Atheism – a fraudulent religion –


I stipulate that atheism is a religion. The atheist is just as fervent in his denial of the existence of God as the most rabid bible pounder or most fanatical Moslem killer is affirmative.

A truly non-religious position is that of the dedicated agnostic – “I don’t know, I don’t care. You people do what you want to, just leave me out of it.” Now that is honest. And truly non-religious.

Now you can see all kinds of atheist websites in a web search. One of the more amusing things is the fervent denial by so many of the atheist sites that atheism is a religion. You can also see where atheists have sued to get religious rights by claiming that atheism is a religion. They assume the position which gets them the most mileage.

Now, for those who would like the atheism is not a religion side of the ass, think on this: the atheists would not argue so long, loud, and hard if theirs was not a deeply held, fervent belief system. That is religion. Don’t know, don’t care is agnostic. And not religious. By definition, a belief system is a religious conviction. A non-belief system is a nothing.

Now, the FFs (Founding Fathers) never said that there was a separation between church and state. They said that there would be no state religion. That’s a different colored cat. That does also include not forcing atheism down my throat. I admit that I find mindless fundamentalism of any stripe poisonous. This would include fundamental and dogmatic Protestantism, Islam, and atheism. I see no difference when the practitoners of each wish to force their belief system down my throat.

Freedom of religion is not the same as freedom from religion. We can all ease up a bit and be polite and tolerant of each other. Our judgment and punishment should be reserved for those who harm another, the rude, and the boorish. This includes the rabid atheist as well as any other intolerant jackass.


14 Responses to “Atheism – a fraudulent religion –”

  1. Joe Says:

    “By definition, a belief system is a religious conviction.”

    Every definition? Capitalism is a religious conviction? Conservatism is a religious conviction? Secularism is a religious conviction?

    Well, trot out that definition then. Cite the source that says that every belief system is necessarily a religion. I’d also like to hear how many religions you have.

  2. The Barefoot Bum Says:

    I stipulate that atheism is a religion.

    Just FYI: You’re using the word “stipulate” incorrectly. You’re asserting, claiming, arguing or proposing that atheism is a religion.

    Certainly one sense of “religion” or “religious” specifies only the “fervency” of a belief. It should be noted, however, that everyone holds all their beliefs about matters of truth with fervency. In this sense, all of science is fervent: The scientifically minded person holds the roundness of the earth, the centrality of the Sun in the solar system, evolution, the theory of gravity and the existence of reality with every bit as much “fervency” as a religious person holds to his supernatural beliefs. Prosaic moral and ethical beliefs, i.e. the wrongness of murder, theft, rape, are also held with fervency.

    By your account, one could be entirely non-religious only if she did not care about anything strongly enough to argue the point.

    In this sense, your point is uncontroversial, but the connection to the rest of your essay becomes mysterious. Should we read the Establishment Clause in the sense of “religion” as fervently held belief? I think not.

    In the context the rest of your essay suggests, we should interpret “religion” not in its sense of “fervency” but in the sense of epistemic justification: How do we know what we fervently believe?

    You assert, “Now, the FFs (Founding Fathers) never said that there was a separation between church and state.” This is factually incorrect: Jefferson asserts that the First Amendment builds “a wall of separation between church and state.” [Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association]

    Regardless, the opinions of the framers of the Constitution are not authoritative as to law; only the interpretations of the Supreme Court are so authoritative, and there may be no authority at all, other than individual opinion, as to the underlying moral basis of the Constitution or any law.

    In what sense is anyone forcing atheism down your throat? As far as I know, no atheist with any sort of credibility and popularity calls for any sort of coercive measures to enforce atheism; 99% of atheists insist only on secularism.

    It should be noted that your own essay is at least judgmental of atheists without even asserting—much less arguing or showing evidence—harm: Should we thus conclude that you yourself are rude, boorish and an intolerant jackass? Especially given the errors of grammar, fact, and philosophy that complement your own hypocrisy?

  3. Drake Says:

    What a great post and what a great blog. Your ramblings are clean and refreshing.

  4. mtriggs Says:

    Your comments have inspired me:

    General Position on These Essays –

    I write these essays for my own amusement. These are mostly off the top of the head and are opinion pieces and not in-depth research (which would be too much like work). Or sometimes to catch up with my very dearest friend who is on the other side of the country, and whom I have not seen in around 35 years or so.

    Some of the stuff is highly political, or religious, or general musings, or recipes. My wife seems to like these ramblings and has set up a blog site to post some of those that are not too terribly personal, or have had the personal edited out. I am perfectly happy for these to be published this way. If my opinions come somewhere in the ballpark of yours, you may enjoy these. Contrariwise, if you lean leftish, they will probably tick you off. Some of the positions may surprise you. That is ok, either way. Comment away, pro or con. Herself will probably publish the comments that are interesting, amusing, and not particularly personal or vitriolic. I will probably not respond directly to comments. I may or may not be inspired by a comment to bloviate further on some topic.

    So – read, enjoy, maybe try some of the recipes. They are here for your pleasure.

    And, by the way, “Stipulate” in law means: “5. Law. to accept (a proposition) without requiring that it be established by proof: to stipulate the existence of certain facts or that an expert witness is qualified.

  5. Hoodlum Says:

    Using your logic, my , and I presume, your disbelief in blue unicorns is a religion.

  6. vdjones Says:

    I find it rather interesting how liberals are so easy to pick out from the pack.

    Rather than have an open and non-offensive dialogue they resort to insults and the picking apart of grammatical errors and definitions in an effort to prove their supposed intellectual superiority. FYI – elitist ideas and big words don’t make you sound more intelligent. They make you sound like an obnoxious bore too impressed with himself and his own words.

    Give me a break! Grow up and debate like intelligent adults! If you disagree with mtriggs, then disagree. But try to do it with a modicum of respect for the other person so that you don’t come across as just an arrogant liberal ass without a valid point who can’t think of any other way to defend their position than to attack the other person personally.

    If we could learn to relate to each other and listen with more than just a critical ear then perhaps we’d stand a chance of getting this country back on track.

  7. Aspentroll Says:

    It really doesn’t matter to me what you think an atheist is because it all boils down to the fact that an atheist does not believe in any
    religion or gods. If you can make a religion out of that, go for it. But I think you’ll find that none of us will attend any sermons along those lines. You will be alone in your beliefs.
    An agnostic just hasn’t made up his/her mind yet and wants proof. Atheism is simply a declared misbelief in any and all gods, religions and the supernatural.

  8. Len's Focus Says:

    If atheism is a religion then health is a disaease.

  9. Lucy Lowe Says:

    I wouldn’t call my atheism a religion, and I wouldn’t call my opinions fervent. Never have I met an atheist who claimed to know a God doesn’t exist. Often those who believe in a God claim to know their God is real, whereas I, like just about every atheist, use our reason to come to the following conclusion:

    Based on the flimsy evidence for a God, weighed against the overwhelming evidence against a God, it is likely that a God doesn’t exist.

    Of course I might be wrong, but if a God exists who condemns those who didn’t believe in her then she would be far too vain and self-obsessed for me to want to worship her anyway.

    This is my opinion and just like other opinions I hold (Techno music being awful for example). When I meet someone who disagrees I like to discuss it with them because I love to debate. I don’t want to convince the techno lover/Christian that they are wrong and I certainly wouldn’t fly a plane into a building or blow up an abortion clinic because I was so convinced of my correctness. Finally, it does seem curious for a religious person to take a jab at atheism by comparing it to a religion 😉

    Anyway, have a lovely day 🙂


  10. mtriggs Says:

    What you have described for yourself is agnosticism. Atheism does flatly state that there is NO God, which is, in and of itself, a religious position. Agnosticism is the “I don’t know” position. And it is often coupled with “and I don’t care”. While you call yourself an atheist I do not see that in your stated position.

    Based on what I see of your somewhat limited understanding (not a put down – an observation) I would say that you have mostly been talking to Western Protestants, possibly of the Sola-Scriptora type. This is rather like trying to understand physics by talking to a first year chemistry student. You might find that if you do a real in-depth study of Eastern Christianity that many of the objectionable positions which you have heard over the years are Western distortions of what the original faith said.

    Debating may be somewhat amusing, but probably not terribly productive. I’m afraid that the average person has plenty of personal faith, but not a firm grasp of history, Church or otherwise. And certainly not a grasp of Theology, the findings of the Church Councils, the writings of the Church Fathers for the past 2000 years, etc.

    You cannot debate the existence of God. Either you see that He exists, or you do not. It is not going to change Him whether you do or not. As C.S. Lewis once remarked “Prayer does not change God – it changes me.” For the Christian, it is not a matter of who goes to Heaven or to Hell. Back to those Church Councils. One of the things that was firmly stated is that we are forbidden to address anyone else’s salvation. That is not our decision to make. There will probably be a good many quite surprised Bible-thumpers in Hell. And some rather surprised (and surprising) people in Heaven.

    I’m afraid that in our culture the Bible has frequently been used as a debating tool. If someone believes, then the argument “it’s in the Bible” has considerable force. To try to use it to prove the existence of God is – at best – a rather simple-minded exercise in circular logic. Might generate considerable hot air, but not going to go anywhere with someone who does not believe.

    For the Christian – God doesn’t need our worship. We do.

  11. Lucy Lowe Says:

    Hi Mtriggs,

    I’m afraid I’d have to respectfully disagree with you in regards to the athiest/agnostic debate. My position is the one to which atheists hold – We do not know that there is no God as it’s impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. But, as far as I can be certain of anything (That pigs can’t fly, that France is in Europe, etc), I’m very strongly of the opinion that no God/Gods exist.

    Admittedly, an athiest who claimed to know there was no God would be fervent and fanatical – but athiests make no such claim. This misconception of yours explains your animosity, and I’d hope this post might have re-assured you a little.

    A note on faith: I wouldn’t say I have rejected any particular religion, but that I have rejected the entire notion of having faith. I particularly like a quote from George H Smith:

    “Explicit atheism is the consequence of a commitment to rationality – the conviction that man’s mind is fully competent to know the facts of reality…I will not accept the existence of God on faith because I reject faith as a valid cognitive procedure…I will not accept anything on faith.”

    Anyway, enjoying our debate 😉


  12. turtlemom3 Says:

    Herself Sez: The Ol’ Curmudgeon normally does not respond to comments and I was rather more than astounded that he responded to your first comment!

    I will iterate his point about atheism / agnosticism. You can play Humpty Dumpty about word meanings all you want to, but a-theism means without god, and a-gnosticism means without knowledge. The atheist argues there is no god, the agnostic argues we cannot know whether there is or is not a god.

    To God it matters not. He exists whether we mere mortals deign to believe in Him or not.

    For those of faith, those who believe, the very concept of having no faith is empty. And the emptiness of no faith provides no guidance, no moral standard, no law, no basis for valid cognitive procedures.

    But, in the end, trust me on this. God believes in you.

  13. stillhere4u Says:

    Atheism may well be spurred on by the refusal of religions to engage in self-criticism. I’ve just read on how foreign self-criticism is to religion, and, moreover, how religion misunderstands itself. You might be interested in it.

    • turtlemom3 Says:

      Himself Sez: What should I say? This is a perfect example of the Liberal Times applauding American style cafeteria religion. If you take enough parts out of any given faith – and apply negative comments and harsh criticism enough you eventually get the attitude “it doesn’t matter what you believe – we’re all trying to get to the same place” nonsense. By placing Islam – a religion of hate, domination, and blood – on the same level as even the defective Western Christianity or unfulfilled Judaism.

      Dialog – in the modern sense – mostly means kick everything together if you are a liberal. If religion is to be anything but nonsense – then there is only one possible correct view – everyone else MUST be wrong. If all are right – then none are right. I don’t know that there is any point in “dialog” with Jews – they are NOT going to change – Orthodox Christians are not going to change. This does not mean that we must not respect their right to believe as they choose – as long as they do not persecute Christians. And contrariwise. Sitting down with the Moslems strikes me as being as useful as the Jews trying to sit down with the Nazis in the 1930’s. Anything the Nazi’s would have said would have been just time-buying BS. The Nazi’s were psychopathic killers who were going to carry out their program of pogroms. The same may be said about the followers of Mohamed, who called the merest act of mercy on his part (and it was pretty mere) Satan inspired. The same Mohamed who told his followers that it was quite proper and holy to lie to anyone not of their faith would have approved of any tactics to defeat the “enemies of Islam”. That’s you – liberals!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: