".

The definition of a Religion:

From Wikipedia:

A religion is any systematic approach to living that involves beliefs about one's origins, one's place in the world, or a responsibility to live and act in the world in particular ways.

From re⋅li⋅gion  [ri-lij-uhn]


1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

Based on the definitions Yes, Atheism is a Religion.

There are two distinct forms of Atheism.

Passive Atheism, like my daughters, is merely a lack of belief. A lack of belief means that they are not absolutely convinced in either direction, but lean strongly toward the belief that God does not exist. In my experience a passive Atheist would usually respond to a conversation about a supreme being with something like this: "There may be a God, I mean it is possible I suppose, but I find it hard to believe."

Active Atheism, is a stance where a decision has been made. A belief in the impossibility of the existence of a supreme being established and held to with conviction, and actions taken to convert others to the established belief. This form of Atheism is a religion, containing structure and dogma. It is a systematic approach to living that involves beliefs about one's origins, one's place in the world, and a responsibility to live and act in the world in a particular way. An active Atheist usually responds more along the lines of: "There is no Sky Fairy and you're an idiot for believing in Fairy tales. A God concept is a stupid outdated concept that has absolutely no credible evidence to support it. It ranks up there with the beliefs in unicorns and big foot. The only reason anyone would believe in 'the Psychopathic Man living in the sky' is because they are indoctrinated as children, and forced to believe."

***I would like to stress however that the belief that modern Christianity is incorrect in it's many beliefs about the nature of God, as expressed by a multitude of self proclaimed Atheists, is not the same thing as the true Atheist belief that a supreme being of any kind is impossible. Believing that Christianity is incorrect does not make you an Atheist.***

How does Atheism fit into the Puzzle?

The way I see God is that God is Everything/Nothing, God is the coin, Everything and Nothing are the two sides of the coin. Atheists worship the Nothing side of God by doing nothing, by not praying, by not attending services, by not joining in communion with others and with God. They, like all Religions try to convince others that what they believe is true (maybe attempts to 'convert' others to the non-belief might be deemed as a 'sin'?).

Atheism is made a Religion by the Dogma of professing a Belief/Faith in the NON-existence of God. The religious symbols of this Faith are as I previously stated, the 'absence' of all symbols of a God.  It is true that Atheists have no written doctrine (i.e. Bibles), but the essence of the religion is the 'absence of' all such things. Also, for the first 300 years of Christianity, neither did the Christians.

The Church of Happenstance...

The Active Atheists are trying very hard to prove that a supreme being of any kind is not only far fetched but utterly impossible. They would like humanity to believe everything is just happenstance, it just is. Active Atheism is organized and actively seeking converts. They work at it tirelessly, as is evidenced in online forums and in the many books and speeches that they produce. Active Atheists are passionately opposed to organized religion, even though they are one themselves. Which many refuse to admit.

Satanists are allied with the Active Atheists, whether they know it or not, because the destruction of God is the Satanic goal. As the old saying goes; the enemy of my enemy is my friend... So some that claim to be merely Atheists, aren't, and believers should be aware of that possibility as well. I am not by any means stating that all Atheists are Satanists, merely that if I were Satan that is another place where I would be. Again and for the record, my own daughter is an atheist, albeit a passive one, and I admit she may be correct in her beliefs, because there is no proof either way.

The church of happenstance is a hard one to sell, because they are in the business of getting us to buy, ~nothing~. The only way they can make ~nothing~ sell is by destroying the competition. Which means destroying the beliefs of anyone that believes in God. Making a belief in God seem silly, juvenile, delusional or something that only an idiot would believe. Which I'm afraid to say the ancient/modern churches are helping them with by refusing to accept change. Even after the logical flaws of long held beliefs are identified for what they are, a means to control people and enforce an authority.

Atheists (both types) I believe are necessary, like the opposing team at a ball game, to spur believers into an examination of truth, and of scientific evidence and belief in the unprovable. They are creations of God and Loved by God just as much as any believer. They are simply the Yin to our Yang.

Atheism has been made popular in recent times by the failure of the ancient/modern churches to keep up with humanities growth in understanding. The ancient/modern churches have become a symbol of Fascism rather than of love and understanding. This makes them the best tool for the propagation of the Atheist Religion. All they have to do is point out the killings that religious terrorists commit and the path of believing in happenstance becomes much more appealing, and even seems to be more logical and loving. Which in truth it isn't, nature and the beautiful and artistic design that nature is, is to me too complex and too highly organized to be merely happenstance. The physical laws of nature, the complexities of mathematics, the interactions of physics, the existence of DNA, and above all the human emotions all point me in the direction of belief in an intelligence of design and an intelligent designer. The fact that almost everything in nature is organized in a Pyramidal design speaks volumes to me of a blueprint and a purposefully carried out plan.

Science is not a tool that can be used to dis-prove the existence of God, though Active Atheists have tried to use it as such a tool. Science is simply the discovery of HOW God created everything, and the correlation between the many creations of God.

Me and My Imaginary Friend

Some of us don't need the comfort of a benign supreme being, my daughter included. I however find much comfort in the existence of a benign being that is better than me. I understand that it is possible that God is nothing more than "My Imaginary Friend". A make-believe being, invented in my mind.

It is entirely possible that the chain of events that led to my birth on the planet we call Earth, is just that, a chain of events. The Atheists have just as much Faith in their beliefs as those that profess a belief in God. It is just that the Atheist Faith is that of the impossibility of the existence of God.

Again by MY logic:

If we exist, and a germ or microbe exists, and we are a greater life-form than these germs or microbes...

Then either we are the ultimate form of life and thereby, God, or something else is greater than us.

The ultimate form of life has to be by definition, God. However, God does not have to be what "they" say God is. Atheists may or may not believe we are the most highly developed form of life, which I believe is the definition of the word God. The organized religions have attached a much bigger and more defined meaning to the word God. The ancient/modern religions have defined God as an "unlimited" being. The Atheists believe that there is no such thing as an "unlimited" being.

***I have a hard time believing that God is an unlimited being because that would mean that the concept of impossibility could not exist, and without the existence of "impossible" it's opposite, "possible" could not exist either, and it obviously does. (but if the only impossibility was finding anything God could not do... that would make God unlimited and impossible would indeed exist...???) I keep having the paradox of "could God build a wall so high God could not jump over it" run through my mind...but that paradox only works if God is a man, with human limits??? ...If the wall were infinity high, which means never ending...then God would be eternally jumping the wall but unable to ever surpass it because it would be ever growing... so yes God could theoretically build a wall that God would have the ability to both jump over and not jump over, because the wall would have to have a top limit in order to be jumped and an infinitely tall wall would not have that needed limit...???***

Which leaves me at- either case may be true, and unfortunately, there is no way for us/me to prove the point either way. That does not mean that someday we won't find the proof that we are missing today. But my point is that the existence of God, the "best", the supreme being, the most highly evolved and powerful life-form in existence is to me highly possible and further more very likely.

An absence of proof, of the existence of God, is not proof that God Does NOT exist. It merely means we don't know, and cannot prove it either way. As the ancient/modern religions say, "it comes down to faith". Right now there is a 50/50 chance for either side of the issue to be right. Your point of view, whichever that is, may be right.

Yelling at the opposing team may make you feel better, but it only hinders us in the long run. Advancing knowledge and understanding is the only thing that will ever lead to a conclusion to this argument. If you truly believe, as I do, that there is a supreme being, then don't hinder progress. Progress in all areas is the path to discovery. The path to the proof of our beliefs, or theirs, either way I would prefer the truth because I have always preferred a hard truth to an easy lie. Besides, only someone that truly believes they are wrong, deep down inside, would hinder the discovery of the truth. Only those that somehow know that the stance they have taken is incorrect would be afraid of all the facts becoming common knowledge. I have no fear of the truth, because I believe.

The more I ponder this issue, the more I discover that I am unable to fairly represent the views of Atheists, because I truly and profoundly believe in God. I do respect your right to believe differently than I do and I hope it brings you peace and good things, but I am comforted by the existence of God, my possibly imaginary, benign and almost?-unlimited friend.

More by this Author

Comments 13 comments

aguasilver profile image

aguasilver 6 years ago from Malaga, Spain

Good hub, and thought provoking, I will watch out for where you go next Mikel, with interest.

You have given a fresh approach and it will give me some good concepts to chew upon.



Jane Bovary profile image

Jane Bovary 6 years ago from The Fatal Shore

Hi Mikel...I can't agree with you about active atheism being a belief system with religious-like attributes. Trying to convince someone that your philosophical position is the correct one does not have to mean that you are basing your argument on *faith*....certainly not blind faith as is the case with religion.

A believer may say "I Have faith that God exists because...." and an atheist will examine each reason using rational thought NOT blind faith. An atheist is not required to provide proof of the non-existence of God to justify his/her position.The onus is on those making an extraordinary that God exists. Just as, if you told me you could fly it would be a perfectly rational for me to not believe you, in the absence of any evidence to support your claim.

Would I have to prove that you couldn't before I could reasonably disbelieve...? How would my disbelief be a "faith"....? Unless it is faith that if you jump out of a ten story building attempting to fly you will likely be splattered on the ground. In which case it is a faith based in reason and not like a religious belief at all.

Mikel G Roberts profile image

Mikel G Roberts 6 years ago from The Heartland Author

Hello Jane,

By starting your arguement with "...Trying to convince someone that your philosophical position is the correct one does not have to mean that you are basing your argument on *faith*...." would tend to mean that you are not guilty of just that...but you are.

If you believe that there is no God and your belief is based on proof, I would love to see your proof, the bitter truth is that you do not have any proof, so you are basing your belief that God does not exist on faith.

I think that your using the term 'Religious' to mean the 'christian faith/church'. Before you reply to this I would suggest that you read my other hub:

In it I believe you will see that I have based just as much logic and rational thinking as any atheist has.

A belief that something does not exist is still a belief.

Faith is believing without proof.

Since there is no proof either way, either way we decide to believe is a faithful decision.

A religious belief, like the religious belief of atheism, is clearly defined by the definition of what a religion is, even if it is not the definition that you choose to apply to the word.

Proof is required from anyone that wishes to convert anyone from what they believe to what someone else believes. Be that the conversion of a non-believer to a believer, or from a non believer attempting to convert a believer to the non-belief.

Saying that the inability to prove something exists means it doesn't, is a fallacy.

Mikel G Roberts profile image

Mikel G Roberts 6 years ago from The Heartland Author

(The Fallacy: How could people exist without DNA? They can't, and yet DNA has only been proven to exist recently... so either something unproven can exist or the proof is what creates the proven thing...)

Obviously things we cannot prove exist...DO indeed exist.

secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City

I enjoyed this article a lot. I definitely agree that atheism is essentially just another blind faith because it lacks evidence for its claim. No doubt about that.

However, aside from the central claim, I also think atheism is a logically superior mindset than any traditionally "religious" mindset because it answers questions (about the origins of life, about morality, about purpose, etc) through reason. It has to, because it has nothing else to go by.

By contrast, the religious will answer such questions through more blind faith layered on top of the existing blind faith. This comes in the form of the holy book, the sermon, the fatwa, or whatever. For this reason I give atheism default preference, and traditional "religion" default suspicion, whereas you seem to take the opposite position. Although I don't think a believer in god necessary must give traditional religion such preference.

I'm very glad you say that your belief is just faith, that there's no proof for it. You are miles ahead of many other God believers.

Thanks for an interesting article.

Mikel G Roberts profile image

Mikel G Roberts 6 years ago from The Heartland Author

secularist10, you said, "Although I don't think a believer in god necessary must give traditional religion such preference."

Which I don't understand.

As far as the no proof of God... I believe there is proof that God exsists, it just isn't scientific proof...


secularist10 profile image

secularist10 6 years ago from New York City

A believer in god does not necessarily have to give traditional religion (i.e. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc) such preference because belief in god is a separate thing from following such a religion.

For example, I can believe in god without going to church, without praying, without taking part in religious holidays, etc. So they are two separate things. This is why many people around the world believe in god, without following an established religion.

If the proof for god is not scientific, then it is not very useful. It ranks with proof for Big Foot or leprechauns--circumstantial and subjective.

Mikel G Roberts profile image

Mikel G Roberts 6 years ago from The Heartland Author

"If the proof for god is not scientific, then it is not very useful. It ranks with proof for Big Foot or leprechauns--circumstantial and subjective."

Which is exactly the scientific proof that the people that believe there is no God have...circumstantial and subjective.

If the only valid evidence is scientific evidence, which you have already admitted that atheists do not have, then how can you say, as a default, the atheist mindset is the better choice?

Making outlandish claims trying to make the existence of leprechauns and big foot as being the same as a belief in God, for which there is proof, yes it is a proof you dismiss out of hand because it is not scientific proof, but it is proof none the less.

Scientific proof is overated in my opinion. It is only as good as the people that are involved. Scientific 'Facts' are often just best guesses that sometimes are true and other times are proven wrong in time. There are a long list of the failures of scientific 'Facts' and as such I cannot limit myself and my perceptions to the flawed science of empirical evidence, especially when I, a mere highschool graduate, can point to a flawed and commonly accepted scientific 'Fact' like Newton's third Law of motion and see the obvious flaw in it. The 'Fact' that the scientific community is unwilling to look at the empirical evidence alone and examine the truth of a theory unless it is a theory submitted by a renowned name shows the very corrupted nature of the scientific community.

Techwriter21 6 years ago

Very nice! Although atheism is not a religion. Its a beleif. I don't gather with a group of atheists every Sunday and talk about it.

Mikel G Roberts profile image

Mikel G Roberts 6 years ago from The Heartland Author

Promoting Atheism differently (for example online) rather than meeting in a "church" does not negate the fact that you are congregating and "praying" by sharing with other like minded individuals and those that aren't so like minded. Showing others how Atheism is better than the other religions and seeking to "free their minds" is the Atheist conversion process.

By the definition of a religion, Atheism IS a religion. Sundays have nothing to do with it, American Indians follow a religion and they pray around fires outside on what ever day they choose. Like so many Atheists you seem to believe that it has to be like Christianity in order to be deemed a Religion.

TahoeDoc profile image

TahoeDoc 5 years ago from Lake Tahoe, California

A-theism: Godlessness, without god. That's it.

Mikel G Roberts profile image

Mikel G Roberts 5 years ago from The Heartland Author


If only it were that simple.

rjbatty profile image

rjbatty 4 years ago from Irvine

I think the logic you used in some of your arguments is irrational and emotion-based, but I enjoyed the journey of this Hub. I cannot see how atheism constitutes a "religion." The fact that atheists stand in opposition to the propositions accepted by religious followers does not make them a coercive, unified group of any kind. From my perspective atheists are very unique individuals who avoid the idea of the collective. They seem to be people who do not accept the status quo by pressure of the majority. They think things through as INDIVIDUALS and derive at their conclusions through a great deal of self-reflection, understanding that they are standing apart from the crowd, and thereby accepting a certain amount of condemnation (which is hardly any kind of incentive). From a "believers" point of view, these "outsiders" must be respected because God gave them the ability to think abstractly and mesh their inner-most feelings with the beliefs of the majority. If someone is unconvinced by the argument of a "leap of faith" it must be accepted -- and I would hope without a fuss from the majority. I suspect the harder a believer attempts to bring a non-believer into the religious camp the greater resistance (and possible animosity) is generated in the mind of the individual thinker.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.

    Click to Rate This Article