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.
Note: 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.
Now 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.
Two necessary components form the fabric of doctrines which can be used to herd the faithful and control the fold. The components have little to do with the subject at hand, its veracity, nor the presence of a supreme personality or ethereal spiritual principle. By pretending that religions only involve supernatural elements and worship of deities, SSkeptics divert attention from the fact that they are priests of a specific religious order, which targets a set of non-falsifiable and highly compulsory belief requirements mandated before one is allowed to be called ‘rational.’ Fortunately, not all scientists agree with the SSkeptics and quietly go about their research, contrary to the desires of the Cabal. There are penalties for such scientists if they are caught researching/discussing unauthorized subjects. Heavy penalties. As a result, what scientists say in public is a bit different than what they will tender in private. This is the key symptom of an enforced religion.
The key doctrine of a religion, first must pass muster in that it be non-falsifiable. That is to say, that the founding theory, construct or philosophy not be approachable by direct application of the scientific method. The founding idea must be so untouchable, subjective or abstract in its formulation that man, in his current technological state is ill equipped to prove or disprove the contention at hand. Non-falsifiable, of course is not synonymous with un-falsifiable. The mathematical statement 2 + 2 = 4 is an un-falsifiable construct, in that it is proven true in finality. In fact, non-falsifiability pertains more to an idea’s status as 
The key construct must constrain you of course in that you possess an abject lack of ability to disprove it, through our current limited state as man, or through active blocking of research by policing clubs – even if our technology can address the issue. But as well, commensurate with this non-falsifiability constraint, is the door to the same cage, in that the idea must be made compulsory for membership in or entry into a formal or informal club. This does not mean that a governing body need enforce the tenet being pushed, although that applies as well; only that any form of undue pressure be applied on individuals to accept it, through some subjective personal approval means. You are irrational if you do not accept what I am saying. A non-falsifiable construct held for personal inspiration may constitute a faith of sorts, but it only becomes a religion when one begins to require adherence to that construct in order for others to stand approved for entry into my club. Such compulsory enforcements include
