What’s in a name? If you’re someone who believes that the world runs with its own few typical rules, then you would agree that there is a lot in a name. But if you believe in the contrary, then of course your views would differ by a lot. After marriage, a woman has two choices. Either she goes the traditional way and changes her name, and hence her identity too, or she chooses to be a little progressive about the matter, and retains her maiden name along with her original identity.

Right from the time that she is born, a woman is always known linked to a man. It starts with her being known by her father’s name, then after marriage it would be her husband’s name, and if she does have a son, then she’s known as his mother. Looking at this highly faulty reality, why should a woman change her name when she gets married? Why create an unnecessary dependency on a new man? Why not just carry on with what she was born with? Ideally, she should be seen as a separate individual rather than by her relations. But we don’t live in an ideal world, that’s the harsh part. A person’s identity is the most precious possession that one has, it gives one a sense of self, and losing your identity in exchange for another seems pointless.

It’s a simple matter of gender equality. Why should the woman alone change her name after marriage? Why doesn’t the man have to change his name too? It is said that changing the name gives a certain sense of belongingness to the woman. So the woman is supposed to ‘belong’ to the man, but it’s not the other way around. It seems as if the man gains possession of her after marriage, the woman is seen as an object. This is nothing but sex discrimination. A surname is not just a name that one uses. A surname holds a person’s entire family history, their heritage, and their very roots. And retaining that is a way of respecting it. And changing it is like losing respect in a part of you, and actually losing a part of yourself as well. And marriage is supposed to add value to your life, and not make you feel like you’ve lost something.

In the current world, many women get married after they have created a professional identity of their own, after they have established and accomplished their career. And you would agree that self-branding plays a significant role in one’s career. Now think about this. A woman spends years working hard in her profession and achieves success too. And all the recognition that she receives is on her name. After marriage if she does not retain that name, she could lose quite a lot of what she achieved.­ Imagine the time and effort it would take her to reach where she was earlier. Do you think that all of that is worth losing her name?

People might say that as a woman enters a new family after marriage, it is her obligation to graciously accept a new name that signifies her as a part of that family. But do try to understand what kind of a situation this is. Here again, it is a clear discrimination of gender. The man also enters a new family, and yet he is not obliged to change his name, so why should the woman? Why is it that women seem to have to sacrifice and compromise on numerous things, while men don’t? It isn’t the men’s fault here either. It’s just a big defect that society has in the way it functions as a whole. And someone needs to take a step ahead to change these sorts of practices. Someone has to try and make a change. If all the women blindly give in to these rules that society has made up, then patriarchy will continue to rule, and achieving gender equality will be something that people can only dream about.

‘Show me the evidence, and I shall believe’. All atheists backup their lack of belief in God with the previous statement. And ‘religion’ by its very definition happens to be based on the belief in God without demanding any evidence. That pretty much creates a clear contrast between what atheism stands for, and what religion is all about. It is quite a deep topic of debate, of considering atheism to be a religion, and quite a few people do agree that atheism is a religion. But I believe in the contrary. Analysing all the significant differences between religion and atheism, I would say that atheism cannot under any circumstance, be considered to be a religion. Atheism is the overall absence and rejection of the belief that every religion rests upon – the belief in a certain existence of God or a supernatural power.

Looking at the ‘faith’ part of religion and atheism, one can clearly see that they are two completely different branches of faith. While religious people have faith in an existence and believe that this existence created the entire universe, atheists on the other hand, have faith in the belief that everything appeared out of nowhere. Every inexplicable incident in a religious person’s life would be related by her/him to the superior existence they believe in. Whereas atheists would rather look for a concrete reason behind each and every thing. Notice how the religious category will undoubtedly not only believe in the existence of God, but also relate their entire life’s happenings to God too. And atheists would rather take the path of logical reasoning and find genuine, verifiable facts. The key issue here is not the belief in itself, but rather the reason behind the belief, which is evidence.

Atheism is the absence of one particular belief, which is the belief in God. But religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs. Every religion follows the revealed wisdom of a supernatural force. It has sacred texts, traditions, rituals and ceremonies, and prayers or an alternative form of communication with God. And atheism lacks each and every one of these things. Moreover, religions are bounded by a certain set of rules and regulations, whereas atheism consists of none. Atheism lacks structure too, which happens to be present in all religions, as they are an institutionalised system. Atheism doesn’t have a single major aspect of religion, and hence cannot be considered to be a religion.

Those who believe that atheism should be considered a religion would say that atheism is all about the belief in the potential of humanity, in the power of reason, in the comfort of love, and in the value of truth, and that religion also has all these beliefs, and hence atheism is a religion too. But here what makes a difference is that these beliefs alone are not enough for atheism to be called a religion as it still lacks the major belief in a supernatural existence. And let’s just say for the sake of arguing that these beliefs are sufficient, then in this case the difference arises in the connections made related to these beliefs. In the sense that, religious people would relate all these beliefs to God, but atheists would relate them to the tangible world around them.

Considering all of the above, would you think of atheism as a religion? Atheism is the position that affirms the non-existence of God. It places its belief in solid facts which are supported by strong evidence. The only thing that atheists are ‘religious’ about is their atheism!