Why Atheism Is A Religion?
Author: Walter Nuñez
Fact is: According to standard sources (e.g. Encyclopedia Britannica, Time Almanac, New York Times Almanac) Non-belief systems like secularism, free-thought, agnosticism, irreligious, nonreligious, and especially atheism, are all listed in the World’s “Adherents of All Religions.”
The World Almanac qualifies why it considers as such as a religion: “As defined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a person’s religion is what he or she says it is.” (p. 682 The World Almanac, 2009)
Religion is commonly defined in standard encyclopedias and dictionaries as: “1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator or governor of the universe. b. a personal or institutionalized system grounded on such belief. 2. A cause or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. [<Lat. religio.].” (The American Heritage Dictionary Fourth Edition, 2004)
Another definition of religion is “a system of belief to which a social group is committed, in which there is a supernatural object of awe, worship and service. It generally provides a system of ethics and a worldview that supply a stable context within which each person can relate himself to others and to the world, and can understand his own significance… Some religions have no deity as such, but are natural philosophies: … Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism…” (p. 1033 The New American Desk Encyclopedia Third Edition, 1993)
In defense of the definition of religion given by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that it is what the person professes about his belief. It is imperative then that the preconceived notions about the common definitions and elements of religion as cited above must be disabused in order to give justice to the term.
Now to dwell to the question: Why atheism is a religion? Is it right then to say that atheism is indeed a religion? I think so, there is not a slightest doubt in my mind that atheism can be considered as a religion, even if, at first thought, it seems at odds with commonsense given the very definition of religion. It seems the two terms are incompatible or contradictory so to speak. But going deeper this shall only lead us into a seeming contradiction, not a real one. This is called a paradox. A paradox is “A seemingly contradictory statement that may nonetheless be true. 2. One exhibiting inexplicable or contradictory aspects. [<Gk. paradoxos, conflicting with expectation.]”
Atheism is defined as “1a. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God. b. The doctrine that there is no God….. [<Gk. atheos, without a god.]”
As the saying goes: in every rule there is an exception. And, the matter under duress is one exception. The very definition of religion so admits an exception so as to encompass atheism under its domain, hence, the same can be equivocally qualified as a religion.
Case in point: “Some religions have no deity as such, but are natural philosophies: … Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism…” (p. 1033 The New American Desk Encyclopedia Third Edition, 1993)
In summation, religion is a broad concept. It cannot be contained or confined with a set of definition or equation. Generally, religion is defined as an attitude or perception towards belief, disbelief, or suspension of belief in regard to a supernatural being often conceived with supernatural powers. More to the point, whether one believes or not to believe, in relation to a supernatural being like God can be aptly be labeled, whether one likes it or not, as one’s religion.
Comments (11)
Atheism is a religion since the belief that God doesn’t exist has no empirical basis. Conversely the belief that God exists has no empirical basis too. But Theists do not deny they are religious, atheists do.
Sirs, resbak.com is not Catholic blog. Please remove it from your list of Catholic Sites.
Thanks and God bless.
Hi. Added you on the blogroll. Cheers! – Kay
To Pinoy Katoliko: Hi there! I appreciate your comment. Thanks! Keep up the faith!!!
To anonymous: Okay, noted. Sorry for the inadvertent inclusion. I will coordinate this to our technical staff to make the necessary rectification as soon as possible. Nevertheless, thanks for the information. Godspeed!
To Ben Vallejo: You hit it on the dot brother! That’s what this clarification and exposition is attempting to address. Thanks for the comment! Long live the faith!!!
I’ll sum it up in one line :
If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby.
You criticized without understanding. Obviously, you even don’t know what you are talking about. Your point is farfetched! If only you plumbed the depths of how I qualify atheism, et. al. as a religion. Then maybe it shall dawn on you that your point in the first place is moot. I felt sorry for you brother! You are only talking at cross purpose. What you have been ranting and raving about is nothing but semantic problem. It will do you good if you check your semantics. God bless you brother!
You’re an idiots comment makes total sence.
I believe that the world was created when 1000 years ago a unicorn let a big fart.
That is my religion.
You don’t believe me? Well, in that case your ‘not believing’ in the power of a unicorn’s fart is a religion as well.
You made up a story, atheists don’t care about your story and see no reason to believe it. That doesn’t make the ‘not caring’ a religion.
Oh and Ben’s reply is the dumbest I have ever read. I’m sorry.
There is no empirical basis for NOT believing something that doesn’t have an empirical basis?
That statement is almost funny…
Go tell that story in any university where decent science is conducted and they will wipe the floor with you… Seriously…
In response to your comments:
On your first point: “You’re an idiots comment makes total sence.” Well, that’s your personal opinion, but that doesn’t mean that you’re right.
On your second point “I believe that the world was created when 1000 years ago a unicorn let a big fart. That is my religion. You don’t believe me? Well, in that case your ‘not believing’ in the power of a unicorn’s fart is a religion as well.
You made up a story, atheists don’t care about your story and see no reason to believe it. That doesn’t make the ‘not caring’ a religion.”
Certainly so! According to the legal definition provided for by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, even not believing or the attitude of nonbelief, disbelief, unbelief and even suspension of belief is a religion, since it defines religion as what the person professes. So here’s some piece of unsolicited advice: Beware of the pitfalls of definition. Make sure that you meant what you have in mind, since definition has many ramifications.
On your third point: “There is no empirical basis for NOT believing something that doesn’t have an empirical basis?” Well, that may be. But, have you also realized that the preceding statement itself, is not a statement of fact, but only an assumption that needs to be proved in the first place. The part that says: “that doesn’t have an empirical basis?” is nothing but a statement of belief as well. According to the rules of logic: absence of evidence is not an evidence of absence.
On your fourth point: “That statement is almost funny…
Go tell that story in any university where decent science is conducted and they will wipe the floor with you… Seriously…”
But the twist of irony is: who’s funnier now?
In the end, we may not agree on some points, but you are entitled to your own opinion, and I respect that. God bless!
Leave a reply