Kelly Blue Composition 1 Ron Wallace 10-21-11

Blue-1

ATHEISM, A RELIGION?

Is Atheism a Religion or not? NOT! To quote a fad term of the 80's. Atheism is the antithesis of religion, and I intend to demonstrate conclusively the reasons it is not, nor ever could be. Religion: Belief in a supernatural being accompanied by a set of dogmas or rituals. Atheism: Without belief in a god or gods. There is nothing linking these two terms save the mention of a god or supernatural being in the definitions. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism doesn't even remotely qualify for either of the two parts of the definition of the word. There are those who believe atheism to be a religion, I intend to demonstrate that this commonly held idea is a complete misconception, and these people are incorrect. Religion is a practice of doctrines, dogmas, or ceremonies having to do with the belief in one or more gods. Athiesm does not and cannot be forced into this definition. There is no set dogmas, doctrines or positive beliefs associated with atheism whatsoever. Just like failing to believe in Banshees does not require an accompianing set of positive beliefs or practices. The lack of belief in any particular "god" has no necessary set of positive beliefs or practices. Saying because one is an atheist one believes or practices thus and thus is the same as saying that because one does not believe in leprechauns one must believe the world is flat or that man has sprung from gold bullion deep beneath the sea. It is utterly ridiculous. Another example would be that because a person does not believe in evolution they must of necessity worship the biblical god Baal. That would be absurd. When one fails to believe in something it doesn't always necessarily mean that they must positively believe in something else. I personally have no belief at all. I may assume, take for granted, accept on reasonable available facts or know something but I believe nothing. (That particular subject may make fodder for my third essay). In order to meet the criteria for "religion" there must first be a positive belief, an affirmation of some sort. Atheism fails to meet this standard as it is emphatically the lack of belief. As we have previously defined the term, atheism just means without belief in a god or gods. Some people unfortunately have the idea of atheism as a positive belief that there is no

god. This is incorrect. In it's purest form, the one that I adhere to, atheism is no more than a concept, a failure to believe the positive assertion that there exists in the universe something supernatural or above or beyond the natural, i.e. god. Before we continue let's define our terms so we have an adequate grasp on what it is we are discussing and the criteria by which we will judge if atheism qualifies as a religion or not. First, Websters online dictionary defines the term "religion" as follows: n. 1. The outward act or form by which men indicate their recognition of the existence of a god or of gods having power over their destiny, to whom obedience, service, and honor are due; the feeling or expression of human love, fear, or awe of some superhuman and overruling power, whether by profession of belief, by observance of rites and ceremonies, or by the conduct of life; a system of faith and worship; (emphasis mine). Second, Websters defines atheism as "A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods" and "Atheism: The Case Against God"(afterwards also referred to as "A.T.C.A.G.") by George H. Smith defines atheism as, "without belief in a god or gods". Third,Webster's online dictionary defines the word "belief" thusly, "Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge..." The word "believe", which will be important in our discussion, is defined by the same source as, "Follow a credo; have a faith; be a believer...". I find it interesting that both of these words entail the invocation of "faith", which in a religious mind is a monstrously weighty term. Since faith contains a substantial amount of value to the "religulous", to use Bill Mahers' terminology, let's take a look at what the word faith means. Dictionary.com defines faith as, "belief that is not based on proof". To me it is clear as crystal on a sunny day that belief and faith are nearly, if not purely, identical to one another. Faith and belief are taking something as true without any evidence, reason or logic to do so. Even one of the religious persons "holy" books gives a similar definition of faith, the "bible" says this of faith, Hebrews 11:1 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." It appears that the general concensus of the definitions is that belief, faith, and to believe are all buying something intellectually that is based on no reasonable evidence. Faith is at the core of what makes a religion a religion as we shall see. Furthermore, Websters online says this of faith "Institution to express belief in a divine power"; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him".[Wordnet] In this definition we see how the word "faith" is used interchangeably with the word religion. To say "I am a member of the Hindu religion", is synonymous with saying, "I am a member of the Hindu faith". By definition we can conclude that religion, just like its correlary "faith", is to believe in something. Atheism, as we have seen previously, is an utter, an absolute, a resolute, opposite to faith or belief. Atheism is simple, simply defined, and should be simply understood, it is the lack of faith in a god or gods. The argument that is usually levelled from the belief side of the coin smells something like this, "You're an atheist? You believe there's no god then!" This is an unconscious fallacy on the part of the theist, who, being trapped in their own concept of belief, projects belief onto others. There is a difference between believing that there is no god and not believing in god. Let's take a look down the rabbit hole and see.

The theists puny attempt to put the atheist in the same sinking ship in which he finds himself is futile. The projection from the theist onto the atheist that they simply "believe" there is no god is incorrect. Let's use one of my favorite analogies to see if we can't clarify a tad; Tommy approaches Peter and informs him that he has a pair of golden Converse tennis shoes at home in his closet. Peter, being a skeptic, replies to Tommy that he does not believe this to be the case. Peter is not affirming that he believes Tommy to not have the shoes, he is simply negating a belief that Tommy does possess golden Cons. To make the distinction between belief and the lack thereof as simple as I can at this time illustrate, let me say this; If a man came to you and said, "the earth is flat", he would be expressing his positive belief. If your reaction to his statement were, "I don't believe you", you would be negating his positive belief in the flatness of the planet. This is the exact position of the Atheist. The theistic world comes to us and says, "There is a god", all we say in opposition to this positive belief is, "We don't believe you". George H. Smith defines a positive belief like this in "A.T.C.A.G.", "an assertion which one claims to be true". Atheism makes no positive assertions at all, none, nada, zip, zero, nyet, and in spanish, "no". No positive assertions, no communism, no baby murder, no fascism, no zieg heils, not even a whimper or a bang just a negation. The simple refutation of this is in the definition of atheism: no/without belief in a god or gods. While we are at it, I would like to attack another commonly held misconception about atheism. There are some who assert that atheists, "deny" the existence of god. This is flatly untrue. To deny somethings existence or to deny something period, is to presuppose the thing to be denied. It is similar to "believing" there is no god. In order to deny that something exists one must have an idea of the thing which one is denying. The same goes pretty much for believing something does not exist. One must have an idea of what it is that one believes not to exist. While not believing that something exists, in this case god, for me, stands on the fact that I haven't a clue what it is that I am being instructed so vigorously to espouse. What is it I am supposed to believe in? What in the frick is "god"? Personally, one of the big reasons I lack belief in the god thingy is that noone, from the PhD Physics Professor/Catholic Preist I met in India, to Billy Bob the Bible Thumper, has been able to coherently tell me what god is supposed to be. In all reality we can't have a coherent conversation about something until we know what the hell that something is to begin with, but you assigned a paper and this is what I came up with. At this time I would like to point out a couple of things that most people never stop to think about and most times are unpopular positions. The first is the fact that all living people who are conscious and have reasonable faculties on this planet are atheists of one sort or another. If you are a Christian you believe in Jesus who is your god and you may say, "how in the world could I be an atheist then bozo?". True, bozo, but a Christian is an atheist when it comes to Odin, a Norse god. Most Christians don't believe in Odin and therefore are "atheists" when it comes to him. Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. The Christian lacks belief in a myriad of gods and truly is only not an atheist when it comes to their particular god, Jehovah. Ironical? Yeppers, and how. The same applies for everyone else in one way or another. Hindus are atheistic when it comes to Jehovah, Muslims are atheists when it comes to Siva and so on and so on ad infinitum. Truthfully atheists are just like everyone else but they just took it one god farther. The second point I would like to mention is somewhat more of an ant at the picnic. All children are atheists. Up until the point that a person becomes aware of the concept of god one lacks knowledge of the idea and therefore lacks the ability to believe in said being and is

therefore an atheist. This point makes some angry but it is true none the less. I steal the idea from George H. Smith who makes the point more in depth and much more splendidly than I in Ch. 1, section IV, pg. 13-15 of Atheism: The Case Against God: One of the other common misconstruences that "believers" make when trying to pin the totem of religion upon the lapel of atheism is that, besides it allegedly is a positive belief of some sort, it has a set of priciples or code of living or specific philosophical system. Nothing could be further from the truth. As we attempted to illustrate above, to quote George H. Smith in "Atheism: The Case Against God, "Just as the failure to believe in magic elves does not entail a code of living or a set of principles, so the failure to believe in a god does not imply any specific philosophical system." I have heard allegations towards atheism that range from being liberal politically to communist to nazi like. What any atheist espouses for their own personal code of ethics or rules to live by are as wide ranging and varied as are the atheists themselves. Personally, I take an approach to life that is simple and it goes a lil somethin like this...Treat your life like a flower. What you put in is what you get out. If you put in healthy, good things then you get out the same. If you try to pour poison or evil into your flower pot you will get out, death and destruction, but if you put in good food, light, and nurturing you will get out a vibrant, "happy" flower. Live according to the same standards you would impose on your plant and you will be ok. Maybe that is an over simplification but the crux of the philosophy I believe is self evident. As we have seen Atheism fails to meet either of the two defining characteristics that tell us what a religion is. Atheism is not a set of doctrines, dogmas, rules or regulations specific to it. Atheism has no positive set of values, conducts, or practices. There is nothing in the concept of atheism that requires an adherance to a set of any codes, morals, ethics, political allegiances, philosophies, values, beliefs, or anything of the like. On the second front, Atheist is disqualified from being a religion by the fact that it fails to have a positive belief or beliefs of any sort. Atheism is without, it is a negation, a yang to religions ying. In order to be, a thing must be somthing and Atheism be's no belief. Some may yelp that my entire argument has been a matter of symantics but I would contend that even if that were the case, words have meaning after all, and therefore have value. I hope that some light has been shed on the true nature of what Atheism is and what it is not. It is not and cannot be a religion, it simply does not meet the conditions to do so. Atheism, in the end, is what it was in the beginning and always shall be and that is simply and purely a lack of belief in god(s). Any positive aspects of the concept have been imposed from outside sources and are inherantly void inside the nature of the subject. Minds may not have been changed by this argument but I do hope that a little beam, beacon, or flash of light has made it's way through the glass darkly and if not I "believe" I will give up.