The Ethical Skeptic

Challenging Pseudo-Skepticism, Institutional Propaganda and Cultivated Ignorance

Why Atheism is Not a Religion

The accusation is cast inside social discourse almost continually: atheism is a religion. Retorts arguing that atheism is not a religion generally range from citing its rejection of any deity, to the defense that atheists do not hold beliefs, rather are only adhering to the teachings of science. Well as ethical a choice as the objection to a personified deity might be, it in no way can be claimed to have been made based on science. Science has no definition for god, so it cannot comment in advisement of the atheist. Further, by no means does the absence of veneration of a deity, remove a belief from holding the status of a religion. Nonetheless, true atheists are correct in that their belief of choice is not a religion, for three specific reasons. In the dark deep angry and plotting corridors of Nihilism however, there resides another story completely. Atheism is to Nihilism as Charity is to Christianity.

Atheism NihilismNote: For a cogent definition of Nihilsim which reduces the confusion around the topics of religion, atheism, naturalism, materialism, skepticism, and science, see Nihilism, the construction of the practical definition, and the more formal Nihilism as a social disorder.  I contend that it is necessary to focus on the only viable definition of Nihilism, in order to gain clarity on the matter and not confuse those who are struggling to enter philosophy. Their confusion, renders them vulnerable to this predatory movement.

Atheism (note: not ‘Big-A’ Atheism) is not a religion for three specific reasons. Reasons which stand as the litmus test of what qualifies a personally adopted philosophical ontology as constituting a religion.  But before we review the rationale as to why atheism is not a religion, first let’s take a look at why Abrahamism indeed stands as the quintessential example of a religion, and probably the worst religion to have ever been introduced onto the planet. The reasons why this 3500 year old movement is an oppressive religion have nothing to do with its veneration of a ‘god.’ This is a red herring argument, the whole concept of this undefined element called god. Don’t focus on epistemological validity of my argument, focus instead on the grand loving old man in the sky. I mean who can reject a simile to their grandparents after all? The concept of god is simply a meme, an artifice employed to distract and motivate good men to ill deeds, analogous to how a Nihilist might invoke an extrapolation of science in an invalid fashion, in order to justify their actions. Three elements of practice render Abrahamism an oppressive religion.

1. Abrahamism is addressable by falsification tests.

2. Abrahamism has sought for millennia to control and block science which it did not accept, or which could ostensibly falsify its tenets.

3. Should one not accede to the correct choice presented inside the false dilemma offered by an Abrahamic religion, one is fully unacceptable for entry into humanity’s destined reward, Heaven.

These are the oppressive elements which qualify a religion.

Religion: The compulsory adherence to an idea around which testing for falsification is prohibited.

Now regarding atheism, none of its tenets bear qualification traits analogous to those listed above for Abrahamism. Regarding atheism,

1.  One cannot falsify the presumption that there are no such things as gods. Even if one were to possess an ultimately fast spaceship and sufficient amount of time and lifespan; and went forth and found a character in the universe which matched the deity described in holy writ, this begs the question, is that a god? No. Science has no definition for the term god, so no matter what entity you coaxed into traveling back with you on the spaceship, they would more than likely not be a god.

2.  Atheism as a choice, takes no position on research.  It does not seek to block science, change definitions, manipulate academics and the media, or change the nature and ethic of the scientific method in order to protect itself from potential falsification. Atheism is a simple choice of ethic. One does not believe in deities. The ignostic might bristle at the boast of presuming a definition of the term god on everyone’s behalf – and then choosing not to believe in that defined entity. Even though to the ignostic, this seems like a bit of a cheat, nonetheless he will still sympathize with the atheist.

3.  Finally, atheism is a free choice.  It may object when children are forced to accede to Abrahamism, but it generally does not seek to intimidate legislatures or children into becoming atheists, and it is not mandatory before one can be deemed acceptable in any particular club, elite society or circle. One can even join an atheist organization, and not even be an atheist. Atheism is a personal choice, to not believe in deities. That is it.

As you can see in the graphic above, atheism, the ethical rejection of the idea of a deity, in no way bears the traits and elements of a religion. Atheism however, only deliberates the issue of whether or not to venerate or believe in the existence of deities. Now again, set aside the issue that science holds no definition of the terms deity or god, and focus now on the realistic application of atheism.

Most Social Skeptics and people who call themselves “atheists,” while technically indeed being atheists, are in fact believers of Nihilism. Nihilism, not atheism, is the cult and religious doctrine enforcing absolute knowledge as to those things which are deemed ‘natural;’ moreover that nothing exists outside the materials, energies, life forms, features and principles comprised inside a pre-approved realm of understanding. Nihilism is the religion of choice of those who would seek to enact specific social, belief, and egalitarian goals in the name of science.  Goals which tender their group mandatory power, through the unification of science as government, and is characterized by the planned lack of your participation therein.

Atheism is to Nihilism as Charity is to Christianity.

Atheism is therefore, the Lie of Allegiance of the Nihilist; the attractive cover philosophy which draws the unsuspecting in, before forcing them into the deeper, angrier and more control oriented aspect of the religious doctrine set, in order to obtain acceptability.

lie of allegiance2Now lets place Nihilism into that same crucible by which we just now condemned Abrahamism and exonerated atheism, in terms of their status as potential religions. Regarding Nihilism:

1.  Nihilism can be tested for falsification. Only one confirmed extant alternative intelligent life form or medium of information transfer is required.  Just one. This reality terrifies Nihilists.

2.  Nihilists vehemently seek to block subjects in falsification group 1. above from being afforded access to the scientific method or gaining attention in peer review.  This is their number one priority, as demonstrated through deed, media, intimidation, propaganda and very infrequent but highly visible and controlled predictive studies. Want to get a Nihilist angry? Tell them that falsification evidence exists.  They are in an extreme state of defensive denial on this.

3.  Nihilsm is forced on children, the media and post graduate candidates. It is mandatory as a belief before one can be published, accepted into academia, or regarded as a media science reporter or peer review expert. It is enforced by angry acolytes and intimidating celebrities with a media hammer. Journals will refuse to provide peer review for your paper; you will be mocked in media and raked over the coals by pseudo-intellectual priests in their channels of push propaganda.

This is a religion, plain and simple. An oppressive one at that, every bit as bad as Abrahamism. Social Skeptics know this, and that is why they must masquerade as atheists, so as to not appear to be a religion.

Very much in the precedent set by its forerunner, Abrahamism, the proponents of Nihilism saw the advantage in keeping control of those who are allowed admittance into science. Most universities at one time were sponsored financially, and controlled by major Western church denominations. Now these institutions are controlled by the new religion of Nihilism. A control which is so angry and oppressive, that if we ever do, or have ever to date, falsified their religion under tenet 1. above, we will never hear about it.

At the least Christians will for the most part bear the ethical honesty to say “I am a Christian who practices Charity,” and not in actuality secretly teach Christianity, but only advertise themselves as social workers. For the most part this does not happen, except in countries where it is quasi-illegal to be a Christian. Yet Nihilists practice Nihilism, and habitually mis-identify themselves as atheists.  This is why an Ethical Skeptic is very wary of those who profess to be atheists, yet surreptitiously act as Nihilists. If you cannot be honest with yourself, first, then in no way will you be honest with other people. And by Margold’s Law, the deception you employ to protect your religion in one discipline, you will employ in all disciplines.

TES Signature

August 18, 2014 - Posted by | Ethical Skepticism, Institutional Mandates | , ,


  1. […] Secularism in France Atheism is not a religion Why Atheism is Not a Religion […]

    Pingback by Top 20 Countries with the World’s Highest Atheist & Agnostic population | Bug 2k | March 2, 2017 | Reply

  2. […] Secularism in France Atheism is not a religion Why Atheism is Not a Religion […]

    Pingback by Top 20 Countries with the World’s Highest Atheist & Agnostic population | 1234 Trump | February 9, 2017 | Reply

  3. (Please consider that English is not my native language)
    Well, I consider myself a nihilist (probably I do not fit your definition) but I cannot relate to this post. I do not feel that there is nihilistic propaganda pushed on us (at least in Europe). I don’t see how science is nihilistic, I would rather call it utilitarian. One of the core tenets of nihilism is that there is no absolute (objective) truth (this is why Nihilism is a paradox; just like Buddhism) so I cannot understand how a real nihilist would ever be able to really force his believes on somebody. Unless you are relating to the “Anything goes – mentality”. But then again, why should the “higher powers” act in unison? Pretty sure they are not “real” nihilists then. As far as I am concerned, no nihilist has ever bridged the is-ought gap (which would require an axiom to serve as a point of reference; which in itself would be in grave contradistinction to the core tenet. A self-delusion; so you will never be able to go beyond good and evil). I guess it would be better to call them as they really are – namely materialists. Also some of the individuals who seek fame on different platforms (i.e. Youtube) or act as the voice of the atheist movement are merely “debunkers”. They just don’t have the wits to be skeptics. The more they shout the dumber they usually are (just personal experience).
    BTW This blog seems really interesting. Will have to dig deeper.

    Best wishes

    Comment by Jay | February 28, 2015 | Reply

    • Jay,
      Thanks for the kind words, and to be fair – I am trying to tweak the definitions – or in reality frame them in more compatible fashion – so that the puzzle makes more sense. So that we understand who the debunkers are – and why they are wrong. So we can contrast them with people of conscience, who really hold to their philosophy. To not allow them a place to hide, and pretend that they are actually reasonable rational people of a different name (atheism, materialism, free thinkers, etc.).

      You are fortunate that Nihilism is not pushed on you in Europe. Science is not nihilist, and it is utilitarian agreed – but Nihilists will pretend that science supports their religion, and will pretend to be materialists and atheists representing the opinion of science. A materialist depends upon the certainty of physical measures and an atheist does not believe in deities – neither of these comments upon or relates to the things which Nihilists seek to eliminate from social understanding through denial and debunking. Yes socially we have fallen for this ruse.

      When you are referring to ‘no objective truth’ nihilist, you are referring to Fundamental Nihilism. While it is an intellectual lever, its practical application is null. So we can set Fundamental Nihilism on a museum shelf (as you cite, these types of nihilist don’t really exist) and use the term how it should really be employed…

      Those who deny that any avenue of personal meaning can exist – only the authorized domain is to be considered – and than everything else is simply an illusion of neurofunction.

      This is not a benign philosophy.

      And your English is superb, as are your insights. Thank you!

      TES 🙂

      Comment by The Ethical Skeptic | February 28, 2015 | Reply

Comment (Moderated)

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: