If you’re already an atheist, you might feel as though the world around you is awash in delusion. You might also have noticed although a large number of people find comfort in the fanciful notions of religion, there are others who are entangled in guilt, pain, or violence because of it. The thought may have crossed your mind that a powerful and organized movement is required against religion to free mankind of their bondage of faith.

As I write this, an underground group called ‘Anonymous’ is waging war against Scientology, a rather recent inductee in the world of organized religion. Unlike most of their brethren, however, Scientology is aggressive and litigious against detractors, and this has spurred hackers and youthful protesters into action. They organize rallies, publish stories and videos, all in an effort to expose the morally questionable behavior of the ‘church’. So the question arises: should other similar movements be created to discredit and attack religion?

This is a tricky question, mostly because although we are loath to admit it, ideological movements, no matter how well intended, can often fall prey to the machinations of tyrants, who in turn use the momentum and frenzy to gain power. The persecution of religion has a tarnished and rather violent history, especially when these movements were subject to mob will. Ideologues, religious or not, are still dangerous, no matter how noble their original intent may be.

That is not to say we should remain silent regarding the infantilization of mankind by organized religion, who generally regard the world of the imaginary as more important, and more real, than the material world. Often, these religions become cults of death, focused almost entirely on a person’s immortal life, rather than the short time they actually do possess. We do need an organized movement, not to fight against religion, since this can only create violence, but rather fight for the right of individuals NOT to believe.

We must be as visible as possible, to show that a real alternative to religion exists. Atheism is generally mistrusted, since most individuals feel as though it is hopeless and dark. They fail to realize that by embracing the material world, our focus is not on what to do with our immortal souls, but rather how to live well during the brief time we have have on earth. We need to portray atheism not as a counter-culture movement, but as the natural progression of belief (or, more accurately, unbelief). Just as our ancestors clung to the primitive myths available to them, many of us retain this need to believe that something, or someone, larger than us is watching out for us. But the powerful desire for this to be true makes it no more true than any other intense dream. This is what we need to convey.

Many of you that have asked me countless times: where do we go from here? Although it seems unfair for us to admit, each unbeliever is a representative of atheism. The actions of one are interpreted as the whole. As such, it is important to maintain both an austere attitude and demeanor, to demonstrate that atheism is not the end of hope, but a new one: that although no god may be looking out for us, we can look out for one another instead.

I received an interesting little letter, and I thought it might be a good idea to post it on the site to let others know how I feel about my atheist views

“Hey, how’s it going? My name is Anthony I was browsing around and saw you profile [on myspace.com]. I have a question. Just curious, why did you decide to become an atheist? What convince you that there is not a God?”

Hi Anthony,

If you’d like to hear the reason I became an atheist, I’d be more than happy to explain it to you. I hope you don’t mind that I will include this open letter to you on my site, www.thegoodatheist.net.

I never in actual fact decided to become an atheist. I have always been one. My parents were not very religious, but their philosophy was to allow their children the opportunity to decide for themselves what they would believe. I was lucky enough not to have that decision made for me.

As a young child, the issue of God never really came up that often. Although my school was a Catholic one, and although they made prayer in the morning mandatory, for me, they were mere words. Just as children may not fully comprehend the significance of the song “ring around the rosie” (which is about the bubonic plague), the prayer “Our father…” was just routinely memorized in order for me to avoid the floggings handed out for not chanting it aloud.

As I grew up and became more curious about this notion of God, I couldn’t help but feel as though the answers everyone claimed to have were simply guess-work. A priest would inform his parish that a man was born of a virgin, and somehow this person was supposed to be my lord. But where was his proof of that if this was true? His reliance lay in a book that, just a few hundred pages earlier, claimed that one man had fit two of every animal on a single boat. Clearly, such a tome was not to be trusted.

Also during this time, my high school class was being taught Greek mythology. The comparisons between the two were immediately obvious, and I began to understand religion served not as a historical account of human history, but rather was a way for confused and superstitious people to explain the world around them. In my own lifetime, the mysteries about the weather, earthquakes, and even the development of life on earth have been satisfactorily answered by the sound and tested methods of science.

I used to feel as though religion did no real harm; it was just a way for people to bring comfort in their own lives. However, I began to realize a strange and deadly hubris is formed when individuals assume their improvable theories are tantamount to supreme truth, especially when these truths conflict with the equally improvable claims of others. Clearly, no one was willing to have a rational discourse on the matter simply because the foundations of their arguments were irrational to begin with.

In any case, the ‘decision’ to become an atheist was simply a refusal to believe any claim made that isn’t supported by evidence. There are some hard core believers who try and fabricate evidence to prove God’s existence (such as citing miracle). It’s ironic that these efforts obviously undermine religion’s claim that only faith is needed to believe. It is quite obviously not enough for the human mind to accept treatises that fly in complete opposition to what it knows as fact.

You might be religious. Odds are you consider me strange for not believing in the same mythology you do, but in reality, you might not fully appreciate just how strange it is to believe in the invisible, or the improvable. A pagan who believes in fairies in Ireland, or a cargo cultist in Taanu (who think a man by the name of John Frum will come and deliver life giving cargo) would consider the idea of a son of a god being born of a virgin as completely ludicrous. It’s easy to dismiss the strange beliefs of others; but in so doing we ignore the nonsensical things we hold dear. It is better to face the possibility that we may be wrong, rather than foolishly hope we are right.

As a writer, the appeal of discussing atheism stems largely from the fact that although its definition may be simple, the philosophies surrounding it are not. There are so many different responses to atheism that some have begun to call it a religion. But is this true? Is atheism a religion, and if not, does it emulate any of the elements of it? As I will show in this article, the answer to that question not only makes us curious about the future implications of the growing trend of atheism, it also demands our attention about what could potentially be the next major movement in Western society.

What is a Religion?

To answer that question, we must examine the long history of religion to reveal its purpose, which will in turn reveal its structure. Although no definite number exists for the age of religion, anthropologists are convinced that crude animistic sects were a hallmark of life for our ancient ancestors as far back as the emergence of Homo sapiens (there is even evidence our evolutionary cousins, Neanderthals, had their own form of religion as well). Our ancestors were not stupid; they possessed the same raw mental power we do, but were ignorant of the natural laws that governed their environment. They faced the often brutal torment of nature, and life was certainly never easy. When confronted with the overwhelming power of nature, our ancestors turned to creative myths to explain why droughts, famine, storms, and death occurred. As they were passed down orally from generation to generation, the stories became more complex, and these complexities led to elaborate cosmogonies, and of man’s place in the universe.

Religion began to take a more active role in the stability of societies during the Agrarian Revolution roughly 10,000 years ago, due mainly to the production of food which allowed greater numbers of individuals to live together in close proximity. In small hunter-gatherer bands, the groups would typically be small enough to allow conflicts to be regulated by the collective itself, so cheaters and opportunists would be caught relatively quickly, and punished accordingly. In larger groupings, however, the collective was often unable to monitor and punish uncooperative individuals, and so an authoritative system was needed to regulate behavior and establish concrete laws that could be agreed upon. Since religions were responsible for passing on important traditions and information, so too could it create morality myths for the purpose of guiding and regulating human behavior.

Of course, I make it sound as though this process was thoroughly thought out on the part of the sects themselves. This evolution was far more organic than directed; I use the word evolution specifically because of the fact religion was shaped by the selective pressures of the rapidly escalating demand for order and structure as changes began to affect human societies (rapidly when compared to the genetic process of evolution, obviously). As such, the stability of early societies became dependant, in large part, to the stability of the religions themselves, which began to play an increasingly important role in the functioning of society.

Religion was obviously not the only system devised to institutionalize laws, although it probably was the first real stable system to do so. Their powerful influence and apparent divine authority did much to cement religion’s position as arbiter. Even in societies where more complex systems needed to be created, such as states, nations, and eventually empires, many of the mechanisms of authority relied heavily on concepts first devised by religions. In any ancient (and even today in more recent) societies, the collusion of religion and government serves as mutually reinforcing institutions. This arrangement is due to governments needing cooperation from the faithful droves who are heavily dictated to and mandated by religion, while sectarian institutions rely on the ruling government to protect them against other competing faiths. In early societies, religions played a direct or joint role in mandating morality and laws, and secularism is only a very recent trend in the history of human governance.

As with any powerful and highly influential institution, religion has known its fair share of abuses. I hardly need mention the atrocities of the Crusades or the Inquisition, nor do I need to remind the reader that sectarian conflicts are still a part of our daily lives. The Founding Fathers of America understood the dangers in any institution that holds too much power, and devised a system of intricate checks and balances to allow a self correcting process to occur. Religions lack these balances, and are structured in such a way that a very limited number of individuals command an unimaginable level of power and influence. This, coupled with imperialistic tendencies of various faiths aimed at becoming the only religion on earth creates often volatile situations.

When most people think about religion, anyone not affiliated with any sect in particular usually abhors the very notion of these institutions precisely because of the long history of both repression and terror of a large number of religions. Many feel that anything which becomes institutionalized is therefore inherently opposed to human freedom and self-determination, at least when it comes to religious traditions. Obviously, not every religion at any given time is necessarily repressive and controlling, just as every government may not inherently be either. It depends largely on how the institution is created and managed, and on what foundations it lies. Religions like Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are old religions, and many of their tenents no longer match the social mores of contemporary society. Also, the historic structure of religions like Christianity have been mostly responsible for the atrocities committed in their name, since they have relied on the executive control of a privileged few individuals, none of which were immune from the lust for power and control.

All of the major three great monotheistic religions are equally divisive in nature, since their core ideologies tell them they alone possess the truth of God, making any others, by default, wrong. And if history has taught us anything, it’s that many faiths seem to regard others with violent contempt, if not outright hostility. That does not mean it is impossible for various faiths to get along with one another. History is peppered with civilizations that tolerated other faiths, but this tolerance often quickly devolves into violent assaults on tiny religious minorities. What allowed religious dialog was not the structures of the institutions themselves, but rather respect for the rule of law in a different and more powerful institution: government.

Apart from religions being institutions responsible for the codification and sometimes enforcement of morality and law, religions obviously deal with another important element of the human experience: spirituality. This usually involves interpreting the complex and often confusing events and emotions we experience, since they can be overwhelming. But religion is not unique in this regard; philosophy in particular also performs this role, attempting to make inferences about the human experience. It attempts to answer the same questions religion does, but not necessarily by envoking the concept of a creator or god.

So far, we’ve covered the three main components of religion; in explaining processes in the natural world, in creating stability by codifying laws and morality, and in addressing the spiritual concern of individual humans. Although religion has deep roots in all three aspects, it has become obvious over the past few hundred years since the beginning of The Enlightenment that many of the traditional roles of religion are not necessary to the functioning of society. Secular countries have followed suit in eliminating the structures of religious power from the political arena, and laws are no longer modeled on the rather unsophisticated edicts of religious texts. In civilized society, we no longer consider adultery to be a capital offence, not because we are less moral, but because we recognize the finality of such a law does not have anyone’s best interest in mind. We have begun to accept that rules have exceptions, and there should be various degrees of punishment for the specific circumstances of any crime.

The increased marginality of religion has not escaped its biggest supporters, and it has taken considerable effort to wrest these powers away from them. In my home province of Quebec, until the Quiet Revolution of the 60s, the church still dominated the instruction of children, and had deep political influence. In the US, creationists continue their assault on science, refusing to admit the cosmogony of their sacred text is only a myth, and insisting it represents objective reality. But such groups, rather than using the strength of evidence (of which they have none), rely on our fears that society will be doomed without them.

We have begun to demonstrate that the first two purposes of religion can be handled without them, often with far better results. This leads us to conclude, in modern society, that the purpose of religion is dealing with the spiritual component of life. This now leads us to reconsider the original question of this article: whether or not atheism is a religion.

Although it may be said the lack of belief in God eliminates the need for any spirituality, I would argue for many atheists, the opposite is true. The realization there is no higher power and no special purpose to human life, forces us to begin to consider instead what purpose our existence can have, rather than religion’s assertion that our aspirations have already been predetermined. The understanding there is nothing inherently special about our solar system, which is one of many hundreds of billions in this galaxy alone, itself one of billions, is a deep and awesome insight. How can a person not be moved when looking up at the night sky, contemplating that the stars they look upon are all ghostly images of the past ( since light has a finite speed, and because it sometimes takes millions or even billions of years to reach us, the stars we see in the sky may well have extinguished themselves long ago)?

Similarly, atheism forces us to consider morality on a far wider scale. If there is no final arbiter, and if each one of us is accountable to no supreme authority, it raises the stakes about how we manage our laws and ethics. It encourages us to consider the broad implications of our laws, and how they affect other human beings.

If spirituality is also not the exclusive realm of religion, just what is left? For starters, religions have traditions, as well as institutions which teach and pass them on to younger generations. I may know for a fact that transubstantiation (the literal changing of wine into blood) does not really occur during religious masse, but I cannot deny that the tradition is preserved and passed on by Catholics, anymore than I can deny the reality of the tradition of circumcision in Judaism (even though I may find the practice abhorrent).

Are Atheists Dogmatic?

The accusation of atheism being a religion from the faithful seems to me to be a deep and strange paradox. They claim atheists have their own dogma, and a person needs a great deal of faith NOT to believe. Even if that were true, which it is not, it would certainly appear strange for the religious to consider this a flaw. After all, these are the same people that profess an undying need for faith.

There are undoubtedly certain individuals who hold dogmatic ideas, regardless of their religiosity or not. But in general, dogmatism is the specialty of religious institutions; not atheism. A person may reject the notion of a God without needing to make any leap of faith. Any intelligent religious person recognizes the fact they believe in God despite any evidence, or sometimes in contradiction to evidence. Therefore, the position that God is a human construct is not a statement of faith: it is precisely the opposite.

Currently, I would deny the status of religion to atheism, even though I personally lament the lack of such institutions. For all the harm we may associate with them, religious institutions still perform a valuable function in society. For many African Americans, the only institutions who have not let them down in 400 years have been their own religious traditions. The community support they receive as a direct result of their belief is a source of obvious strength, one that atheism does not yet possess. Yet, despite the fact that atheists find the idea of an institutionalized movement repugnant, the fact remains it is not the institution itself which is wrong; rather it is the design of the structure itself. What good can come from institutionalizing atheism? A great deal perhaps.

It is true that in times of crisis, we feel compelled to fall back on those systems of belief with the deepest roots, and religion certainly has a long history. This is the reason many believe the idea that there are no atheists in foxholes. What they may fail to realize is that the same impulse to fall back on various roots does not always mean individuals will adopt a religious stance. We also have a long history of skepticism, and mistrust in the abuses of power. If the traditions of science, skepticism, and free thought are to survive any assault, its roots must be as deep as any religion. Individuals will need to feel the same sense of community and support from atheism as they do in their respective faiths. How else can we hope for individuals to remove their dependence on superstition to provide comfort and familiarity?

Is atheism a religion? No, it quite obviously is not. But we must understand the question is really: can atheism provide the same comfort and support that religion does? In its present form, it may not be able to do so. A serious crisis might push us more towards religious fundamentalism, which is something that is currently happening in the most desperate and troubled societies. If atheism is to both survive and thrive, it will require the adoption of many of the aspects of religion, tailored in a new way that avoids the dangerous temptation of centralizing power and influence into the hands of the few. Are we capable of such wisdom? Only time will tell.

Most atheists will tell you that the fact of holding a cosmological view that the universe operates without a designer is a statement about nature, and is not connected in any way, shape or form, to a movement. In fact, a number of atheists are disbelievers specifically because of the tendency for religions to exert their grasp in all aspects of life.

It’s important, however, to note that theories and ideas on the processes of the universe are not readily accepted by most. When Darwin published his book, On the Origins of Species, the majority of scientists at the time rejected the idea outright. It took the valiant efforts of his friends and contemporaries to pioneer this idea. It is because of their work that today we enjoy such an elegant explanation of how species evolve.

As such, we can never forget that ideas must not only be defended, but must fight with others that compete directly against it. The principles of atheism, although simple, are not readily accepted by more than 90% of the population. We cannot hope, as atheists, that others will come to accept that the universe functions without design, and without the assistance of a divine hand. Instead, we must all work in conjunction to help our fellow man see that instead of creating dread and fear, atheism and humanism create a sense of wonder and awe. The realization that we are animals, like all others, makes us realize we do not hold a special place on earth, anymore than an armadillo or orangutan.

What is at risk is our continued survival. Sectarian violence and fundamentalism are a natural phenomenon in religion, and as such cannot be dealt with through current religious institutions. We have a duty to combat the rise of religious intolerance through a campaign of education, open debate, and by making our voices heard.

At the same time, we should avoid the temptation to belittle and ridicule the faithful. They are human beings as we are, as fallible and corruptible as any one of us. For most, religion provides them with comfort and support, things they may not be privy to without their religious institution. Therein lies the problem and dilemma of modern atheism; the fact that many atheists are insular creatures, preferring to remain hidden and singular in their philosophies. What incentive is there for someone who belongs to a religious denomination to leave his community and support network simply to accept the truth about the nature of the universe?

We as atheists must also offer the same support and care that makes religion so appealing, but without any dogma, without the poisonous idea of faith, and without exclusiveness. Can we put aside our prejudices about the positive aspects of religion, and adopt the very best aspects for ourselves, or will we continue to be a fringe group of society, patiently waiting for others to see the light of reason? This is a foolish hope; without the appeal of direct compassion, community, and acceptance, atheism will always be fringe.

Let us show organized religion what we are all about. Let them know they do not hold a monopoly on compassion, acceptance, and morality. Let us move away from the safe insular bubble of self righteousness that we claim and create a truly great movement, based on principles of democracy, self-determination, clarity, and even humor. Let us not go quietly into the night, but rage against the dying of the light. Let the truth of atheism be the candle in the dark.