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).

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.

Not sure what gives this dude the right to tell others what they believe or don't believe. Or to define another person's religion for them. Don't generally pay much attention to folks like that.

Thanks Piper...you might want to read the whole Circuit Court opinion (Kaufman v. McCaughtry, 419 F.3d 678 (7th Cir., 2005) to understand where he is coming from. In order for a prison (state or federal institution) to be "neutral" as to religious beliefs it has to classify atheism as a religion. Here is a quote from the case defining "religion:"

"The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a "way of life," even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972). A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths), see Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 & n. 11, 81" ...

"The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., U.S. , 125 S.Ct. 2722, L.Ed.2d (2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls "nonreligion." In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as "the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." Id. at *10 (internal quotations omitted).

So yes, since everyone has a way of life, atheism, under the First Amendment is a religion, so as not to discriminate against non-believers. And in double speak, non-religion equals religion.

Perhaps once some of the previous commentators read the court's definition they will see that your prof is teaching the "legal" definition. The fact that you can only use his sources is b.s. of course, especially if he didnt even give you the citation to the case he used, so you can read it in context.

It is a big deal. I would complain about him not following the textbook or using other research.

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.

Some are not so wise

I hope you aren’t paying this professor to spoon feed you horse shit.

For some people Atheism is a religion. They are a tiny minority and not representative of most atheists. Your prof is using the fine brain God (or Evolution, same thing) gave him for Olympic level confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. Sad.

Makes sense to my god - er, I mean, my dog!

I agree with those saying this is indeed a big deal. Unless you’re at a Christian college in which case that’s your misfortune, I would complain about the quality of education I was getting and want my money back for the class at the very least. Paying someone to waste my time ain’t on my syllabus, nor my docket of “shit to do this year.”

“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.”

So much for academic integrity and honesty. Hiding from ideas that are different... well, that’s Trumpian. Isn’t it?

Fuck him, non believers are exactly that, non believers in any gods or any religions. That is just a fact, no need to support it with research, if you choose not to believe then you don't believe. Let's say you love eating steak because you like the taste and you attest "I love steak!" That is a fact, you don't need to support it with any research, it is your personal choice to love the taste or texture of steak, isn't it? How could anyone tell you that you are a vegan, for example, if you love and constantly eat steak?

It's more of a hypothesis, methinks. Annnnd, it's been over TWO THOUSAND YEARS, and we're still waiting for some quantifiable and reproducible proof...just sayin'.

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.

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.