In Defense of Atheism: The Legitimacy of not Believing in God
The Misunderstandings
Atheists are a widely misunderstood group of people. One of the greatest misunderstandings about people who deny the existence of the supernatural is that we are organized in direct defiance of religious belief. In fact, atheists are not unified in their non-belief in the same way people of the same religious beliefs are unified in their shared faith. Atheists are typically independent thinkers who have no interest in forming some sort of cult or church of atheism. Unlike various forms of theism, such as Christianity or Islam, atheism has no centralizing dogma to rally behind. Atheists simply live in a world without God and take it upon themselves as individuals to find meaning and fulfillment in their lives. There do exist atheist organizations that promote the atheist perspective and offer support for the atheist minority, but again, there is no unifying ideological doctrine behind which organized atheists stand. I will begin my defense of atheism by explaining in detail common misconceptions religious people sometimes have regarding atheists. I will title each following section on the topic of misunderstanding in the form of questions and statements religious people commonly direct at atheists.
Note: For the sake of simplicity, I may refer to God in a general sense encompassing all monotheistic religious deities. Also, to clarify, atheists of course do not believe in the existence of a multiplicity of pagan deities either. Again, I largely limit my reference to the supernatural to the monotheistic God for the sake of simplicity.
How can you be moral if you don't believe in God or the Bible?
The answer to this is quite simple. Psycho-evolutionary theorists have determined that altruism is a trait which increases the chances of survival. Therefore, a sense of morality is likely to have been carefully shaped by natural selection throughout the course of human evolution. I will return in detail to the topic of evolution by natural selection further down. For the majority of human history, we lived in small nomadic groups. This was also true of the earlier primates from which we evolved. As such, until fairly recently, people were dependent on one another for survival. People who shared food, skill, work, etc. with other members of the group were more likely to form the bonds of trust necessary for peaceful cohabitation. Ancient humans would not have survived if the majority of them had not been altruistic and "kind" to one another to foster peaceful cohabitation. That is how evolution by natural selection works; if something increases the chances of survival, in this case altruism, then it is this trait that is passed on genetically to the next generation. Adversely, greediness and violence are traits which can have short-term gains, but in ancient nomadic groups, the long-term impact of the resulting social stratification and rejection resulted in a reduced chance of survival. Therefore, natural selection has painstakingly weeded out the bad people, and promoted the survival of the good. This is why most people are basically good, because being trustworthy and moral was, for the majority of human existence, crucial to survival. Of course, there are still people who make mistakes, have violent temperaments, and are greedy. Natural selection works in trends and tendencies; it does not necessarily result in a perfect product. Natural selection is not a perfect process, but it has thus far kept evil in the overwhelming minority.
Another way to approach this question is to consider the questionable morality of religious scripture, which frequently references limitations on our diets and sex lives which most people no longer take seriously. Of course the bible teaches such undeniable maxims as not to steal or murder, but it also teaches violence against women, racist sentiment, and even glorifies genocide. Religious fundamentalists who use religious scripture to counter the naturally shifting moral zeitgeist, which in the West is moving toward such modern moral goals as gender equality, pro-choice abortion, and LGBT legitimacy, prove that biblical morality should not be our only source of morals. On a final note, I sincerely hope that religious people do not seriously believe that fear of supernatural retribution is the only valid path to a moral existence.
Why do you hate God, what did he ever do to you?
There really is not much to say about this point, but I hear it so often, it is worth explaining. Atheists do not hate God because for them, he simply does not exist. Some religious people try to explain atheism as the result of a traumatic experience. In truth, most atheists who were otherwise raised in a religious household simply grow out of their religious beliefs due to a variety of factors. Some fail to understand the legitimacy of choosing one religion amongst a variety of world religion. Some simply believe there is not enough evidence to consider religion and spirituality a rational way of forming a worldview. The simple fact of the matter is that some people just do not see the legitimacy of religious faith.
If you don't believe in God, your life has no meaning
My primary issue with religious people who make this kind of statement is that they do not know what it is like to be an atheist, and therefore are in no position to make assumptions about an atheist's quality of life. Atheists, just as well as religious people, find meaning in art, career, friendship, love, etc. Atheists do not need to believe in an eternal, loving, omnipotent, omniscient deity to validate their life's meaning. In fact, atheists tend to take life more seriously and avoid wasting the precious little time that they have because they do not expect an afterlife.
What if you're wrong? What if you really are angering God?
There is not a single person alive to whom this question does not apply, in fact. It is not just atheists who may be wrong. You could also say that any given religious person may "be wrong" for having chosen the wrong religion. A Christian could ask a Muslim if he worries about angering God by following the wrong faith, just as a Muslim could ask the very same question of a Christian.
Your faith in atheism is no different than faith in religion
I hear this often when discussing atheism v. theism with someone who is religious, or even agnostic. Some people misinterpret anti-religious argumentation as a means of developing an atheistic dogma. It can not, however, be reversed in this way. I began this article by explaining in detail that atheism is nothing like any given religion. Atheism is not based on faith. Atheists think rationally about the verifiable historical and scientific information available to us and make decisions about the nature of the universe based on evidence. Becoming an atheist does not take a leap of faith of any kind. Disbelief in the supernatural is not a matter of believing in non-faith, rather a preference for incontrovertible evidence of the truth over the assumed truths of religious scripture.
Not Being Able to Prove the Non-Existence of God
Now that I have cleared up some common misunderstandings people have regarding atheists, I will cover some of the topics which are often used in a case against the legitimacy of atheism. Many agnostics who would otherwise classify as atheists prefer agnosticism because they admit they can not prove that God does not exist. Of course, the value of this logical argument for religious people is also apparent. However, this argument is predicated on the assumption that the possible existence of God is equally justifiable as the possibility of no God.
There is not a shred of evidence to prove the existence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Russell's Teapot (which is theorized to currently orbit Mars), just as there is not a shred of evidence to prove the existence of God. Justifying belief in God based on the impossibility of disproving his existence is the same as justifying belief in the three items pictured above because their existence is also impossible to disprove. The "anything is possible" mentality is not a sound or rational basis for defining one's worldview.
What about Scripture?
Religious scripture does not prove the existence of God. If you are going to use the Bible, the Torah, or the Koran to justify the existence of a supernatural deity, it would be just as rational for you to consider texts on Greek mythology proof of the existence of Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades, or ancient Scandinavian runic depictions as proof of the existence of Odin, Thor, Loki, etc. Religious scripture should be subject to the same skeptical scrutiny as all historical documents. For example, although there exist Scandinavian historical documents suggesting a pre-columbian viking settlement in what is now North America, this could not be verified until archaeological excavation proved the existence of a viking settlement on L'Anse aux Meadows in Newfoundland.
Illusion of Intelligent Design
To be an atheist is to understand the scientific explanation for the world we live in. The scientific explanation for life as it exists on our planet is evolution by natural selection, as first theorized by Charles Darwin. Much of the resistance to the theory of evolution by natural selection is a result of the complete misunderstanding thereof. People seem to assume that if something is called a "theory", then it can not be definitively proven. This misunderstanding, however, is the result of scientific illiteracy. Scientific theories are based on evidence that can be observed and tested. The wealth of evidence to be found in genetics, the fossil record, the anatomy of living beings, etc. lends incontrovertible support for the validity of evolution by natural selection. Conversely, there is absolutely no evidence which supports the scriptural account of creation by intelligent design. Because visible changes caused by the process of natural selection take hundred of thousands of years to become apparent, understanding evolution takes a high degree of abstract thinking. For some people, it is much simpler to attribute the complexity of life as we know it to an intelligent designer. Within the creationist worldview, the world was created in order to allow life to flourish. However, evolution by natural selection works the other way around. Life has evolved over billions of years to be best suited for the environment in which we happen to live. This is what I mean by the "Illusion of Intelligent Design". Humans are much more well-equipped to conceptualize their present surroundings than they are to think abstractly billions of years into the past and to consider the processes that led to the present. It is for this reason that people are more susceptible to believing that our planet sustains us and that we are the way we are because God did it. Conceptualizing so far into the past as is necessary to understand evolution by natural selection is counter-intuitive to the way human psychology has evolved. The creation v. evolution debate is an integral part of the theism v. atheism debate. The main reason that atheists remain a minority is not because it is wrong not to believe in God, but because believing in God is more compatible with human psychology.
Conclusion
There is much more you can read on such topics as evolution by natural selection and the explanation for religious faith as outlined by evolutionary psychologists. I have covered some of the primary arguments in support of an atheistic worldview, as well as countered common misconceptions regarding atheists and atheism. I welcome your thoughts on the matter and will respond to all comments for or against the opinions expressed above.
Comments
AUTHORKaylee, I respect your spirit, but there are some aspects of science you don't seem to fully understand. There are in fact plenty examples of "missing links" in the fossil record. Also, just because you don't understand the evidence for evolution in comparative anatomy and genetic sequencing, that doesn't mean there is no evidence for evolution. It isn't my business whether or not you accept evolution, but I will correct your lack of understanding of the evidence.
Humans are very different from other life. However, your brand of anthropocentrism isn't a solid argument for the legitimacy of spirituality. Your spiritual interpretation of reality makes sense, but I would also encourage you to read more deeply into anthropological research, psychology, and even evolutionary theory. There are some very satisfying explanations for the seeming idiosyncrasies in human life which don't resort to intuitive spiritual assumptions.
Also, some basic research into history will help clear up some assumptions you have about the worsening of humanity and how you inexplicably tie it to natural selection. The continuum of human conflict and moral regression comes in waves, as opposed to an upward scale, as you would know if you expanded your knowledge of global history and affairs.
Im going to say firstly that I do believe in God, but I also have a strong intrest in science. I am no scientist, but I enjoy the subject and find I enjoy it because everything I discover is so complex and works together so well, how could anything but God create such a masterpiece?
I do not believe in evoloution, but not because I believe in God and "Christians don't believe in evoloution," but simply because there is no evidence. If I were an athiest I still would not believe it. There have been no missing links found and even if people claim to find one, there should be tons of fossils and there should be no issues finding missing links. I have lots of other reasons including religious ones of course, but my point is here, Christians take into account science. That is somewhere where you can find God strongly. So when you get into a religious discussion with a Christian, don't assume they don't have answers becuase they can't answer to science. (I have seen this many times before, I am not pointing fingers) Some christians may know their science facts and some may not. It is not worth arguing because when it comes down to it, We as humans have something more. We can all agree there is something different about humans. We contemplate life, we wonder whether we are good or evil, we make civilizations that interact and even fight over the biggest thing, which is, that we even we HAVE religions. I don't see my dog praying before lapping up some food I dropped, or some horse waltzing into a church to repent from their sins. We have something more. There is something within us that is not in anything else. Maybe it is God, maybe not, but to ignore how different we are compare to the rest of this world is illogical, instead of trying to defend how science proves religion wrong, maybe it should be more focused on "what the heck is different about us?" Becuase it is true. We are different.
Spirituality is real. There is something outside of science because we defy it with who we are.
The human race. Sure, we are improving technologically, physically, mentally, but that is all the science part. Natural selection is real, and its playing a part in our physical human bodies and survival, just as it is for every other animal, so thats not where we are different, we ARE just like the rest of the world, I would agree with anyone on that in that sense. (Maybe not previously in my life, but I looked into it and found it to be true.) But, like I mentioned before, we need to focus on what is different, and that is where we as humans defy science and do not improve, showing that there is something that is not science.
We are getting more and more criminals, more and more violent, we are definatly not getting any kinder in this world, homes are falling apart, divorce is COMMON now, countries are being torn apart by terrorisim (the radical muslims, not peacful ones) war doesn't even technically end anymore, whatever makes different, that extra something that makes us stand out, is not definatly not impoving like science says it should. So something outside of science exists. Science is a beautiful thing, but its not the biggest thing out there. Whatever created it is. That is where the issue comes in, and the issue should be discussed, never, ever, ignored. We should all be humble enough to see where we are wrong and change and seek what is the truth. If we run into a problem or conflict we should never ignore it, but find an answer and solution. I have yet to find anything against God, even when I google searched for hours "Why Christians are wrong" or "things to prove christians wrong" because I have yet to find anything not mentioned in the bible. I challange athiests, well, anyone for that matter, even christians, to step out and seriously look into what people say about their religion or beiefs and how people try to prove your belief wrong, but to also really consiter it, forget your pride and everything you put into what you believe, and see what you can find. You may find your beliefs to be undefeatable, but if you can't, which is likely, even for chrsitians, (somethings you may think are right are strictly said no to in the bible), then consiter some changes, if you keep looking for what is right you can never be wrong, becuase everyone elses argument you will have already conqured on your own, and if not, you will only get better, and thats what we all want, right?
-
-
yep, people think aethism is mocking god. no, that's not true
- AUTHOR
Sorry for the delay, I was off the grid for work all week. I am not a geneticist, so I can not offer you such details. However, there is not a single aspect of any living organism that is not prescribed by its individual genetic code. Natural selection influences genetic composition by allowing some genes to be passed on through reproduction, and others to be suppressed through extinction.
You are going to have your rebuttal to this, of course, most likely picking on my lack of detailed knowledge of genetics. The best I can do is hope that people like you will be more open-minded about scientific facts in the future.
"Throughout the paleolithic era, the genes for cooperation and compassion were much more likely to be passed on than the genes for selfishness and aggression."
Genes for cooperation, compassion, selfishness and aggression? What single nucleotide polymorphisms have been directly tied to each of these traits, if any?
@Austin
Prove it.
" It takes tens of thousands of years for natural selection to make meaningful change."
More like millions or billions of years for this to happen naturally. The process can be helped along with new techniques. But it still requires huge blocks of time for natural evolution.
- AUTHOR
The vast majority of human history, like, over 99%, was spent in tight-knit social groups. This is called the paleolithic era. Before civilization as we know it began to emerge some 10,000 years ago, people were intensely dependent on one another for communal support. There were some who hunted, some who gathered, some who were good at making tools, etc. Within this framework, cooperation and empathy with other humans was imperative for survival. Those who did not want to share their resources or caused disturbances, such as violent aggression, were ostracized, which reduced their chances for survival. Natural selection is about survival. It is the genes of those who both survive and reproduce that get passed on. Throughout the paleolithic era, the genes for cooperation and compassion were much more likely to be passed on than the genes for selfishness and aggression. The process is of course not ultimate and greed and aggression certainly continue to thrive. The situation is exacerbated by complex civilization which has taken dependence on communal cooperation out of the equation. Thus such attributes as greed and aggression have more licence to thrive. There has, however, not been nearly enough time for humans to evolve into this new framework. The human mind is still very much shaped by the paleolithic era. It takes tens of thousands of years for natural selection to make meaningful change. The fact that we still thrive speaks to the success of our evolutionary history.
"Natural selection keeps the balance which ensures our survival as a species"
I don't follow. Just how exactly does it do this?
- AUTHOR
Yes, these have been and will continue to be complex evils with which we must contend. Natural selection keeps the balance which ensures our survival as a species, but of course there are setbacks, as you list. I am not really sure what your point is.
-
-
You mean like how Danton, Lenin, Sanger, Than Shwe, Stalin, Mengele, Mao, Kim Il Sung, Ceausescu, Honecker, Castro, Pol Pot, Broz Tito and Milosevic tried better humanity?
- AUTHOR
I don't claim that humanity is perfect, but it has been and continues to be imperative to the survival of our species that most people contribute to the betterment of humanity and that those who transgress are ostracized. That cheaters and criminals exploit the system is a sociological and psycho-evolutionary phenomenon with which we are obligated to contend, but ultimately does not inhibit our productive and progressive functionality.
Thank you for exploring and commenting on my material :)
" natural selection has painstakingly weeded out the bad people, and promoted the survival of the good. "
Hence the exquisite utopia the world is today ... oh ... wait ...
- AUTHOR
A lot of "academic" words I use don't register with spell check...
*Disclaimer Alert!!*
I hope no one took what I said about the study seriously. It was only a joke.
Plus, I don't think Apple has come out with a phone that can either: a) go with a person to Heaven, or b) take a selfie picture of God.
On a lighter note, selfie has not made it into the lexicon until spell check allows it! Although I do write extensively about how technology disconnects us and spell check sucks.
- AUTHOR
I think there is enough material on studies past, which have been sufficiently analysed from a psychological and physiological perspective.
- AUTHOR
Yes, that does seem to make more sense, and it has been done. The universality of near death experiences supports a psychological and physiological explanation over a spiritual explanation. Studies have shown that people of different religions have the same experience, but based on cultural context, will have different names for the beings they encounter and the "light" they see depending on their religious beliefs.
- AUTHOR
The spiritual validity of near-death experiences is not confirmed by them having similar things in common. The same applies to the fairly universal supernatural experiences people who suffer from sleep paralysis commonly report.
Rather than subject people to this, why not study those who have already experienced it? On the right side of the website is a link titled, "Special Category NDEs". Atheists are listed there.
We actually need to do the study using atheists as they don't have a preconceived notion of life after death. I'm not volunteering though because I would rather keep living.
Actually, people from all over the world who practice different religions to varying degrees have had near death experiences, and they all have similar things in common! Here's a link: http://www.near-death.com/
Notice they have links describing the experiences of most major world religions, on the far left.
I would love to see how many Christian 'volunteers' would sign up for a study like it though! :-)
- AUTHOR
I don't think this kind of study would be much use. There would be no way to verify the accounts of the subjects and it I've come to learn people very deep in their religious beliefs are immune to evidence and reason on the topic anyway.
I appreciate your sarcasm, haha. In reality, there is no way this would get support and follow-through.
Slightly unrelated, but TheBizWhiz just came up with a rather elegant way to prove there either is or is not a god. Basically, we need volunteers for a scientific study where the subjects are medically "killed". After a certain period of time, about four minutes or so, they would be resuscitated and their experiences documented immediately and videographed.
Preferably, volunteers would come from all religions and would include atheists and agnostics.
Do you think we could get a grant from the government to get started on this study????
(Sarcastic font enabled)
- AUTHOR
Thank you for directing me to the work on reincarnation. Of course, I will have to read it myself before making a decision on it.
Thanks, Jake. Again, well-reasoned. I see you avoided an argument to ignorance type logical fallacy as many skeptics so easily do.
As I said, the evidence for reincarnation is there, scientifically examined and documented by the late Dr. Ian Stevenson, starting with his 1966 book on the subject. His work continues by others at the University of Virginia.
So, empirical evidence, fully documented does exist.
- AUTHOR
Thank you for your support. I think it is important for atheists to voice themselves to give a better impression of just how diverse a group of people we actually are, even though we sometimes repeat the same points.
Jake, thanks for taking another examination of issues that we atheists often encounter when interacting with believers. While yours certainly isn't the first, and most likely won't be the last, it's important to take the usual laundry list out from time to time, blow the dust off, and give them a fresh look. Well done!
Voted up!
- AUTHOR
Yes, I agree that this kind of double standard does occur. This is one of the issues with a certain kind of left-wing liberalism which seeks freedom from religion, but also promotes "multiculturalism", sometimes to the point of the kind of hypocrisy in your example.
- AUTHOR
I am afraid I am ignorant of American law on the matter. However, your comment here assumes a balanced polar opposition between atheism and religion. Unlike religion, atheism is not a predetermined ideology to which a specific group of people adhere. Atheism is simply the absence of a religious worldview. "Talking about atheism" is not the same as leading a group of people in prayer within an otherwise secular context.
BTW, US schools are becoming very selective about banning school prayers. Our own Duke University (which takes government funding) banned Christian prayers, but was allowing a Muslim call to prayer on the speaker system...until someone pointed out the blatant hypocrisy.
With that, I'll leave your excellent Hub!
There is no freedom 'from' atheism, nor is there any freedom 'from' religion. That's called 'tolerance'. If an atheist valedictorian wants to talk about atheism, I have no objection, and if I don't want to hear it, I'm free to get up and leave.
We don't leave our rights at the door when we enter government property. No, a school cannot (and should not!) promote any religion, but that restriction does not apply to the students.
- AUTHOR
Thank you. I am glad this does not come off as a condemnation of religion. I have specific reasons for being staunchly atheist, and enjoy the exercise of voicing my opinions. I myself do not believe in miracles because I limit myself to what has been proven and documented empirically. If you have had first hand experience of miracles and have your own reasoning for the possibility of divine creation and reincarnation, I would not be in a position to write it off as hogwash. However, I am just not the kind of person to take someone else's word for something I myself do not have a reason to believe.
Excellent hub, Jake. Well reasoned.
You seem to be one of those types of persons with whom I would enjoy having a deeply philosophical conversation. Refreshing!
Keep up the good work.
I've seen my share of miracles. In fact, I've even experimented with them. One of them was comparable to Moses parting the sea. Quite startling.
Using Occam's razor (a sometimes useful tool), the simplest reason that such things could exist is the idea that a spiritual source of creation exists and there is a part of that in each of us.
I've also read extensively on scientific research into the phenomenon of reincarnation. I have remembered thousands of my own past lives, most fleetingly and quickly forgotten, but some with lasting impressions that changed my current life. But my experiences are nothing like those of some of the documented cases.
http://the-love-of-god.com/reincarnation-stories.p...
That reincarnation might really exists also speaks of a spiritual component to man.
I look forward to reading more of your work.
- AUTHOR
You are open to spirituality and the capacities of human intuition (through meditation, for example). I am not. My motivation for writing this article is my conviction that we can only trust in what is observable in the natural world. Unlike you, I am not open to intuition. This is simply because I have not yet had any reason to be, and my education and experiences until now have supported a staunchly atheistic perspective. Thank you for offering your perspective.
- AUTHOR
Thank you for your comment. It was with long-considered intent that I titled this "In Defense of Atheism", rather than something like "In Condemnation of Religion". I do not have an anti-religious agenda, but I will vehemently voice my opinion regarding the legitimacy of atheism, which inherently involves challenging the concept of religion.
I am not American, so I do not have much experience with the controversies regarding tension between religious expression and the constitution. I would argue that acts of religious belief, such as prayer, are the right of any individual. I would support a preacher preaching on the street, so long as he does not harass anyone. However, I would disagree with someone in an educational institution leading an audience in prayer. I think there is a very interesting tension between freedom from religion, and freedom of religious expression.
I had fun reading this article. Thank You for putting it together.
I am not religulous ((lol did You see the Bill Maher movie: "Religulous"?) because I am a Spiritual Being. I find religions limiting in many ways but I do understand that we all have our own unique paths to walk in this Life thus, to each their own (as long as we do not hurt one another).
"Atheists simply live in a world without God and take it upon themselves as individuals to find meaning and fulfillment in their lives." - Just because You do not believe in something, it does not mean that something does not exist - just sayin' ... lol Now, the second point to this statement is that every single individual creates and gives meaning to their experiences, it's how the cookie crumbles: "Truth is the Price of Perception" - Spirit Whisperer.
"Therefore, natural selection has painstakingly weeded out the bad people, and promoted the survival of the good." - I'll keep my fingers crossed on this as I watch what happens to the two Japanese guys captured by ISIS, just saw them on the news this morning ...
" limitations on our diets and sex lives" - I trained in Shoto-khan martial arts in my younger days and that is one thing I was told there to remember: "Watch the alcohol, watch the drugs and watch your sex life." - Why? Because these things will take away from your inner/spiritual power. If You want to harness your Power, You will abstain from getting drunk, doing drugs, or indulging in sex. Any Sensei can tell You that, not just a Spiritual/Religious person.
"Some simply believe there is not enough evidence to consider religion and spirituality a rational way of forming a worldview." - There is a point where Rationality can no longer help You and You must learn to stop thinking. Ya, this can sound wild: "stop thinking" but You just go ahead and work on Meditation and You'll see what I mean.
"The "anything is possible" mentality is not a sound or rational basis for defining one's worldview." - Here You go again with the "rational" ... Try not to put all your eggs in one basket - that being the "scientific basket" - the world was flat at one point and the Earth was the center of the Universe. As we gain knowledge, Science changes. Theories are sometimes negated and what was thought to be true is no longer true. "The truth is rarely pure and never simple" - Oscar Wilde
"To be an atheist is to understand the scientific explanation for the world we live in." - Science, like Rationality can help You only so far. Then, we sit and scratch our heads wondering: "What is dark matter?"
What is Spirit and who am I? - Can Science explain these? Not really but maybe soon. I have patience.
Fun read - thanks for the discussion. : )
May Wakan Tanka guide your path.
P.S. Greetings to Mr. Willstar as well - nice to see people of different beliefs have responsible discussions. Cheers!
I have no objection to what an atheist believes or does not believe, nor do I know any Christians who do. But I do object to that faction that constantly tries to attack the beliefs of others via the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
I get the first clause...Congress shall not create a state religion...and I agree with that. Christians don't want a theocracy either. But what is ignored is the second clause:
"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
All ten amendments of the Bill of Rights restrict government. They do not restrict the rights of We, the People at all, so if a valedictorian wants to offer a prayer at graduation, he/she is protected by the First Amendment right to free exercise thereof. If street preacher wants to preach on the corner, he is protected the same way. So too is an atheist.
I have no problem with your Hub, BTW. In fact, it's well thought out and constructed. Congratulations!
38