To show their contempt for Atheists, who challenge the religious folks’ strong-held beliefs, Christians dismissively call atheism "a mere religion". Let’s think about this for a second... People who identify themselves as religious despise another group of people who, as they claim, are also religious? This seems oxymoronic (on the second thought, maybe not, considering how Christians view Islam, for example). Maybe it satisfies them to think that since they don’t know what they are talking about, those who challenge them also don’t know what they are talking about. Or, more likely, it is that they think that their religion is the only true religion and that all other religions are wrong, and therefore by calling atheism a religion they can dismiss it like they do all other religions. So it is clear that calling atheism a religion categorizes it with all the other religions, but what is so threatening to them to accept atheism as being not a religion? So what does it mean to call atheism a religion, or, in other words, why is it so important for religious people to believe that atheism is a religion? Maybe accepting atheism as not being a religion puts it completely outside of the realm of faith, making it require an explanation, poses a challenge for them to disprove it, since, if it is not a religion, then it must be grounded in reason. Reason is hard to refute, and religious people just can not tolerate with any sound view that challenges their beliefs. Or maybe it’s merely because atheists are a minority, and as is the case with all minorities, they are discriminated against. But whatever the reason is for atheism to be called a religion, it is necessary to refute this fallacious belief. Let me tell you why atheism is not a religion. It is because religion, in its most liberal sense, involves the belief in supernatural power. Atheism, quite simply, lacks this belief. But furthermore, religion also includes a set of beliefs about the creation, nature, purpose, and the end of the universe, as well as beliefs about morality, the meaning of our existence, and what will happen to us when we die. In contrast to these set of beliefs, although some atheists have adopted secular philosophies, such as Secular Humanism or Buddhism, there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all, or even most atheists adhere.
It is absurd to call atheism a religion just as it is absurd to call “bald” a hair color and a-unicornism (the lack of a belief in unicorns) a religion. In logic you don’t have to prove the negative, that is, prove the non-existence of something for which there is no evidence, such as god, or even unicorns. Nobody would say, “you can’t prove that unicorns exist, therefore they exist”, much less saying that not believing in unicorns—and, more strongly, even believing that there are no unicorns—makes it a religion. That is absurd in the same way as calling atheism a religion is absurd. But the point here being that the burden of proof is on those who claim that something is true, such as the claim that god exists, and not on those who claim the opposite (god does not exist), because there is simply no evidence to support that claim.
Some claim that not only do atheists simply lack the belief in god, but they also hold the belief that there is no god (there is a difference) so strongly that this (dis)belief makes atheism a religion. Others believe that the belief in god is so obvious, that one needs a religion, or faith, to believe otherwise. This, of course is a delusional viewpoint, since it is the belief in god that requires faith, not the absence of the belief. “They believe in the absence of god just as we believe in the presence of god,” they say (without paying attention to the reason that logic doesn’t require you to prove a negative). However, although it may be the case with some who claim to be atheists, I have yet to meet a self-proclaimed atheist who believes that there is no god with the same fervor and certainty as a self-proclaimed religious person believes that there is god. In other words, the vast majority of atheists do not assert that there is a 100 percent chance that there is no god, maybe 99.99 percent chance, but not 100. Anybody who believes in anything 100 percent is wrong. Atheists do not, and this, you might say, technically makes them agnostics.
In conclusion, Christians think atheism is a religion because atheists are sometimes as steadfast as religious people about holding on to their belief, and sometimes atheists are not open to other opinions. This only proves that religious people are either too stupid to understand atheists’ argument or even reason in general, or they are simply too arrogant to pay attention to it, and so they only focus on the atheists’ unwillingness to see their point of view. So to a Christian anyone who disagrees with them zealously—doesn't matter the reason—is religious. Problem solved. Bam!
So what reasons do people give for calling atheism a religion? They say it is similar to religion. It is clear to see that this is a straw man argument. Instead of actually addressing what religion means, they bend its definition to something much more general and then compare atheism to that general definition, which is far from what the word “religion” actually means. They don’t acknowledge that there is actually no clearly defined philosophy, or set of beliefs, common to all or even most atheists.
A slightly different yet no less important topic: why is religion so widely accepted, despite the lack of empirical evidence? To the question of why so many people seem to need a god, Stephen Hawking, the greatest scientific mind of our time, replied, "People want to think there is something they can relate to and which can make them feel they are not isolated but are part of a larger whole." Religion emerges from the need to belong. It is perpetuated by receiving confirmation from other believers as well as by confirmation bias, a very common error in thinking that occurs when we selectively notice or focus upon evidence which tends to support the things we already believe or want to be true while ignoring that evidence which goes against those beliefs or ideas. It is a defense mechanism wired into us to protect our self esteem. An extreme version of confirmation bias is when someone denies having any flaws. In addition, confirmation bias is especially liberally applied by religious people because religious belief does not require empirical evidence. As Mark Twain put it, "if it is a Miracle, any sort of evidence will answer, but if it is a Fact, proof is necessary." They are not aware that personal revelation is not acceptable evidence to prove a fact. Thus, religious people use selective evidence to confirm their beliefs. For example, using only stories of people who were "saved" because they turned to god after being addicted to drugs as evidence of the existence of god is using a selective sample of all people who ever did drugs, because there are those who turned to god and did not get better and others who quit using drugs and are leading a happy life without turning to god. This is not even to mention the false assumption of a causal relationship between turning to god and being "saved".
As for me, all thinking men are atheists (but not all atheists are thinking men). I view the belief in god as the belief in all other superstitious entities, such as unicorns, Santa Clause, and the flying spaghetti monster—they are very likely to be false, impossible to disprove, and delusional to believe in.
