Idiot

I prefer to fight fire with fire.. "So if atheism is a religion, what is wrong with that?" and then.. " Atheism is a religion of compassion, humanism, naturalism, science, and equality. All attributes opposite to most traditional theistic nonsense"

This argument makes me think of the number system and the difference between natural and whole numbers. For some reason zero is so profound, it deserves its own name.

This creep could easily mark you blacklist you to his fellow bigot "professors" incompetent and ignorant that they are....so write what he tells you to write get his "A" ....you're not in a school you're in a cult....take good care of your health....apply for scholarships to real universities and don't submit religious essays there....write about science and art you care about....apply to women and minorities admissions.....it may take two years but transferring to a true University is worth the effort and there you will be free of religious brainwashing

Atheism in itself cannot possibly be a religion, since it's simply the absence of belief in a deity. However humanism could be considered a religion, since there is a world view that people can believe in and can unify a group of people all having the same worldview and life stance.

For those of us, like me, who wish to minister to life changes such as marriage, in order to satisfy many of the state's requirements that it must either be a clergy member or judge to solemnize a marriage, to make it legal, having humanism be considered a religion solves that problem.

For me, I'm a humanist minister, solemnizing marriages for couples who do not want any deity invoked or religious references mentioned, just natural and humanistic. The ceremony must be called religious, on the books, but it's simply human values being celebrated, not supernatural deity worship.

Surprisingly, many of the judges that perform the "civil" marriages, invoke god in their ceremony, so hiring a humanist celebrant is one sure way of knowing the ceremony will be focused on human values, rather than biblical ones.

Sounds to me like you've struck yet another of those Bible-Thumping Dictator type Professors.
I ran up against a few of them when I started studying for my ThD through a PUBLIC University, not through a Seminary, they went as far as registering protests with the Dean of the University because I had openly declared that I was an Atheist, fortunately the Dean dismissed ALL their protests completely and firmly told them that the ENTIRE was to be taught as per the prescribed curriculum and that the curriculum IS open to ONE and ALL WITHOUT exception/bias,etc, etc.
Now I proudly hold a Doctorate in Theology and Comparative Modern Religions, presented to me, personally, by the Dean himself.

Maybe its a case of semantics. Humanism is based on evidence and facts. Religions are faith based.

The federal government gave Humanism status as a religion for tax purposes and as a belief system alternative to faith based systems.

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.

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

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 )

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?

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.

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 professor is himself, and ignorant troll brainwashed by his own social milieu to present the standard Christian lies. Trolls nearly always resist reason, so don't bother. He is unqualified or disqualified to be where he is, but it's probably not worth your time to do anything about it. Learn from this experience: Christianity is as much about hate as it is about love, and Truth is not only not revered, but quickly cast aside in favor of lying for Jesus. True Believers end up being Liars Clubs with the most absurd witnessing winning the trophy. For yourself, revere Truth first, wisdom and serenity will follow.

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).

Someone should tell your professor that there is no riturials or prayers no one pins predjuice on anyone for having free thought there is no book of lies to follow and there is certainly no collection plate passed along sex is had with out some documation or a certificate.

Your prof is getting more annoying now! He refers to Secular Humanism but does not indicate where you can obtain an academic description.

It looks to me as though this is an opinion piece rather than academic notes attempting to defend teaching religion in schools!

As a previous poster suggested keep your head down and get the unit done.

I think it is a huge deal. He isnt inspiring original thought or freedom. A teacher that wants you to just regurgitate his view is not doing his job and too close minded to teach the subject.