Believers Without God: The Cult-Like Nature of Psychological Atheism

Pan Demus, the Pan-Afrikaan Atheist: A Religion in Disguise

Introduction

Pan Demus, the self-proclaimed Pan-Afrikaan Atheist, sees himself as an enlightened warrior against the shackles of religious dogma. He prides himself on his rejection of Christianity, Islam, and all spiritual traditions, believing himself to have transcended the colonial religious influences that, in his view, have poisoned African consciousness. To him, atheism is not just a lack of belief but a revolutionary act of decolonization, a means of reclaiming African identity from the imposed beliefs of European imperialists. However, beneath his confident proclamations of rationalism, one glaring irony remains—his atheism, particularly in its psychological and communal form, functions almost identically to a religion. In practice, Pan Demus engages in rituals, proselytizes his worldview, constructs moral absolutism without a transcendent source, and even preserves elements of African spirituality despite his strict materialist stance. He is, in essence, the high priest of an atheist religion.

The contradiction in Pan Demus' position is not unique to him; it is a widespread phenomenon among modern atheists, especially in Afrocentric circles. While many claim to have rejected all religious thought, they merely replace it with new ideological structures that mirror those of traditional faiths. They create communities that function like congregations, engage in what can only be called atheist evangelism, and push a moral framework that assumes objective right and wrong despite their belief in a godless, materialist universe. They scoff at indoctrination in religious settings while demanding ideological conformity to their own worldview. This suggests that psychological atheism is not merely a neutral rejection of belief but an identity, a movement, and in some cases, a quasi-religion.

This essay will explore how Pan Demus and those like him unknowingly replicate religious behaviors while insisting they have left religion behind. First, it will examine how atheist communities function as ritualistic gatherings, mimicking church congregations. Second, it will analyze the ways in which modern atheists engage in evangelism, actively spreading their beliefs and seeking conversions—just like religious missionaries. Third, it will expose the inconsistency of moral absolutism in a worldview that denies any objective basis for good and evil. Fourth, it will explore how Afrocentric atheists paradoxically reject European religion while clinging to a European-born atheism. Finally, it will delve into the cult-like dogmatism that has developed in modern atheist circles, where deviation from the accepted doctrine is met with scorn, just as religious heretics were once shunned by the church.

By examining these contradictions in depth, it will become clear that psychological atheism, particularly in Afrocentric circles, is not the purely rational, neutral position it claims to be. Rather, it is a structured belief system that, despite rejecting a deity, follows many of the same patterns as the religions it seeks to dismantle. Pan Demus believes himself to be a free thinker, yet he walks, talks, and preaches like a true believer—one who worships at the altar of atheism.

II. The Rituals of Atheism: A Church Without a God

Pan Demus loudly rejects the structure of organized religion, claiming that its rituals, gatherings, and sense of community are nothing more than tools of control. To him, the idea of congregating to reaffirm belief is an outdated relic of humanity’s superstitious past. Yet, his own actions tell a different story. Like countless modern atheists, Pan Demus is an active participant in online atheist communities, frequently joins discussion panels, and attends gatherings where like-minded individuals celebrate their shared disbelief. These spaces, though explicitly rejecting religious themes, function identically to churches—they provide a sense of belonging, reinforce collective identity, and offer a place where members can reaffirm their ideological commitments.

Congregational Gatherings Without the Cross

Historically, religion has thrived on the strength of communal gatherings, where believers congregate to strengthen their faith. Churches, mosques, and temples have long served this purpose. However, atheist communities have created their own equivalent in social media groups, YouTube channels, podcasts, and even physical meetups like Sunday Assembly: a movement founded to provide atheists with the benefits of church without the belief in God.

Richard Dawkins, one of atheism’s most prominent figures, once expressed skepticism about the idea of atheist churches, stating: "We don't need a church. We don’t need a set of rituals. We don’t need to gather together and recite things." Yet, the rise of atheist communities suggests otherwise. Pan Demus and his peers frequently engage in what can only be described as ritualistic behavior: attending regular meetings, discussing shared texts (books by Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris), and even celebrating “deconversion stories” in which former believers recount how they left religion behind. This mirrors testimony-sharing in religious settings, where converts speak about their journey to faith.

Shared Dogma and Ideological Reinforcement

Church services provide a space for believers to strengthen their faith through sermons, communal prayers, and scripture readings. Likewise, Pan Demus and his fellow atheists participate in echo chambers where their beliefs are constantly reinforced. In online groups, any challenge to their worldview is met with immediate dismissal, just as a religious fundamentalist would reject heretical claims.

The irony is that these atheist spaces often become dogmatic in the very ways they claim to oppose. Sam Harris, in The End of Faith, critiques religion for being closed off to questioning and self-reflection. Yet, when alternative philosophical perspectives arise—such as theism based on classical metaphysical arguments—atheists like Pan Demus react with hostility rather than engagement. The result is an insular community where "true believers" of atheism gather not to question, but to reinforce their collective stance.

III. Evangelism and Atheist Proselytization

One of Pan Demus’ favorite pastimes is “enlightening” religious Africans about their supposed delusions. He sees himself as a liberator, bringing people out of the darkness of superstition and into the light of reason. He actively seeks out debates, challenges religious leaders, and publicly ridicules those who maintain belief in a higher power. To the untrained eye, this may seem like simple intellectual engagement, but in reality, Pan Demus is engaging in atheist evangelism—a direct parallel to the very missionary efforts he claims to despise.

Missionary Zeal Without a Holy Book

Religious proselytism is built on the idea that truth must be spread. Missionaries travel far and wide to convert non-believers, using scripture, reason, and personal testimonies to convince others of their faith. Likewise, Pan Demus and his fellow atheist evangelists flood social media, enter religious discussions, and seek out debates to convince others that atheism is the only rational position.

Christopher Hitchens, in God Is Not Great, states: "Religion poisons everything." Pan Demus echoes this sentiment, believing that ridding Africa of religious belief is a necessary step toward progress. However, in doing so, he mirrors the colonial-era missionaries who sought to “civilize” indigenous people by replacing their traditional beliefs with Christianity. In both cases, an ideology is being forced upon others under the guise of “enlightenment.”

Mockery and Psychological Pressure: Atheist Dawah

Islamic da’wah (inviting others to Islam) and Christian evangelism often rely on persuasion, but also social pressure. Likewise, modern atheist evangelism frequently resorts to mockery, shaming believers into abandoning their faith. Pan Demus participates in this behavior, using condescending rhetoric and ridicule to make religious Africans feel intellectually inferior. This tactic does not rely on reasoned argument but on psychological manipulation—a tool no different from the fear-based conversions of certain religious movements.

The Contradiction: If Atheism Is Just a Lack of Belief, Why Spread It?

If atheism were truly just a neutral, personal disbelief, there would be no need to actively convert others. The very fact that Pan Demus seeks to spread his views contradicts the notion that atheism is merely a passive lack of belief. Instead, it reveals itself as an ideological movement with missionary ambitions.

Thus, Pan Demus finds himself in yet another paradox: he condemns religious proselytism while engaging in its secular equivalent, proving once again that his psychological atheism is not the absence of religion, but its disguised reincarnation.

IV. The Moral Absolutism of the Atheist Worldview

Pan Demus takes an unwavering stance against what he calls the evils of colonial Christianity. He condemns the slave trade, the forced conversion of African ancestors, and the continued religious influence in African communities, arguing that these are objectively wrong. He speaks with moral certainty, asserting that oppression, deception, and religious indoctrination are fundamentally unethical. Yet, in the same breath, he insists that morality is purely a human construct, shaped by evolution and culture rather than any divine authority. This contradiction is central to the modern atheist worldview—if moral values are merely subjective or biologically determined, how can one claim that certain actions are objectively wrong?

The Religious Nature of Moral Absolutism

In theistic traditions, morality is grounded in divine command, natural law, or some form of transcendent moral order. Christianity, Islam, and many other religions assert that right and wrong are not human inventions but are woven into the fabric of reality by a higher power. This belief provides an unchanging foundation for ethical judgments.

By contrast, atheists like Pan Demus claim that morality is a product of human evolution—nothing more than a survival mechanism developed through social cooperation. Richard Dawkins, in River Out of Eden, famously stated, "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference." This perspective aligns with strict materialism, which denies any intrinsic moral order in the universe.

Yet, Pan Demus does not live as though morality is just a useful fiction. He insists that colonial oppression was wrong not just by personal preference, but in an absolute sense. He speaks of justice, fairness, and liberation as though they are self-evidently good. The contradiction is clear: if morality is merely a product of human evolution, then slavery, colonialism, and religious conversion cannot be objectively condemned—only subjectively disliked. His moral fervor mirrors that of a preacher, except without a theological foundation.

Borrowing from Theism While Rejecting It

Friedrich Nietzsche, one of the most influential atheist philosophers, saw this contradiction clearly. He famously declared in The Gay Science, "God is dead," not as a celebration, but as a warning. He understood that without God, traditional morality collapses. Nietzsche criticized secular humanists for clinging to Christian moral values while rejecting their metaphysical foundation.

Pan Demus falls into this very trap. He dismisses religion as irrational but unknowingly depends on religious moral assumptions. His belief in justice, equality, and human dignity is not a natural consequence of atheism but a borrowed remnant from the Judeo-Christian worldview. If he were truly consistent with materialist atheism, he would have to concede that concepts like justice and rights are human inventions, no more objectively real than preferences for different types of food. But he does not—because doing so would undermine his entire moral stance.

A Moral System Without Grounding

If morality is purely subjective, then no worldview—religious or atheistic—can be criticized as wrong, only as different. Pan Demus’ insistence on the moral superiority of atheism is thus incoherent. He cannot both deny objective morality and claim his ethical framework is superior. This is the contradiction at the heart of psychological atheism: it wants the certainty and passion of religious moral conviction while denying any transcendent grounding for it.

V. Ancestral Veneration: Rejecting Gods While Keeping Spirits

Pan Demus dismisses belief in gods as outdated superstition, a relic of human ignorance that modern science has rendered obsolete. He laughs at the idea of divine intervention, miracles, or a spiritual dimension to reality. Yet, in an odd twist, he fiercely defends African ancestral veneration. He insists that honoring the spirits of the ancestors is an essential part of African identity, a practice distinct from the “foreign” concept of theism. Here, another contradiction emerges: how can one reject all supernatural claims while clinging to a form of spirituality that is, at its core, religious?

Atheism’s Double Standard on the Supernatural

Pan Demus claims that Christianity is a European import that erased true African traditions. However, traditional African spirituality is fundamentally religious, filled with beliefs in gods, spirits, and metaphysical forces. Nearly every African civilization had deities, from the Yoruba pantheon (Obatala, Ogun, Shango) to the Akan gods (Nyame, Asase Yaa). If rejecting Christianity on the basis of its supernatural claims is rational, then so is rejecting ancestral veneration—yet Pan Demus refuses to do so.

He attempts to redefine ancestral veneration as merely cultural respect, rather than spiritual belief. But this is historically inaccurate. African ancestors were not just remembered; they were believed to exert real influence on the living, protecting or punishing their descendants. The moment Pan Demus speaks of ancestors having energy, presence, or guidance, he reintroduces supernatural elements, contradicting his materialist stance.

If All Religion Is Superstition, So Is Ancestral Worship

If Pan Demus were consistent in his atheism, he would regard all spiritual practices—including ancestral veneration—as baseless. But instead, he cherry-picks which supernatural beliefs to dismiss and which to retain. This reveals that his atheism is not purely rational but ideologically selective. He rejects religious traditions associated with colonial influence while preserving spiritual elements that fit his Afrocentric identity.

This is another example of psychological atheism operating as a religion. Pan Demus is not abandoning faith—he is reconstructing it in a new form, one that aligns with his cultural preferences. The belief in ancestral presence functions just like belief in God, offering comfort, moral guidance, and a sense of connection to something greater.

VI. The Myth of the "Atheist African Ancestor"

A central claim of Pan Demus’ ideology is that true African identity is atheistic. He argues that Christianity and Islam were foreign impositions, forced onto Africans by colonial and Arab conquerors. His goal, then, is to strip away these influences and return to a purely rational African consciousness. The only problem? There is no historical basis for this claim. Pre-colonial African societies were profoundly religious, and atheism, as a formal intellectual stance, is a product of European Enlightenment thought.

The Historical Reality: Africa Was Always Religious

African civilizations were deeply spiritual long before European colonization. From the Egyptian belief in Ma’at to the animist traditions of West Africa, there is no evidence of a widespread, indigenous atheist tradition. Even societies without centralized priesthoods—such as the Igbo—held strong metaphysical beliefs about the universe.

Yet, Pan Demus insists that African ancestors were rationalists who were later corrupted by foreign religions. He distorts history to fit his narrative, just as fundamentalist religious groups often do. This is the contradiction—he accuses religious people of rewriting history, yet he does the same by erasing the spiritual nature of African cultures.

Atheism as a European Import

Ironically, the very atheism that Pan Demus embraces is a foreign import. The intellectual foundations of modern atheism—Hume’s skepticism, Nietzsche’s critique of morality, Dawkins’ biological materialism—are all products of Western thought. If Pan Demus rejects Christianity for being European, then by the same logic, he should also reject atheism.

Yet, he refuses to acknowledge this contradiction. Instead, he claims that African traditions were always atheist in essence, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. His psychological atheism, then, is not a rejection of foreign influence but merely an adoption of a different European ideology.

The Contradiction of “Decolonized” Atheism

Pan Demus frames his atheism as decolonization, but in reality, it is just a repackaging of Western secular thought under an Afrocentric label. He condemns religious Africans for holding onto a "foreign" faith while himself holding onto a foreign philosophy. This is the final irony: his rejection of religious indoctrination is itself a form of ideological indoctrination.

Thus, Pan Demus’ psychological atheism is not truly about freeing African thought—it is about replacing one belief system with another, all while denying that he has done so.

VII. The Cult-Like Dogmatism of Modern Atheism

Pan Demus prides himself on his intellectual independence, believing himself to be a free thinker unshackled by the rigid dogmas of religious belief. He regularly mocks religious people for following ancient texts and accepting teachings without question. Yet, despite his self-perception as a rational, critical thinker, Pan Demus and many modern atheists engage in the very same behaviors they condemn in religious communities. Their atheism is not a neutral rejection of belief but a structured ideology with unwritten doctrines, heresies, and even punishments for those who dare to dissent.

The Unquestionable Axioms of Atheist Dogma

In traditional religious communities, there are core tenets of faith that believers must accept—such as the existence of God, the authority of scripture, and certain moral laws. In psychological atheism, these have been replaced with a new set of dogmatic principles:

1. Atheism is the only rational position – Any belief in the supernatural is dismissed as primitive superstition, and anyone who entertains the possibility of a higher power is considered intellectually inferior.

2. Science disproves God – Despite the fact that science deals with empirical observations rather than metaphysical claims, Pan Demus treats science as though it has definitively rendered God obsolete.

3. Morality does not need God, yet objective morality exists – As seen in previous sections, atheists like Pan Demus hold onto moral absolutes despite rejecting their grounding in anything beyond human opinion.

4. Religious people are delusional, but atheist belief systems are rational – The idea that atheism itself could function as an ideology is dismissed, even when it mirrors religious structures.

These tenets are not to be questioned. Any deviation from them is met with scorn, much like how religious communities treat heretics. A religious fundamentalist may reject someone for questioning scripture; similarly, Pan Demus and his fellow atheists ostracize anyone who expresses even the slightest openness to theism or alternative perspectives.

A Community That Punishes Heretics

In many online atheist spaces, skepticism is encouraged—but only in one direction. One may question Christianity, Islam, or indigenous religions without limits, but the moment someone critically examines the assumptions of modern atheism, they are branded as “irrational,” “deluded,” or accused of “backsliding into superstition.” This intolerance for dissent mirrors the very dogmatism atheists claim to reject.

Pan Demus frequently engages in debates, but these are not true intellectual engagements. Rather, they function as reaffirmation rituals, where he and his fellow atheists reinforce their own beliefs while ridiculing outsiders. Anyone who deviates from the accepted atheist orthodoxy—such as an atheist who finds value in philosophy or questions materialism—is treated like an apostate.

This is most apparent in how atheists treat former atheists who return to religion. Just as religious communities mourn the loss of a believer who leaves the faith, modern atheists react with anger and disbelief when one of their own embraces spirituality. Figures like Antony Flew, a lifelong atheist who later accepted the existence of a deistic God, were vilified by the atheist community. His intellectual journey was dismissed not as rational inquiry but as “betrayal.”

The Irony of Rejecting Indoctrination While Engaging in It

Atheists like Pan Demus frequently condemn religious indoctrination, pointing out that many religious people are raised to believe in God from childhood without questioning it. Yet, they fail to see that their own approach to atheism often involves a similar process of ideological conditioning. Many psychological atheists are introduced to atheist thought not through an organic process of inquiry but through highly influential books, videos, and online communities that aggressively reinforce the same limited set of perspectives.

Pan Demus, for instance, did not arrive at his worldview solely through independent thinking. He was deeply influenced by the writings of Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens—figures who have built an entire industry around promoting a specific brand of atheism. These intellectual leaders function as secular preachers, and their books serve as authoritative texts for the atheist movement.

In this way, Pan Demus has not escaped indoctrination—he has merely exchanged one form for another. His belief system operates within rigid boundaries, discouraging true philosophical exploration in favor of ideological reinforcement.

VIII. Atheism as a Replacement Religion

At this point, the pattern is undeniable: psychological atheism, as practiced by Pan Demus and many modern atheists, is not merely a rejection of religion but a reformation of it into a new, secular structure. It has its own doctrines, rituals, evangelism, moral codes, and even a form of faith in materialism. The final step in proving this point is to examine how atheism has functioned as a full-fledged religious replacement in modern society.

Atheist Holidays and Rituals

Many religious traditions have annual celebrations that bring people together, reinforce shared values, and mark significant moments in life. While atheists reject these religious holidays in name, they often create secular alternatives. For example, some atheist groups celebrate Darwin Day as a counterpart to religious holidays, elevating Charles Darwin to a near-messianic figure. Likewise, secular humanists have attempted to reframe Christmas as a cultural rather than religious event, stripping it of theological significance while maintaining its traditions.

This phenomenon is yet another example of how atheism, despite its claims of being purely rational and scientific, fulfills the same psychological needs that religion does. Pan Demus, for instance, dismisses Christmas as a religious holiday but still participates in its cultural aspects. His rejection of religion is incomplete because he still finds value in the communal and emotional aspects that religion traditionally provides.

Atheism as a Source of Meaning and Identity

One of the primary functions of religion is to provide meaning to life. For centuries, people have turned to religious traditions to answer fundamental existential questions: Why are we here? What is the purpose of life? What happens after death? Atheism, in its strict materialist form, offers no ultimate answers to these questions—yet, atheists like Pan Demus still seek meaning.

Instead of divine purpose, psychological atheism provides meaning through ideological commitments. Pan Demus does not believe in a transcendent purpose for life, but he has made atheism itself his purpose. He spends his time spreading atheist ideas, attacking religious beliefs, and reaffirming his worldview in a way that gives him a sense of mission. This is functionally identical to the way religious believers devote themselves to spreading their faith.

If atheism were truly just a lack of belief, it would not require such fervent defense. The fact that many atheists derive identity, meaning, and purpose from their disbelief suggests that it has taken on the role of a secular faith.

Conclusion: The Inevitable Return of Religion

Pan Demus, the Pan-Afrikaan Atheist, began his journey believing that he had escaped the trappings of religious thought. He saw himself as an enlightened rationalist, freed from the dogmas of faith. Yet, as we have seen, his psychological atheism functions in many of the same ways as a religion. He gathers in communities that mirror congregations, engages in atheist evangelism, clings to moral absolutism despite rejecting its foundation, preserves spiritual elements in ancestral veneration, and adheres to an ideological framework that punishes dissent.

The contradictions in his worldview reveal a deeper truth: human beings are naturally religious. Whether through traditional faith or secular ideologies, people seek belonging, purpose, and moral structure. Pan Demus’ atheism is not the absence of religion—it is its transformation into a new form, stripped of gods but retaining all the elements that make religion a powerful force in human society.

Ultimately, psychological atheism does not represent the death of religion but its inevitable return. Pan Demus, despite his claims of being a free thinker, has merely found a new faith—one in which he is both believer and preacher. And in this, he proves the timeless truth: even in a world without gods, the need for religion never truly disappears.