Support NeoGAF

[Aureon]

internet is just where people feel comfortable to say the nastiest things they would generally never say in public. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't think those things in public, or bring those beliefs into the public and act on them

Internet is where there's no inherent relationship to lose.
Most people (me included) value friendships above "the good fight", eg. political\religious opinions. On the internet, i don't know you, and we can argue without fear of losing a friendship over said arguing.

actually no.

but I guess in an atheism thread we can have some good natured anti-religion potshots, so, fire away.

If you want a more detailed explanation, it's that if it isn't a holy book, what's written in it is not intrinsically true - truth has to be established as it would for any other information source.
That doesn't mean any information source "means jack shit", and i guess i could've expressed that better - just that it doesn't get special treatment anymore.

 

[John Kowalski]

at times i've thought if one can consider himself truly atheist while participating in, for example, christian or muslim culture (e.g. gastronomy and arts), having grown in what is through and through a christian culture it's weird for me to exist as an atheist and having to rethink and consider a ton of random stuff just to figure out how to be an atheist not just for others but mostly for myself, i mean if i accept my stance as beyond merely empiricist then how do i express that in the various cultural membranes that i partake of?

 

[Hip Hop]

These aren't choices. Religion is.

dude what? that's not a good comparison at all.

Religion could very much be a lifestyle, an identity, a part of their persona and mind. It's a very fair comparison.

For example, the same way you can't tell a gay person to stop being gay, it works the same here.

 

[Kurita]

I don't like atheists who see atheism as a way of life, and basically become militants or something.
I'm atheist but I don't seek a "community" or atheist friends. I still don't get why r/atheism is a thing. What's the point?

 

[Aureon]

I don't like atheists who see atheism as a way of life, and basically become militants or something.
I'm atheist but I don't seek a "community" or atheist friends. I still don't get why r/atheism is a thing. What's the point?

Mostly, the fact that atheists are persecuted and killed, and people who won't ever have to face a similar issue co-opting that struggle to whine about random things.

 

[John Kowalski]

I don't like atheists who see atheism as a way of life, and basically become militants or something.
I'm atheist but I don't seek a "community" or atheist friends. I still don't get why r/atheism is a thing. What's the point?

maybe people want the communitarian aspects of religion which which they grew up without the religion bit

atheism doesn't have to be a uniquely individualistic endeavor

 

[umop_3pisdn]

Actually, no.
If you believe the Quran, Bible or, to a lesser degree the Torah, is the revealed word of god, you don't get to pick and choose.
If you tell me it's just a moral book written by man who may or may have not corrupted the word of god, the book isn't holy and suddenly the fact that something is written in it doesn't mean jack shit.

There's really no in-between - something is either fallible or it isn't. Nigh all people are in the second category, but like to pretend they're in the first when social pressure is involved.
The caveat of "It's the revealed word of god, but it's open to interpretation" is just a cute way of being in the #2 camp - it's fallible.
If man can change the meaning in any way, it's fallible - it's just a longstanding tradition of pretending the word of man is the word of god, because religion is a great instrumentum regni.

I mean, i'm not faulting any specific Christian, Muslim or whatever for subscribing to their religion, but i definitely blame religion as a whole for a slew of things - most recently, bolstering bigots in their fight against LGBT rights.

Even with those premises built into doctrine you can abandon them and not introduce many contradictions, because religions are adaptational systems, it's not like if you tug on that one thread the whole thing comes unravelled. Maybe for some people it does, but religions aren't monolithic systems, and people prioritize different aspects of religion even if 'canonically they're not supposed to', because peoples reasons for believing aren't even the same. If you did want to make a broad general statement, then if you look at Christianity, it is arguably just a statement that people have an infinite capacity for redemption (and that Christ is the means for that), that actually encompasses the many 'Christianities' we see in a pretty elegant way, and the absolute authority of scripture isn't necessarily an integral part of that unless you make it one.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Religion is very much a lifestyle, an identity, a part of their persona and mind. It's a very fair comparison.

It's a choice(regardless of indoctrination), and often very much not any of those things you just mentioned.

 

[Nivash]

That's the issue I'm at though, the idea of a 'default' position. If you're making a point to say you don't believe in a higher power, you're an atheist, if you're saying there's a god or gods, you're some sort of theist. I'm not sure what we would call people who don't know or haven't understood what the concept of a God or gods are though, but no I think creating subgroups in the way you've done still obfuscates things. Because again, historically and philosophically the idea of the atheist is one that rejects the notion of gods or Gods, at least that's been my reading of it.

It's basically semantics though, but if theism = belief in god/s then those people you mentioned would be atheists. It's just that they themselves would have no need of the label because they have no theists to contrast with. They would just use the theist label for everyone else and consider themselves "normals".

I agree that historically and philosophically atheism has been about an active rejection of faith, but that's a reflection of the fact that virtually all human societies have been religious, not a necessity based on the nature of a lack of belief. Contrasting again with "default atheists" I personally know people who were raised by atheist parents in a secular society and who tend to view active believers as somewhat odd and mystifying because of that. They've never rejected religion because they've never had one. Their attitude is basically the same religious people have to other religions, they simply extend the attitude to all organised religion. Some of them have vague spiritual notions and superstitions but they don't believe in any specific god so they are by every definition of the word atheist.

Atheism is a perfectly fine word to describe a lack of belief in specific gods because it is the literal word for it and as long as most people in any given society are theists we're going to need a word for the people who aren't. I just don't see any reason to change it just because people have lumped a ton of perceived ideology and agency onto it.

 

[MrHoot]

at times i've thought if one can consider himself truly atheist while participating in, for example, christian or muslim culture (e.g. gastronomy and arts), having grown in what is through and through a christian culture it's weird for me to exist as an atheist and having to rethink and consider a ton of random stuff just to figure out how to be an atheist not just for others but mostly for myself, i mean if i accept my stance as beyond merely empiricist then how do i express that in the various cultural membranes that i partake of?

The religious connotations just become irrelevant. I mean most of the old christian aspects of some celebration have already been difformed beyond reason (I mean, christmas has basically turned into an orgy of consumerism. It's also celebrated in countries which have very little christian ties, like in a lot of asian countries. They don't feel that concerned. And I don't even have to talk about the whole easter bunny thing nowadays).

But more or less, it's just that it's grown as just "a thing we do" for most. I still use terms like "Oh god" or "Christ" even though I don't believe. But they are powerful words that usually convey what needs to be meant so they're convenient. Atheism is just lack of belief so you don't really think about these things. At this point it's just...society as it is, if you live in a modern western society that is.

 

[JustenP88]

If we can give followers of Abrahamic religions the benefit of the doubt when it comes to homophobia, which is blatant and rampant in their religious texts, I think we can give some leeway to atheists, despite some uncouth behavior on the internet.

At least, I'd like to think so.

 

[gruenel]

Religion could very much be a lifestyle, an identity, a part of their persona and mind. It's a very fair comparison.

For example, the same way you can't tell a gay person to stop being gay, it works the same here.

You couldn't be more wrong. Being gay isn't a choice. Skin color isn't a choice.

Religion very much is.

 

[fantomena]

Religion could very much be a lifestyle, an identity, a part of their persona and mind. It's a very fair comparison.

For example, the same way you can't tell a gay person to stop being gay, it works the same here.

It's a choice. I was christian until I was 16 or something, then I chose to stop believing in god.

If was was black or gay I can't just stop being them.

 

[Aureon]

Even with those premises built into doctrine you can abandon them and not introduce many contradictions, because religions are adaptational systems, it's not like if you tug on that one thread the whole thing comes unravelled. Maybe for some people they do, but religions aren't monolithic systems, and people prioritize different aspects of religion even if 'canonically they're not supposed to'. If you look at Christianity, it is arguably just a statement that people have an infinite capacity for redemption (and that Christ is the means for that), you can wrap the entirety of Christianity up pretty elegantly that way and not really miss much of anything.

Religions are (slowly) adaptational systems, but pretend they aren't to justify their power structures.
The thing is, if Christianity for you is simply the statement that "People have infinite capacity for redemption", that's not actually dogmatic Christianity. You're believing what you want to believe - as all of us do, and should have the right to - but you're also identifying with a name and history that means so much more.
Your judgement of what Christianity is for you is entirely correct - but that's because belief is personal. It's no more or less correct than the belief of Daesh that Islam means to kill all heathens.

The issue is that religions aren't belief systems: they're power structures. Co-opting an existing name unto your belief system means normalizing said power structure, and risking you or those near you to fall under said power structure.


Said power structure can then influence elections and whatnot, and is generally self-perpetuating because the most relevant religions include proselytizing as a tenet.

Religion could very much be a lifestyle, an identity, a part of their persona and mind. It's a very fair comparison.

For example, the same way you can't tell a gay person to stop being gay, it works the same here.

It could be argued that belief is not a choice - and it'd be a good debate - but religion is absolutely a choice.
Recognizing an external authority, may it be a book or a priest, is absolutely a choice.

Believing that a god exists and he wills well for you is fundamentally harmless, even beneficial, and no one should attempt to strip that from somebody else.
Believing that a god exists and that someone else is speaking for Him is where things get extremely dangerous.

 

[ThisGuy]

What hats do agnostics wear?

Probably this because they can't commit to one:

;-)

I tip my many hats to you good sir.

 

[JustenP88]

It could be argued that belief is not a choice - and it'd be a good debate - but religion is absolutely a choice.

Last time I made that argument, people got all up in my ass about it. I think it's a valid distinction. Sure, I could go through the motions of a religion. I could say I believe but, unless something changes (evidence, experience, whatever), I can't just flip a switch and suddenly, truly believe.

 

[umop_3pisdn]

Religions are (slowly) adaptational systems, but pretend they aren't to justify their power structures.
The thing is, if Christianity for you is simply the statement that "People have infinite capacity for redemption", that's not actually dogmatic Christianity. You're believing what you want to believe - as all of us do, and should have the right to - but you're also identifying with a name and history that means so much more.
Your judgement of what Christianity is for you is entirely correct - but that's because belief is personal. It's no more or less correct than the belief of Daesh that Islam means to kill all heathens.

The issue is that religions aren't belief systems: they're power structures. Co-opting an existing name unto your belief system means normalizing said power structure, and risking you or those near you to fall under said power structure.


Said power structure can then influence elections and whatnot, and is generally self-perpetuating because the most relevant religions include proselytizing as a tenet.

I'm not a Christian, and I think the power structures of religion cause a lot of damage, but they are as much belief systems as they are power structures. Religion spans many domains (cultural/individual, intuitive/reasoned, pragmatic/metaphysical, etc), and that means religion is incredibly diffuse and means a lot of things, and people will probably never agree on what religion is. That's why I think it's really important to distinguish what it is about religion that we're criticizing, because religion is potentially so amorphous that practically any criticism we could attach to it isn't necessarily an essential one, that is unless we're talking about a particular 'Christianity' or what have you. I think the most likely scenario isn't one where we abolish religion, but one where religion is subject to so much reform that it is no longer in conflict with a sane humanistic society.

 

[Raiden]

It never was a thing here in modern Europe more like the norm. People dont go all atheïst on your ass over here we just dont really care about religion.

 

[Air]

It's basically semantics though, but if theism = belief in god/s then those people you mentioned would be atheists. It's just that they themselves would have no need of the label because they have no theists to contrast with. They would just use the theist label for everyone else and consider themselves "normals".

They wouldn't be considered atheists though because they either couldn't comprehend what a God or gods is to reject them, or they would have no information prior about that notion. I don't think it's semantics, because there is a very clear divide between something that lacks and doesn't have the capability to understand an idea, and something that explicitly denies an idea.

I agree that historically and philosophically atheism has been about an active rejection of faith, but that's a reflection of the fact that virtually all human societies have been religious, not a necessity based on the nature of a lack of belief. Contrasting again with "default atheists" I personally know people who were raised by atheist parents in a secular society and who tend to view active believers as somewhat odd and mystifying because of that. They've never rejected religion because they've never had one. Their attitude is basically the same religious people have to other religions, they simply extend the attitude to all organised religion. Some of them have vague spiritual notions and superstitions but they don't believe in any specific god so they are by every definition of the word atheist.

The bold is where we agree. And to which I say duh! But they can made a cognizant decision on that belief. That's not a lack of a belief, that's no belief.

Atheism is a perfectly fine word to describe a lack of belief in specific gods because it is the literal word for it and as long as most people in any given society are theists we're going to need a word for the people who aren't. I just don't see any reason to change it just because people have lumped a ton of perceived ideology and agency onto it.

Of course we need a word to describe what a minority of the society doesn't believe. I agree with you there. But when an atheist when questioned (and understands the notion) about God, they will say, usually 'No I do not believe in that'. That's not a lack of belief. That's not an implicit stance. That's a position they've reasoned themselves into. If you read the post I linked to it goes deeper into it, but the question, if we go your route is 'are cats atheists, are caterpillars, virus'', etc. That stance becomes untenable because it's at odds with how people usually act when prompted about their beliefs and most wouldn't really think to call cats, dogs or anything that's not an intelligent being an atheist.

 

[Tesseract]

agnosticism is the only honest perspective, set your ego free my friends

*hops in isolation tank*

 

[Fudgepuppy]

I don't feel like I need to explain my life-story and all my ideologies every time I meet someone who is religious. I'm an atheist, but I leave it at that because I don't see the point in trying to convert anyone. I once tried to convert a person from Jehovas Witness in a chat-room, but once he explained why he was religious, I realized I would only be a dick by making him validate his faith to me.

 

[Nivash]

They wouldn't be considered atheists though because they either couldn't comprehend what a God or gods is to reject them, or they would have no information prior about that notion. I don't think it's semantics, because there is a very clear divide between something that lacks and doesn't have the capability to understand an idea, and something that explicitly denies an idea

Of course we need a word to describe what a minority of the society doesn't believe. I agree with you there. But when an atheist when questioned (and understands the notion) about God, they will say, usually 'No I do not believe in that'. That's not a lack of belief. That's not an implicit stance. That's a position they've reasoned themselves into. If you read the post I linked to it goes deeper into it, but the question, if we go your route is 'are cats atheists, are caterpillars, virus'', etc. That stance becomes untenable because it's at odds with how people usually act when prompted about their beliefs and most wouldn't really think to call cats, dogs or anything that's not an intelligent being an atheist.

I disagree, I think the only reason we disagree here is precisely because of semantics. The way I see it is this: If theism = a belief that god/s exist then atheism = a lack of belief that god/s exist. By my definition these people are atheists, by yours they're not because you define atheism as necessitating an active rejection of belief. I guess that means that my definition could be used to define rocks as atheists (or shoes, like in the "shoe atheism" reference in the post you linked) and while that is technically correct I just think it's a pointless distinction, like insisting that ants are royalists because they have a queen.

It's really is just an argument about whether we should consider atheism as referring to an active stance or simply to be used as a description of what someone believes, no matter the reason they happen to believe whatever it is they believe. You prefer the former, I prefer the latter. It's basically about how broad we think the definition should be.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I have more respect for gnostics than agnostics. Gnostics go in and fully commit to the idea of higher powers being possible. Agnostics are analytical and evidence based, up to a point. Gnostics are fully committed to the idea that a universe with a secret divine god would also give people secret and divine knowledge.

 

[Future]

Atheism is just as annoying as any religion when people get all uppity about it trying convert and belittle others for believing in something else. I thought I was atheist until I heard what atheists actually sound like on the Internet and on this forum. Just as bad, yet stand on a soap box of superiority similar to any other annoying religious fanatic

They need a term for "just don't give a fuck." Because that's what I am

 

[John Dunbar]

Atheism is just as annoying as any religion when people get all uppity about it trying convert and belittle others for believing in something else. I thought I was atheist until I heard what atheists actually sound like on the Internet and on this forum. Just as bad, yet stand on a soap box of superiority similar to any other annoying religious fanatic

They need a term for "just don't give a fuck." Because that's what I am

that would be atheist.

 

[manueldelalas]

The question "when" did atheism become a joke has not been answered, but the question "why" did atheism become a joke? is answered completely in this thread. Great job guys.

 

[Hip Hop]

You couldn't be more wrong. Being gay isn't a choice. Skin color isn't a choice.

Religion very much is.

It's a choice. I was christian until I was 16 or something, then I chose to stop believing in god.

If was was black or gay I can't just stop being them.

That's why I said "could". It's not the end all be all of course but some people do work that way. I would say a good portion of them.

It could be argued that belief is not a choice - and it'd be a good debate - but religion is absolutely a choice.

Yeah, I guess this is where I was getting at.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

The question "when" did atheism become a joke has not been answered, but the question "why" did atheism become a joke? is answered completely in this thread. Great job guys.

The whole of humanity is just some cosmic joke so whatevs.

 

[Fusebox]

I thought I was atheist until I heard what atheists actually sound like on the Internet and on this forum.

Haha, that strength of conviction.

 

[Air]

I disagree, I think the only reason we disagree here is precisely because of semantics. The way I see it is this: If theism = a belief that god/s exist then atheism = a lack of belief that god/s exist. By my definition these people are atheists, by yours they're not because you define atheism as necessitating an active rejection of belief. I guess that means that my definition could be used to define rocks as atheists (or shoes, like in the "shoe atheism" reference in the post you linked) and while that is technically correct I just think it's a pointless distinction, like insisting that ants are royalists because they have a queen.

It's really is just an argument about whether we should consider atheism as referring to an active stance or simply to be used as a description of what someone believes, no matter the reason they happen to believe whatever it is they believe. You prefer the former, I prefer the latter. It's basically about how broad we think the definition should be.

Well, we can agree to disagree here.

 

[Nivash]

Well, we can agree to disagree here.

Technically I can't really agree to disagree because I already disagree that we disagree on anything but semantics haha, but yeah, this is rather pointless. Agree to disagree on whether or not we actually disagree on anything of substance it is then.

EDIT: This is why I've grown to hate religious discussions. They always seem to get stuck how to even define things before the actual argument can begin, it's like how everyone has different rules for Monopoly that you need to hash out before playing.

 

[Scrooged]

Atheism is just as annoying as any religion when people get all uppity about it trying convert and belittle others for believing in something else. I thought I was atheist until I heard what atheists actually sound like on the Internet and on this forum. Just as bad, yet stand on a soap box of superiority similar to any other annoying religious fanatic

They need a term for "just don't give a fuck." Because that's what I am

"I thought I was X until I heard what X actually sound like on the internet."
You can make the same argument for any group.

People can be assholes, news at 11.

 

[Agremont]

Well I'm atheist and I'm glad that I don't recognize the fedora atheist as a real life thing here in Sweden. Probably because we're such a non-religous country. No need to be a loud "militant" atheist then.

 

[Fusebox]

They wouldn't be considered atheists though because they either couldn't comprehend what a God or gods is to reject them...

We're all born atheists. You don't need to actively reject the notion of God to be an atheist, you just have to not believe in him.

 

[Air]

We're all born atheists. You don't need to actively reject the notion of God to be an atheist, you just have to not believe in him.

No, I don't believe that we are (I'm not saying we're born theistic either), but I don't really feel the need to get into the same debate as the other poster. Historically, and philosophically, atheism is denoted as a rejection of a belief (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/). Not a lack, not absence or w/e. Babies can't reject or confirm anything.

But you're free to think otherwise, of course.

 

[Hypron]

Well I'm atheist and I'm glad that I don't recognize the fedora atheist as a real life thing here in Sweden. Probably because we're such a non-religous country. No need to be a loud "militant" atheist then.

Yeah it's really the same for most of Europe. As a kid in France being a practicing Christian was to be in a small minority. There was absolutely no stigma attached to not believing.

The whole fedora/annoying atheist meme (in the real sense of a meme, not just the funny pictures) is nothing more than a gigantic strawman and I really question the intelligence of anyone using it to form their opinion of atheists at large.

 

[Damerman]

Atheists are annoying. I'm agnostic...

 

[Osahi]

Religion could very much be a lifestyle, an identity, a part of their persona and mind. It's a very fair comparison.

For example, the same way you can't tell a gay person to stop being gay, it works the same here.

Again. Being religious is something by choice. You might be born in it, but one day it is a conscious decision.

Being gay is not. You are born that way, without a choice in the matter

 

[Fusebox]

No, I don't believe that we are (I'm not saying we're born theistic either), but I don't really feel the need to get into the same debate as the other poster. Historically, and philosophically, atheism is denoted as a rejection of a belief (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/). Not a lack, not absence or w/e. Babies can't reject or confirm anything.

But you're free to think otherwise, of course.

That's just implicit vs explicit atheism, it isn't anything new. I believe babies are implicitly atheist, they have no belief in God and they don't know about religion. I'm explicitly atheist as I have no belief in God yet I do know about religion.

 

[Future]

that would be atheist.

Disagree. They give too much of a fuck.

"I thought I was X until I heard what X actually sound like on the internet."
You can make the same argument for any group.

People can be assholes, news at 11.

Perhaps. But I find this group in particular has an alarming amount of assholes that I realized that I can't really associate with. People just take all of it too seriously.

 

[Turin Turambar]

+1

Which is interesting because the athiests I meet on a regular basis (some friends and coworkers) are pretty chill, but the online crowd tends to be something totally different.

Because in reality it isn't "many of them" as he is saying. It just that the ones who get noticed are, surprisingly, the nutjobs.

 

[Fusebox]

Perhaps. But I find this group in particular has an alarming amount of assholes that I realized that I can't really associate with. People just take all of it too seriously.

Did atheists blow something up or take some hostages recently that I missed? Destroy some historical artifacts? Protest your local abortion clinic?

This is some 'both parties are as bad as each other' false equivalence bullshit.

 

[KarmaCow]

Disagree. They give too much of a fuck.



Perhaps. But I find this group in particular has an alarming amount of assholes that I realized that I can't really associate with. People just take all of it too seriously.

This is such a weird viewpoint. I could maybe understand not wanting to say you're an atheist because you don't want to deal with the stigma but not wanting to be one because some other people are shitheads? There is no ethos behind being an atheist beyond a shared lack of belief in god. You can be one without being provocative and toxic, just like the majority of people of the world.

 

[Air]

That's just implicit vs explicit atheism, it isn't anything new. I believe babies are implicitly atheist, they have no belief in God and they don't know about religion. I'm explicitly atheist as I have no belief in God yet I do know about religion.

They implicitly reject a creator deity? That's something I was talking about before. A lot of that just ends up being confused because we don't usually apply philosophical labels to things that don't or can't argue back. I also said in another thread a long time ago that this 'lack of..' train of thought is very recent thing (brought by new atheists). It simply wasn't seen that way before, and while I understand the desire to change the meaning of words over time, I find in the context of this argument to be obfuscation..

This is a weird position a lot of atheists have, and while I don't think it's done in malice, it does seem unjustified when you know the material.

 

[riskVSreward]

I firmly believe people should label themselves however they want, but it would surely be nice if all atheists/nonbelievers could agree on a term for statistic/polling purposes, censuses and what have you.

Also, agnostic isnt a middle ground between atheist and theist. You can't simultaneously believe and disbelieve in a god.

 

[superseohyun]

i always find it funny that agnostics think they are superior for entertaining the possibility that unicorn may exist. Yes they are technically correct but funny nonetheless

 

[dripdripsplash]

Im an atheist. I see the holy books are fiction, bunch of fairy tales. I don't believe in an invisible man in the sky.

I also like to make jokes and mock religious people because it's fun. If they are offended, so what?

So edgy.

 

[Mauricio_Magus]

I used to say I was an agnostic, because sure "I don't know".

But the burden of proof is not on my side, I don't have to prove anything or say I don't know if there is a god, so I just call myself an atheist these days. If there is a god, that's cool and all, but there is no evidence at all so I don't waste my time with religion.

There's a lot of people that do no believe in my county(Mexico), but they don't come out and say so because they are scared of the awful discrimination that comes with it, I will never lie to others about who I am because I hope it helps others notice that being an atheist doesn't mean we are monsters.

 

[dabig2]

i always find it funny that agnostics think they are superior for entertaining the possibility that unicorn may exist. Yes they are technically correct but funny nonetheless

I don't know how they think it's any less snotty and arrogant than what they accuse atheists of doing. It's intriguing.

 

[alekth]

No, I don't believe that we are (I'm not saying we're born theistic either), but I don't really feel the need to get into the same debate as the other poster. Historically, and philosophically, atheism is denoted as a rejection of a belief (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/). Not a lack, not absence or w/e. Babies can't reject or confirm anything.

But you're free to think otherwise, of course.

I guess one can use "non-believer" to avoid the term. It's true that historically it is a rejection, but that's because there has been the imposition to reject in the first place. In a religious society where one is raised in a certain religion from birth, there also isn't necessarily an explicit acceptance for being a part of the religion.

So the way I see it is that if a society becomes secular enough to not have the presumed imposition of a religion, atheism also doesn't have to be a statement and a rejection.