Drop the class
He’s an idiot
He’s inter mingling religion and group/society
I understand the point he’s making but he’s just plain wrong

He doesn’t get to make shit up because he’s a professor. I’d challenge him every step of the way. You don’t have to accept his ideologies.
Take philosophy classes instead.

Being treated as a religion, and being a religion are not the same thing. Especially when the phrases about treatment only refer to legal definitions, you can not jump for legal definitions to all other definitions, such as philosophical.

Define religion.
And btw why on earth would anyone voluntarily attend such a worthless class?

Wow. That actually IS a big deal.
He's actively advocating against critical thinking and seeking out multiple
sources.
He's a terrible instructor.

"In addition, in our papers we're only allowed to use sources that he has given us in advance so that doesn't allow for any opposing research to be included in our papers. It's not a huge deal, but it's just a tiny bit disappointing."

OMFG! For real??

If he's so fearful of a contradictory opinion that he prohibits them in your research then please tell your professor that Sgt. Spanky says he's a pussy because that's really pathetic of him.

hes a fucking one dimentional dictater not a teacher. they should teach you how to learn and not what to learn.

suck it up, gather evidence, and when you are done with the class file a complaint.

Sorry, it seems to be a big deal to me. A higher education institution is to develop and encourage critical thinking. I keep telling my students that two questions they should be constantly asking when someone makes claims are: 1) What's your evidence; and 2) How strong is your evidence? What you are describing sounds like killing critical thinking in the bud ), which is particularly inappropriate given that it's done by a professor. We do live in strange times, don't we )

Atheism is a belief that God does not exist and it is without traditions and chores. The argument can be made but it is controversial.

I think he is challenging you to debate, not accept. You are a student. Your role is to read, research, ponder and debate to understand various sides of the argument. Your role is not throw professor's material on social media. Your class work does not belong here. Focus on studies.

He is off his intellectual rocker and uses the most fallacious of reasoning for try to call atheism a religion. There is no set of theological beliefs I adhere to. I do not worship anyone or anything. I am not a member of any congregation.

Need the barf emoji back please.

How could any Theist, minister/pastor/priest/iman/rabbi, teach anything other than what they believe?

He quotes the case law out of context. The court did not hold that "atheism" was a religion, but simply that "atheism" is protected under the law prohibiting discrimination based on religion, because it is a REJECTION of a religion, and it also must be protected.

"Title VII does forbid an employer, unless it is a religious organization, ... which Great Lakes is not, to discriminate against an employee on the basis of the employee's religion. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e–2(a)(1). And for these purposes, as assumed by the parties, as strongly intimated in EEOC v. Townley Engineering & Mfg. Co., 859 F.2d 610, 613–14 n. 5 (9th Cir.1988), and Young v. Southwestern Savings & Loan Ass'n, 509 F.2d 140, 142 (5th Cir.1975), and as supported by analogy to cases under the free-exercise clause of the First Amendment, County of Allegheny v. American Civil Liberties Union, 492 U.S. 573, 589–90, 109 S.Ct. 3086, 106 L.Ed.2d 472 (1989); Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 52–53, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985); Books v. City of Elkhart, 235 F.3d 292, 307 (7th Cir.2000) Warner v. Orange County Dep't of Probation, 173 F.3d 120, 120–22 (2d Cir.1999)—cases which hold that religious freedom includes the freedom to reject religion—“religion” includes antipathy to religion. And so an atheist (which Reed may or may not be) cannot be fired because his employer dislikes atheists. If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.

Reed v. Great Lakes Companies, Inc., 330 F.3d 931, 933–34 (7th Cir. 2003).

The law protects people from persecutions based on religion. If the religious discriminates atheists because of their LACK of religion, it is still a persecution based on religion. It is this simple and logical analysis that your prof is misusing to argue that atheism is a religion.

If all organized belief system is a religion, then every set of ideas is a religion, and if everything is a religion, then nothing is a religion.

Humanism and Atheism are not one and the same thing.

Under his definition, yes, atheism = religion. However, the case mentioned in the indented text (James J. KAUFMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Gary R. McCAUGHTRY, et al., Defendants-Appellees) states, “If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.” If this is so, why is Pastafarianism not recognized as a religion in the US? This would be something I would ask the professor to clarify their position on. Pastafarians claim they are a legit religion, and some countries (e.g. New Zealand) agree.
As a professor myself, I find it VERY odd that you are not allowed to use other sources besides the ones he has given you. Do you have this in writing or something? If so, this is grounds for a legitimate complaint as it is a huge deal. That being said, I would seek to not rock the boat. In the grander scheme of things, is taking a stance to rebut the professor worth not passing this class? Is that the proverbial "hill you wish to die upon" or would it be better to do what you need to do to get it over with while in the class. I would argue the second one.

It's quite easy to see that your teacher is biased. Sadly not only that but he also presents some very misleading information. For instance the Torcaso v Watkins case. The Supreme court did not "classify Secular Humanism as a religion. Maryland at that time required "a declaration of belief in the existence of God" in order for a person to hold "any office of profit or trust in this State". Roy Tocaso was an atheist an refused to do so. The Supreme Court ruled that the requirement violated the First and Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. It was about freedom from a religious requirement.
This whole "classifying" thing comes from one footnote of one of the judges. Very far from a court ruling.
The 2005 case about the inmate was about him starting an atheist group. Here the question becomes: can you practice atheism as a religion? And the answer is yes, of course. You introduce rituals, a creed, rules etc. to form a religious group based on atheism. But that doesn't make atheism a religion. Theism is not a religion. Christianity is. Mysticism is not a religion. Hinduism is. You see the difference? For a belief to become a religion there needs to be more than just that. Otherwise me believing in Santa Clause is also a religion.

Atheism is a belief.Agnosticism is a rejection of belief. Thus, given a common definition of "religion," atheism is a religion of sorts, and agnosticism is not.

*Atheists believe there is no god, i.e., it is a belief.

I've heard that before of atheism being a religion. People equate having no faith with having faith based on having faith that monotheism is false. A bit like seeing an empty lot in a row of houses and insisting that the empty lot is still a kind of house.

Please inform your professor that atheism is NOT a religion because it lacks the defining characteristic called "faith" (Absolute belief in divinity without evidence it exists...) and that he should therefore not be teaching at any level in any subject because he lacks the ability to determine reality from his own twisted fantasies...

Academically atheism doesn’t fit the criteria for a religion. Look up Ninian Smart’s 7 Dimensions and you can counter with that. I think it is in his book Dimensions of the Sacred.

With regard your sources it depends on your study. He might be wanting you to focus on a particular idea without going off track.

What is the course? Is it a degree?

I would tell him that it isn't a religion and give the real definition of atheist which is (A-lacking) Theist (meaning God) therefore meaning that atheist means lacking belief in God. I would also say that this is a free country and I am free to believe what I want to believe.

The notes are not written in an academic context. The sources (not reliable) and their dating (far too old, in this field of study. 5-10 years old is quite aged due to advances in sociological research) are not referenced in-text very well, i.e. no named authors so that their veracity and other work can be checked.

In academia one of the Golden Rules is to check your sources, otherwise, nonsense can pile upon nonsense, hence the unreliability of Wikipedia as you don’t know who wrote the pieces.

Also when you have to complete assignments check the rubric.You may need to show an understanding of the course material rather than make an argument.

I think he is deliberately misinterpreting what the courts decided. Non-belief should hold equal status under the law, but because it must be treated equally with religion does not mean that it too must be considered as a religion. He is also conflating several different philosophies, such as Satanism, Communism and Secular Humanism with atheism. These named groupings may well be considered belief systems, but atheism with a small “a” is not an organised belief but a disbelief. He states that atheists push their views as facts and try to suppress all (other) religions. This is turning truth around, as in fact it is the religious who ttry to force their beliefs onto us and state their views as fact, with absolutely no evidence. Atheism has no deity, no priests, no holy writ, no churches, we are just a disparate group of thinking, rational human beings who do not believe in an invisible creator when there is no evidence to support such a premise.

From the notes you just posted, he has pointed out some of the same things I did below, but then equivocates by suggesting "atheism" as such is a religion. It just isn't, even though legally it can be considered a religious stance and thus is protected under the first amendment. (He begins his equivocation by invoking "non-theist" religions--which there are plenty of examples. The fact that he includes "Atheism" (weirdly capitalizing it) as one of the "non-theist" religions is underhanded equivocation.

I have no problem with considering secular humanism as religious.

The arguments that presuppose everyone has a religion, and thus you cannot exclude religion from public discourse without de facto smuggling in "atheist" religion is just nonsense.

I am curious what comes after the last line, "Everyone has some religion". I fear it is just more equivocation (in fact, it has to be, since that is the only possible thing to expand upon such a claim).

Does it matter whether atheism is considered to be a religion or not? If your Professor is saying that atheists can be as close minded in their opinions as others, he is not wrong.