God’s Not Dead, Chapter 1 – Is Atheism A Religion? (pt5)
IS ATHEISM A RELIGION?
Well, before I begin on this subsection I’ll just answer the title. No, it isn’t. Okay with that over with, on to the author’s quote:
Within every human is a desire for God.
I would simply change this sentence to ‘Within every human is a desire for Answers.’ I think this is a much better sentence and is a great reason for so many god claims and religions throughout our history. See those questions from above that I used to represent the “questions that mattered to them most”. An all-knowing god is the perfect answer. It answers every question and most especially soothes the unrest we have about the unknown after death.
Atheism, in all its railings against God, also has intrinsic beliefs, dogmas, and tenets that supposedly can’t be challenged. It is itself a belief system with all the markings of a religion.
Really? I like that the author explains that the atheist religion has beliefs, dogmas, and tenets that “can’t be challenged” but never actually tells us what they are. ‘Atheists say religion is bad but they’re just a religion too. So there!’ That’s all I get out of this little rant by the author and backed by the next quote:
Atheism as a religion (a set of beliefs) is just as intolerant and closed-minded as the claims made against any faith system it assails.
What do you call a religion? I would say they are marked by the ceremony, the deity, “beliefs, dogmas, and tenets” that “can’t be challenged”. So, with this meaning of religion I would say that, No, atheism is not a religion, but if you define religion simply as a group of people who organize to freely express their views on certain topics you would include book clubs, collectors, or hobbyists as religions. (Those damn Stampists are at it again!) (Those O-gaugers will never understand that G-gauge is the best!)
No deviations from the atheistic, Darwinian dogma tolerated. Want to lose credibility in these secular citadels? Merely suggest that there might be something beyond nature that’s responsible for our existence. This skeptical overreaction is simply…unreasonable.
The skeptic community is based on believing in that which is evident. Suggesting a supernatural explanation without evidence is ridiculous and will be met with ridicule and likely the loss of credibility, I agree. Think about this though; lightning was thought to be a supernatural event caused by Thor until it was explained naturally, earthquakes in Japan were thought to be the movement of the Namazu but eventually were explained and evidenced naturally. Bringing up a supernatural event in the secular community is not out of the question but you must be able to explain and show evidence for it and after that it is no longer a super-natural event it is just nature.