Chapter 3: The Birth of a Name

Writing a book about being an Atheist is no easy task. The differences embedded into the system makes it almost impossible for me to talk about every single aspect of our lives. But this book isn't about every single little denomination that Atheism has to offer. This book is about what I and a fraction of other Atheists like me believe. It's about the Religious Atheist, and what it means to be just that. So if I have taken the time to explain to you what other Atheists believe, it is only to give you a frame of reference.

And so it's time to dive deeper into what it means to be a Religious Atheist. I have already laid the foundation of our beliefs, but there's a whole lot more to it. The term "Religious Atheist" is clearly an oxymoron in its existence. I have had many arguments with many people, Religious and Atheist alike, about the use of this term. So I will start here.

I have heard it all when it comes to the title Religious Atheist. More often than not, I get to hear how it's stupid to say I'm a Religious Atheist when one cannot be both Religious and Atheist at the same time. People will argue to the grave that being Atheist means, by definition, the complete absence of religious faith.

Before anything else, let me give you the real definitions of both of these words:

Atheist:
A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings

Religious:
Member of a religious order, congregation, etc.

It's impossible to argue then that by definition, one can't be religious and be atheist, nor can they be atheist and religious. I will agree that the two terms don't seem as if they should go together, but the truth of the situation is that the reason they don't sound right back-to-back is because of a complete misunderstanding of what it means to be an Atheist or to be Religious.

Being Religious doesn't mean that you believe in God. Look at the Buddhist faith, one of my personal favourite religions. People have so often told me when talking about Buddhism that it isn't a religion. In a way, that's true. It's certainly not what we consider to be generic religion that stems from many of the same origins as most other world religions. One of the many definitions of religion is the belief in a supreme being or beings. Buddhism doesn't quite meet that quota. However, just because it falls short on one definition of religion, it doesn't mean that Buddhists aren't Religious. The definition of "Religious" clearly states that a Religious individual is someone who is part of a religious congregation or order. And fortunately for us, another of the many definitions of religion is the following:

Religion:
1. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects.
2. The body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices.

So, though Buddhists may not believe in a supreme being, they clearly meet the quota of being both a religion and being religious.

Which brings us to Atheists. Based on both of the definitions of religion and Atheist, we atheists are just as religious as everyone else. We have our beliefs, but our faith lies in the idea that there is no God. And just like Believers, we Atheists have chosen to put our faith into something that we cannot prove. All that we have to convince you of our belief is the world around us, showing you what we see and proving what we know. But in the end, there is still this massive canyon of empty knowledge and lacking proof. Our only proof that there is no God is the fact that nobody can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there is one. In a beautiful parallel, the only proof that believers have that there is a God is the fact that non-believers can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there isn't one.

And so I state to you, as I have every other person who has told me that "because of the definitions of the words Religion, Religious, and Atheist, the title Religious Atheist can't exist because of its oxymoron quality," perhaps it's time you pick up that dictionary and have a quick look at what the words really mean. If anything, the words Religious Atheist go hand-in-hand, and the only problem the two words have is redundancy. Saying someone is a Religious Atheist is like saying someone is a Religious Jew or a Religious Christian.

Though I have addressed the main concern people seem to have with the name Religious Atheist, I would also like to quickly comment on another smaller concern I regularly get over the title. Though not as frequently as peoples concerns regarding the words Religious and Atheist going together, this comment does spring up from time-to-time. I have had people tell me on multiple occasions that I can't call myself a Religious Atheist because an Atheist is an Atheist. That is your belief. If you are an Atheist, then you are simply an Atheist. No matter what you add in front of the word Atheist, you will always be an Atheist just like all other Atheists.

I hope that by now, you as a reader have realized that this statement couldn't be further from the truth. Atheists seem to me to be more diverse than any other religion. Sure, we are grounded in one fundamental belief, and that is the belief that there is no God, but as I have stated before, we have no community or rules with which to bind ourselves. Once the declaration that there is no God has been made, then we are on our own to figure out what it is that makes up the massive tower that will become our religious beliefs. Sure, we may take a few ideas from a few passing Atheists, but for the most part these beliefs are our own with nobody telling us how or what to believe.

For this reason I believe that it is absolutely essential to give ourselves titles. We have for too long been just "Atheists", all lumped together without any real definition. It's this massive lumping that has caused so much static-ridden communication between Atheists and Believers. Believers are completely incapable of understanding us when we don't even have a way to express our own beliefs. But by telling us that we aren't allowed a title because all Atheists are just Atheists is like saying that all Religious people within the Christian faith are Orthodox. I doubt that Protestants, Lutherans, Baptists, Catholics, etc. alike would approve of this statement. In fact, I have a strange feeling there would be a lot of public outcry if anyone tried to make this the case. So if Believers are allowed to develop a new name for every minor change they make to their interpretation of a religion, why are Atheists not allowed to do the same?

I know that this is all just about a name, but a name helps both a group and an individual reach a level of self-definition it never could have achieved without a name. It lets others know before we even begin talking about a subject who we are, and in some cases, how we feel about certain issues. A name is a form of self expression and individuality. It can group us together or set us apart. A name is one of the most important parts of self-definition for many people, and so I stand by my name for both myself and all other Atheists like me. I am James R. Mitchener, and I am a Religious Atheist.