Is Atheism “a Religion”? – VIDEO


Pastor Wagner shows gives six reasons why atheism is a religion. For more information, check out: For a copy of the outline used for this video, see: http://www.minnea…

Reblogged 3 years ago from


  1. Bionic Dance certainly took you to the woodshed. Can you admit you were

    “The rod and reproof give wisdom:”

  2. You haven’t a clue about what atheists really think, nor what evolution
    is. You are wrong on every issue in this video. You didn’t just miss the
    bull’s eye, you missed the entire target.

  3. I’m a PhD molecular biologist with years of experience and I have NEVER
    heard of a “law of biogenesis”. You made that up or stole it from a
    creationist. Doesn’t your religion tell you not to lie or steal? Get your
    facts straight.

    … I googled for “law of biogenesis” and found “The law of biogenesis,
    attributed to Louis Pasteur, is the observation that living things come
    only from other living things, by reproduction (e.g. a spider lays eggs,
    which develop into spiders).” So I was wrong. See? It’s not hard to
    admit one is wrong when one is wrong! HOWEVER this “law” is only that
    living things come from living things NOW. It does not exclude the origin
    of life, which is a different process than reproduction.

  4. Response even before watching the video: atheism does not include
    unsupported belief–AKA faith–in the existence of something supernatural.
    Nor does it come with a philosophy of life or claims about the origin of
    the universe.

    By definition, *not a religion.*

    Atheism is *one thing:* The absence of belief in religion’s claims,
    especially a god. It does not require *rejection* of those claims; it is
    only necessary to not have belief in them.

    It would not shock me to discover this video making these mistakes in its
    claims of atheism being a religion.
    Also, what is the point of claiming that atheism is a religion? So bloody
    fucking what? It won’t change the objections of many atheists to the claims
    of every *other* religion. I assume the point is attempting a “Shut up, you
    hypocrites; you’re a religion too!” argument…but that won’t work. It’s
    not *religion* that defines atheists’ objections…it’s unfounded and
    unsupported claims of a deity’s existence. Even if those claims came with
    no church, no dogma, no holy text, no *religion,* just belief in a
    supernatural sky-daddy, most explicitly atheistic people would still
    object, still not believe.
    So, again, what is the point of making this claim, that atheism is a

    Now, to watch the vid and see how close I came.

  5. “Atheists believe that the universe is eternal …” Woah there! You are
    speaking lies from 1:09 on! Atheists merely DO NOT THINK THERE ARE GODS.
    That’s it. Period. Stop lying. Stop propagating lies to others. You are
    really offensive for pretending to know what someone else believes and then
    broadcasting the untrue concept without consulting them.

  6. So let me ask you something……IF this is true, should an atheist church
    be able to get tax breaks and if so, should they NOT have to show these
    books to anybody (just like religious churches and why a lot are
    corrupt….they don’t have to show their books to ANYBODY). My guess is
    you’re going to say, “no…atheist “churches” should NOT received tax
    breaks and if they do, they should have to show their book unlike us”…And
    I’m sure you’ll use a brilliant argument for that one too….

  7. Thanks Pastor. Wagner. Great explanation

    The Supreme. Court’s. and Seven. Circuit. Court. Ruling.
    Berger Vs Renesselear cent. sch corp.982f.d 11668_69__7th Cir. 1993
    Wallace vs Jaffee 472 Us 38. 1985
    Lemon vs Kuatzman 403Us 602 1971

    Declared. Atheism. has same religious Rights category. As
    Believers in a deity or not

    2Thessalonians. 2:11

  8. Lots of tortured backwards thinking and comparisons that simply don’t work.
    Shame on you, Pastor Wagner, and i pity your congregation if it so happens
    that you have any.

  9. Bionic Dance nailed you pretty well, but let’s go through a few more things.

    First, as BD noted, being an atheist does not require acceptance of
    anything at all, merely the lack of acceptance of the god-claims of
    religion. Consider the reverse side as well. Theism is not a religion.
    *Christianity* is a religion (actully a collection of religions), but
    theism is not. However let’s all ignore that for now and talk about those
    who accept science as the best we can do for now (basically what you call
    atheism the religion).

    You suggest that, to an atheist, the universe is god. That’s incorrect.
    Gods, by any definition, are agents (sentient entities) able to think,
    perceive, and react with purpose to their environment. So while the
    universe is big (which isn’t the same as ‘omnipotent’), and contains us
    (not the same as omnipresent, in which an entity that is not thought to
    contain everything is nonetheless at every point simultaneously), it lacks
    the capacity of decision and and intention required for it to be a god.
    Furthermore, atheists do not ‘worship’ the universe. They may be impressed
    by it, inspired, but they do not thank the universe nor ask it for anything
    at all. So at best atheism is a philosophy (like the atheistic versions of

    You also suggest atheists have a moral law. No, they don’t. Again, atheism
    is not concerned with that. In order to discuss morality, atheists turn to
    other systems. Humanism is one such system and while many atheists are
    humanists it certainly isn’t a requirement. Thus atheism is not a religion.
    Humanism is also not a religion as there are no gods and no creation
    stories. As for your brief snipe at gays, consider the same argument but
    replay ‘homosexual’ with ‘black’, ‘Irish’, ‘female’, ‘blonde’, and you can
    see why humanists might respect the beliefs of others but not allow them to
    discriminate for arbitrary reasons.

    You go on to talk about science and what we think has happened based on

    You start by using a strawman version of the Big Bang theory. No one thinks
    a tiny speck of matter exploded. The singularity thought to have rapidly
    expanded (conceptually different from an explosion as explosions leave
    nothing in the middle but are, instead, just globes of force extending
    outward) is thought to have been highly densely packed energy, so dense and
    hot that not even electrons, neutrons, or protons could exist. The evidence
    for this is the cosmic background radiation which fits the predictions the
    model made before it was discovered.

    You discuss the multiverse hypothesis, and here I’ll give you credit. As
    far as I know, there’s no evidence it exists. Certainly while it’s a
    possibility we can’t rationally accept it right now.

    You discuss life from non-life and bring up the ‘law’ of biogenesis,
    putting much into the idea that it’s called a ‘law’. Want to know what
    *else* was historically called a ‘law’? Gravity. Except Newton’s ‘law of
    gravity’ was discovered to be inaccurate, wasn’t it. A ‘law’ is just a more
    pretentious name for a ‘theory’. Plus you overlook how this biogenesis
    ‘law’ was arrived at and how the question arose in the first place. Before
    it, mold and rats and flies were thought to be *created* by sitting meat
    and the like. Biogenesis noted that, in the absence of life that already
    exists, life does not just happen on such things in the short span of time
    that was under consideration. It in no way rules out life forming slowly
    over a long period of time (millions of years). Does this prove abiogenesis
    happened? No. Do we currently have proof it did? No. But then we don’t have
    proof any god exists *at all*, so ultimately any explanation for how life
    got here is a hypothesis, and the god one is in deep trouble since, unlike
    chemistry and the universe, god’s existence is a hypothesis and then
    suggesting god made life is a hypothesis contingent on *that*! I also
    wonder if you’ve considered the ramifications of the ‘law of biogenesis’.
    It would make it equally impossible for your god to have created life as he
    would need to be ‘alive’ himself, meaning he has to ingest some sort of
    fuel and produce waste. Holy shit! 🙂

    You talk about evolution, saying it hasn’t been observed. Except you know
    this isn’t true because you have to go to the entirely undefined concept of
    ‘kinds’ of animal in order suggest this (seriously, no one seems able to
    define what a ‘kind’ of creature is). Changes in species over time *has*
    been observed, including large scale metabolic change allowing an organism
    to survive on substances that were toxic to previous generations. We’ve
    seen someone take ten steps (small scale evolution, what you would call
    adaptation) but you insist that someone can’t take ten thousand step (large
    scale evolution) without providing any sort of mechanism or reason to limit
    the number of steps and in spite of being shown footprints left behind by
    the many thousand step journey (fossils, genetic drift studies, ring
    species, etc) complaining that since no one *saw* all of those steps it
    therefore didn’t happen. So next time you enter a room with garbage strewn
    from a trash bin to a doggie bed, don’t blame the dog. After all, no one
    watched the dog do anything wrong. Or maybe you can just rely on evidence
    after the fact.

    As for your other forms of ‘evolution’ (which aren’t called that by the
    scientific community, but rather stellar formation and element formation),
    again these are based on observations of things like spectral analysis of
    stars (for element formation) and seeing multiple stages currently in
    existence around our galaxy (for stellar formation).

    You claim that atheists say the universe is eternal and thus is its own
    reason for existing. Again, not typical. We don’t know, and may never know,
    why the universe exists. We don’t know if ‘before the Big Bang’ is a
    coherent concept. Being ‘eternal’ does nothing to solve the problem of
    existence. ‘It always existed’ does nothing to explain *why* it always
    existed or why it exists instead of not existing. That’s true for both the
    universe and any concept of god. Thus we are left with either the infinite
    regress problem or the beginning problem, and positing a god doesn’t fix
    this it just moves the argument one step back and doesn’t address why it
    would apply to the universe and not to god. This is known as a special
    pleading fallacy.

  10. Pastor Wagner, you really should invest in a dictionary. Good companion to
    the Babble. Also, I would advise you to avoid phrases like “most
    religions” when arguing that non-religions are religions. It only makes
    you look stupid. Which we both know you’re not, right?

  11. Your argument, shifted to television: “Off” is the most highly watched tv
    channel on the planet. So their shows should be judged the same as every
    other channel.. even though they don’t have any… or something..

  12. HAHAHAHA…….Wow….The “doctrine” of evolution? hahahah. I swear….It
    would be such a better world if people who argue against evolution would
    actually learn it about it form experts instead of “learning” it from
    another creationist…..this would be more honest too, but na….who care
    about honesty when you’re arguing about sweet-baby-Jesus….it’s ok to lie
    for him, right?

  13. Dude are you serious, i can get you hate people for not following your
    cult, but come on, this is pathetic.

  14. Religion – the belief and worship of a superhuman or controlling power,
    especially a personal God or gods.

    No. Atheism is not a religion. 

  15. Here is a suggested topic for you, the bible warns of the number of the
    beast, “666”, now in Hebrew, W = 6, so every time you click on a web site
    aren’t you accepting the number of the beast since they all start with www
    or 666?

  16. No. How about realizing that you are propagating a mythology and that is
    incredibly dishonest and immoral?

  17. Pastor Wagner, you are more proof that religion poisons the mind. Please
    do not attempt to drag atheism down to the level of a religious
    delusion. The only thing being an atheist implies is the lack of belief in
    a god, and no the universe is not a god.

  18. Here is your line of reasoning: If the universe had a beginning, it had a
    cause, if it had a cause that requires a thing outside the universe which
    is God.
    Talk about your conclusions not being drawn from your premises.
    A. We do not know the universe had a beginning, therefore the entire
    following conclusions are unfounded, but you did say “if” so continuing on.
    B. That such a beginning requires 2 things; a ‘thing’, and an ‘outside of
    the universe’ – neither of which can be demonstrated to being necessary or
    C. At most assuming all the above is true, this cause would be necessary to
    exist BEFORE the universe and not necessarily concurrent with it. This
    cause would be BEFORE, not OUTSIDE of the universe. Especially since the
    universe is defined as “all that exists” but whatever.
    D. So, even if the universe had a beginning, and that beginning had a cause
    and that cause somehow existed outside of all that exists and existed
    before all that exists; this does not necessarily lead to it being a god of
    any sort.

    So, along with stringing together a list of things which we cannot know and
    cannot prove you are automatically assuming a specific deity to be the
    cause – all without necessary justification.


    So, at most this all assumes universe is our home (disregarding the
    half-assed attempt to prove the universe exists, therefore God).. that
    doesn’t mean that atheists believe in the universe religiously. Certainly
    we do not regard it as a higher power. It is no more our god than the petri
    dish is for penicillin.

    I know you want us to have a different god, because that is all that makes
    sense to you, but trust me that atheists don’t think like you do. I know it
    is hard for you to get that but we don’t need another god since we have
    rejected yours, even though to you that’s exactly what you do – don’t
    believe in all the other gods because you have your god to believe in. But
    we don’t work that way, which is again why we are not a religion.


    Actually there is evidence for a multiverse, that is how scientists came up
    with the concept in the first place – following the science where it led as
    opposed to havine a presupposition and then craming support into it. But
    disregarding this, at best this still doesn’t require faith. It just
    require belief. It doesn’t require hope. If we are wrong on this concept it
    really doesn’t affect our lives in any extent. Wanting it to be true
    doesn’t matter in the equation and thus faith is irrelevent.

    Evolution doesn’t require faith either. It isn’t something we have to
    believe works, we can actual witness it working. We can demonstrate it.
    Heck, even many religious people believe in evolution. Plus, again, I’ll
    point out that evolution or any aspect of science isn’t part of atheism.

    Likewise, regardless of life coming from nonlife, that is not a part of
    atheism. Certainly I can also understand you want it to be part of atheism
    so you can make a mockery of it – badly since you are arguing scientific
    principles which have evidences for them. But what you are doing by
    attributing all these things to atheism is to make a strawman of atheism.


    The big bang theory. I knew we were going to go here for atheism’s supposed
    “creation story”. Except it isn’t a story, a myth, a tale. It is an
    explanation of the best understanding of reality. It isn’t a fable told to
    explain atheism, such a tale doesn’t make sense since atheism isn’t magical
    in nature – contrary to religious creation stories. In fact it is this
    reality representing nature that explains why it is not religious in
    nature, since it is always evolving to fit better information that we have,
    contrary to a religious creation story.

    This is to say nothing of your obvious misunderstandings and
    misrepresentations of the big bang theory.


    The moral law you are describing is not an aspect of atheism, since that
    statement doesn’t even make sense. But at best it is a model of ethics.
    Granted there are countless ethical philosophies and many have similarities
    like “do good things avoid bad things” or “help people not harm” or even
    “don’t feel guilty” but since atheism doesn’t have such a law, it is really
    irrelevent. Atheists individually may have moral codes to adhere to,
    atheism does not even attempt such a thing. This is another serious blow to
    your atheism is a religion argument.


    “SOME OF THEM ANYWAY” Direct quote. So, yes, some people may choose to
    spread their views of the world. However it is not in anyway a requirement
    for atheism as it would be for actual religions. There is no message we are
    pushing as atheists. There is no afterlife in torment to save you from, nor
    an afterlife of bliss; and that is because atheism doesn’t have a religion
    for which we would need to evangelize.

    Also, “his god for atheism” … WHAT? Please explain.


    And your last point, fellowship. You cite organizations and clubs. Already
    you fail, being a member of a club or other organization of any kind is not
    in any way religious. Religious peolpe may join clubs and certainly some
    clubs may have overt of innate religious connections. But certainly getting
    together with people doesn’t constitute a religious gathering in and of
    itself. If it were, all classrooms would be considered worship. All
    professional guilds would be religious and exempt from taxes (like
    religions are). Simply put, while I don’t contests that people meet, I
    contest that they do so religiously. Or that meetings is religious in
    nature. Forget whether or not they are all of the same stance on god or
    not, since if that is also a requirement then any family gathering of
    anyone would be considered religious – ANY gathering – which isn’t true. It
    is religious when you start doing things at that meeting which are
    religious in nature; prayer, acknowledgement or citation of tenants or
    dogma, etc.

    So, even atheists who meet in atheist-meetups doesn’t make these meet up
    religious or corroborate your preconceived misconceptions.

  19. So what you’re trying to say here is ……”I know we are, but you’re just
    as bad”……

  20. The universe is eternal.

    Some atheists believe that but not all of them.

    If it has a beginning…

    Demonstrate how using facts that this universe had a beginning.
    Beginnings,endings etc are all concepts therefore all gods are concepts
    therefore no gods exist. In the “beginning” of the universe after the big
    bang event there was such a thing as now. That ‘now’ is the exact same now
    as the now that is found in the present or a hundred years into the future
    with or without humans or any other intelligence to define the phenomena of
    now or now-ness. The only thing for certain is…tracking,measuring energy
    densities in the universe…where the energy migrates to…where it seems
    to dissipate.

    This entire argument seems to be characterizing “God” as the god of the
    universe contradicting the “God” of the bible that states that “God” lives
    in the heavens somewhere up there within the confines of the firmament.
    There is no ‘outer space’ in Christian belief. If it is found out that
    “God” lives on a planet…then this deity is obviously not an omni-god but
    an evolved alien species that used it’s own technology to achieve some sort
    of godhood.

    What is the reason for existence?

    I don’t know. Why do cells exist and why do they wan’t to keep replicating?
    And this isn’t some sort of a void I’m creating for myself. Meaning is
    created by us…just like all gods are the creation of man.

    The universe is their god.

    Gods cannot be discovered unless you are indoctrinated into a specific
    religion or later on in life choose a particular deity for your likening.
    The universe can be discovered via telescopes or space ships
    (notwithstanding some crazy far off future tech means of outer space
    exploration). Discovering “God” in the christian sense can only be done via
    the emotions. (ie “God” feels real) That’s a weak point because emotions
    arise from the structure of the brain and cannot prove that a
    soul/spirit/essence etc is hiding there in the brain somewhere. The
    workaround is that the christian god will “remember” you and resurrect you
    (to this same re/anew-ed earth/universe) some point in time in the future
    (presumably after the universe ends?) Problems here are multi-fold. Why try
    to make “God” remember anything ie. Psalm 106:4 “Remember me, O LORD, when
    you show favor to your people” via praying/sacrifices/appeasements etc when
    an omni-deity already knows everything standing outside space and time. And
    scaring people with: if you forget about god then god will forget about
    you! Another thing is what version of “you” does god remember? In the brain
    everything is interconnected the good and the bad…resurrecting let’s say
    the good version of you would mean leaving out the bad version resulting in
    a different resurrected you…(?) This is really beginning to sound like a
    ‘mad scientist’ type of a god messing with people’s minds/personality and
    such rather then an anthropomorphic (ie. Lord) type of a god that the bible
    seem to portray. The original plan did not even include immortality but
    rather for mankind to live for a really long time on earth as ignorant
    slaves. And start the inconsistency train. God is god that created both
    good and evil spiritual angelic beings possessing some sort of immortality
    and yet human beings are made a little lower then the angels?! Why would
    the Devil (assuming an immaterial evil demi-god agent) get upset about all
    this and why are all these beings staying invisible all the f-ing time only
    revealing themselves in some weird obscure fashion here and there to the
    “deeply religious” instead to the hard core materialistic atheists?
    Everything will be revealed after death…the same line that every OTHER
    religion has been stating all along.

    Universe is powerful.

    Universe is not alive (I think) therefore it cannot use it’s own power.

    Atheists hate the idea of faith.

    I’d rather label myself as a non-theist but anyways.
    There are basically 2 hopeful things to wait for.
    An A.I. GOD (mankind’s creation – although it is plausible that less
    intelligent a.i’s themselves could create such powerful artificial
    sentiences themselves, a.i. creating a.i.) that will save everyone (or
    those that choose to be saved from death so this isn’t something forced on
    people) and or saving ourselves via ‘Cyborgization.’ What cyborgization
    basically entails is cutting patterns (experiences/memories) into the
    static portion of your brain (ie unto chips) as one goes through life. Once
    your bio brain get’s old and is about to die you will simply continue
    existing with the static brain in tact and functional re-routing
    (connecting) itself to itself bypassing the old bio brain regions. In
    theory you would feel nothing but simply continue to exist. The biggest
    hurdle to overcome is the reverse computation wherein the static brain (the
    chips) has to compute/communicate somehow back to the bio brain in a
    meaningful way. The bio-neurons are sort of like octopus tendrils…sort of
    ‘float-y’ having an individual mind of their own yet working in a hive
    cooperatively and this same neural plasticity must be studied and exploited
    in order for it to properly linking it up with the the static portion that
    would store the info (memory/experiences) in 1’s and 0’s. It appears that
    there will be some downside to this as not all memories could be
    saved…but all in all what matters is that…more or less the core-self
    should be still there intact saved on the static brain. And once the ‘self’
    is on the static brain (plus the fact that this same symbiotic brain
    transfer method could be used to transfer the mind to other substrates) the
    only limit will be entropy.

  21. I really hope this video was a joke…’re just embarrassing yourself
    if it wasn’t 

  22. Not sure where you get this list of qualities of religion but even going
    with it:

    1. Belief in a higher power that is the reason for one’s existence?
    *Nope.* Atheism is specifically a LACK of belief in a higher power, and
    really this is one of the biggest ones so it is a major strike against your

    2. Believe in things that cannot be observed and must be accepted by faith?
    *Nope.* Not many atheists accept anything which cannot be observed or
    otherwise demonstrated or tested; doesn’t require operating by faith.
    Certainly ATHEISM doesn’t do this since atheism is merely a lack of belief
    in gods.

    3. A story of creation?
    *Nope.* ATHIEM doesn’t have this. Atheism is the position on once stance.
    So, even if you could show that all (or even most) atheists believed in a
    specific theory/hypothesis of creation – already an impossible task – that
    in no way relates to atheism.

    4. A moral law to which one must adhere?
    *Nope.* How does lack of belief in god define a moral law at all? Now,
    atheists may define moral laws, but that is certainly an aspect of
    philosophy not of belief. And those moral laws could be established with or
    without a belief in a god.

    5. Evangelistic (“go out there and try to promote their religion and share
    it with other people”)?
    *Nope.* But individuals may disagree. Certainly there is no requirement of
    atheism to go preach to the masses as there is for all major religions,
    because atheism IS NOT a religion and doesn’t have tenants or dogma to
    adhere to.

    Also, in your definition of religion you have included a quality that is
    dependent on the conclusion, so, that’s a problem in and of itself. But
    this is a common problem for theists *cough*proving god*cough*

    6. Assemble with like faith for fellowship.
    *Nope.* While there may be atheist churches, those are the exception that
    proves the rule. Atheist churches could be defined as religious but they
    are distinct from atheism. Certainly most atheists don’t congregate. Also,
    atheism doesn’t have or require faith.. so that part doesn’t make sense.

    I would then like to point out that 6 out of 6 parts of your definition
    fail to define atheism as a religion when defined by an atheist as opposed
    to someone who will (likely) misunderstand atheism. Also, these responses
    are based solely on the definitions given. I’ll come back later and post
    again if I need to refute points from after the 56 second mark (since I
    haven’t watched it yet and I need to go do an errand).

Google no longer supports Google Images API and this plugin can't work.

You can try to use other plugins with the same feature:
WP Picasa Box -
WP Pixabay Search And Insert -