The Fourth Abrahamic Religion

The first three Abrahamic religions are, of course, Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The fourth one is atheism. While it might seem atheism opposes the three other religions, it’s really a modern continuance of the three. Atheism opposes the older theistic religions in the way that Christianity opposes Judaism, and Islam opposes both of its predecessors in trying to replace them.

By atheism here I do not refer to anyone who is non-religious, but actually materialists or other people who believe in Science! as a religion, or people who see the world and life a mere biological machine. Or perhaps there is a difference between seeing life as a machines and dogmatically believing it to be so. An example of such a person would be Richard Dawkins. Someone who is not religious and does not worship any god or dogmatic system would be an atheic, whereas worshippers of materialist dogma are atheist. Notice the “ism”.

One common feature between all four Abrahamic religions is the digital, i.e. dualistic, way of thinking in the believers. Jews have a very clear sense of being the “chosen ones”, whereas the others are goyim. Christians, while claiming to believe in compassion and forgiveness, have persecuted and butchered countless people over the history for being heretics or infidels. Muslims… well, Richard Dawkins pointed it out well in a TV debate that if a Muslim commits apostasy, i.e. rejects Islam, he will be killed. Non-Muslims are naturally to be subjugated. It is as if there is a binary program in the mind of all true believers in these religions. When it detects a person to be in the same religion, he gets thumbs up. If their religion differs, it’s thumbs down. This is the basis on how you should treat others, no matter their individual accomplishments or morality.

Atheism is similar. It does not tolerate dissenters from the materialist dogma, and atheists often categorize people based on are they atheist or not. Been there, done that. At least atheists tend to be more pacifistic than the followers of less-evolved versions of their religious entity. Yet, atheism, naturally, is pure dogma without God. It eliminates the life giving feature, God, of the Abrahamic religions. While the older religions have been quite irrational and harmful in many ways, at least they understood there is something beyond the physical, something mystical. Life is more than biology, eating, shitting and fucking. There is meaning beyond human constructs. The older religions just couldn’t agree on what that meaning is (their first mistake was to think they should agree on it). Atheism takes that away. An atheist need not be violent and murderous because he is not truly alive, there is no need for him to commit violence, which is something committed by a living being against another.

Compare the Abrahamic religions to animism or polytheism. Those belief systems exude life. Everything has a spirit, or there are multiple gods, which are non-local personifications of nature in spiritual form. There is life and there is the mystical.

Atheism is merely a more or less natural evolution of the “mind-virus” of the Abrahamic religions for the modern age. We don’t believe in miracles and magic. We don’t need salvation or the kingdom of heaven. All we want is our opium and entertainment so we can wither away painlessly. But there are those who don’t see things our way, so they bother our withering. We have to get rid of them.

I am not saying that every follower of these Abrahamic religions is a nasty person, not at all. I’ve met several nice Christians, Muslims and atheists (I haven’t met many Jews, but I don’t really think they’re that different) despite their disturbing belief system. I just think their belief systems are harmful and not quite sane. I’m not a follower of Abrahamic religions, not anymore, (I was an atheist for some time), so I don’t have look at things in a binary way. I don’t have to condemn a person in total just for their beliefs.


Apostasy in Islam:Richard Dawkins extracts some truth from a Muslim:


16 thoughts on “The Fourth Abrahamic Religion”

  1. If you are referring to materialists wouldn’t it be better to say materialists than to say atheists? I’m an atheist and not a materialist and I think this gets messy fast.

    I would add Baha’i and probably Mormonism as Abrahamic, btw.

    1. I thought about it but materialism doesn’t sound as much a religion as atheism. Even though any “ism” is semi-religious at least. That’s why I used the awkward word “atheic” (not probably even a real word, but I saw uses of it on the internet, and it sounds fun) to contrast with atheist. One is merely someone who does not worship gods, whereas the other promotes a godless religion. Furthermore the use of the term atheism is widely spread in society, whereas materialist is not so common.

      Baha’i and Mormonism are certainly connected to the Abrahamics but they are not “world religions”. They are not so widespread and important and well-recognized as the proper Abrahamic religions. At least not on the surface.

      1. I think the problem is that there is no atheism (or atheistic) religion. You aren’t going to find a group promoting shared values and world view under that name. When you say something like

        “Atheism is similar. It does not tolerate dissenters from the materialist dogma, and atheists often categorize people based on are they atheist or not.”

        You refer to an entire group of people who share nothing but lack of belief in gods. Certainly there are very small (and loud) number who themselves don’t know the difference between an atheist and a materialist, but to take the word atheist and change the meaning just to describe this group is similar to saying “Christians hate gay people.”

        I agree that there is a group of people who are dogmatic in their materialism. Some of these also add a layer of ethics into this mix, although that is rarely very well spelled out. But I don’t think you can repurpose a word to help describe them.

        That all said, I might compromise here and say that New Atheism is, sort of, a movement. You might consider whether New Atheism is what you’re talking about, and if this would be a tight enough group to address. I would equally criticize the proponents of this movement for their choice of terminology, but that act is, unfortunately, already done.

      2. I’m not changing the meaning of the word atheist, I’m more like defining it further. I agree that many people are confused what it means, that includes me too at times. Quite often atheist is equated, perhaps erroneously, with materialist. However materialist is often used in the sense of a greedy person who wants to gain lots of material possessions. These words are used by different people with different meanings in different situations, and so am I, but I am not changing anything.

        Moreover as I contrasted atheist with atheic in the previous comment, atheist refers to someone who believes in an “ism”. An “ism” is an ideology. Atheism is therefore an ideology consisting of atheists. An atheic is merely a person who does not believe in or worship a god or gods. I don’t know if “atheic” is a good word to use but I don’t know a better one.

        For example when I was a very young child I did not know of god or gods and didn’t believe in them. That is atheic. When I was a bit older child I heard about God and Jesus and all that and I thought it was stupid, and I don’t want anything to do with it. That too is atheic. As a teenager I began despising religion, especially Christianity and even hoped it would disappear from the face of the earth. I adopted some ideas into my thinking often associated with atheism such as evolution and science. That is atheistic.

        Atheism is a religion, even though not as organized (yet as many others). There are various atheist groups in existence such as the American Atheists. Their front page says: “American Atheists fights to protect the absolute separation of religion from government and raise the profile of atheism in the public discourse.

        Since 1963, American Atheists has been taking the principled and uncompromising position that our government should give no special treatment or preference to religious belief. Through lawsuits, innovative public relations campaigns, and education, we are working to normalize atheism and allow more and more people to set aside religious belief and superstition.” While that may not be religious behaviour, it certainly is ” a group promoting shared values and world view”.

        Atheism is as a religion fairly young, even though as an idea it has existed for a long time. It is not as organized as older, more traditional religions, but it seeking it’s identity. Nor do you need for all atheists to agree on what exactly is for it be a religion. Christianity has Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox. Each of them have countess denominations that disagree with each other. They are all still Christian. Muslims have Sunni and Shia. And so on.

        I’ve written (so have many others) previously on atheism, or scientism, or Science! as a religion, and some have disagreed with my assessment. For me though, is quite clear that atheism or scientism is a religion.

        Link: American atheists:

      3. If you look up atheist in the dictionary you are redefining it:

        As far as “ism” is concerned, it is s

        You will see it can refer to a principle:

        the first definition of which includes simply a proposition that serves as the basis for a chain of reasoning. Atheism can at most be said to be the foundational proposition that there are no gods or that one’s system should not include a proposition that there are gods. It is not the system itself.

        The source you provided, btw, American Atheists, gives this definition of atheism:

        ” a lack of belief in gods”

        Note, btw, that “ism” can also be used simply to define a state of being (as a noun identifier) as in “heroism”. Likewise, the atheism could simply be interpreted as the state of being atheistic, atheic or whatever form you would like to use.

      4. I’ve no interest in getting into a further argument over semantics. Except that “heroism” is quite different from the normal meaning of “ism”. Originally, I guess, atheistic can mean both state of being atheic and being a supporter of an atheistic ideology. However, I don’t think everyone even realizes the difference, and furthermore since ever increasingly people seem to be using “atheist” for a supporter of an “ism” I’ll let them have the word. I also want to emphasize the difference. You’re free to disagree with my choice of wording, but as long you understand the idea behind the words, it is sufficient.

        One of the features of many religious atheists is that they don’t realize they believe in a religion. They assume their beliefs to be self-evident scientifically proven truths even thought they themselves have not investigated them, for the most part they believe the priesthood of our day, i.e. scientists, or people who make themselves out to be such. I’ve written about this topic before and I don’t wanna repeat myself all over again.

      5. I agree that the people of whom you speak are deluded, but the misuse of the term in your original post makes if an almost unreadable statement. Here, however, your use of “religious atheist” modifies it adequately as well as gets across your meaning.

  2. Most of the world’s atheists don’t even live in countries with Abrahamic traditions. And yes, they translate their word to “atheist.”

  3. Atheism is simply not believing in any gods, or believing there are no gods. We don’t worship science. Some atheists don’t accept science, some atheists are apathetic towards it. Your not arguing against atheism, your arguing against a strawman and calling it an atheist.

    1. That’s your definition of atheism. That also used to be my view on the word a few years ago. Since then I’ve observed many use it in a more aggressive, religious or political manner. I’m taking that use of the word. I use “atheic” for somebody who does not believe in gods. Take it or leave it. My usage of these words may defy convention, but in a topic such as this, there is room for revision.

      1. Your just making up your own definitions. There are already words to describe those different ways of expressing their views. Why not say political atheists? Except you weren’t talking about that. You were talking about fictional people who worship science. You had the word materialist, which you also sort of criticized. Why not just say “materialists”? But you still have a strawman.

  4. Your’re right, the Ancient Greeks and Romans considered jews as atheists because they don’t show reverence toward nature.

    Marxism, Trotskysm and Neoconservatism are also Abrahamic religions, they are ALL supremacists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s