Is Atheism a Religion?

The Oxford English Dictionary defines religion as such:

religion:

noun.

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

2. a particular system of faith and worship.

3. a pursuit or interest followed with devotion.

The closest one can achieve to calling Atheism a ‘religion’ is the third definition of religion, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. But it comes down to a fundamental question: Does 'passion' for an idea or cause, make the idea / cause a religion?

In some cases, yes. It does. Human behaviour, and indeed, all animal behaviour, can be given a lot of its credit from its genes. We are, even if we're not conscious of it, playing out our genetic make-up. If you see someone you find attractive on TV it might change your decision-making for whether you will buy the product, for example. Your genetic impulse to reproduce is used to affect your decisions and choices.

So when you see 'New Atheists' coming together, writing books, performing public speeches, you are tempted to associate 'passion' with 'religion', and this is a fundamental error.

The 'New Atheist' movement, if you wish to call it that, is a lot like the 'Gay Activist' movement of the 1980s. People started to come out of the closet and speak about it more and be open with themselves, which for so long, have been shunned by society. The ‘New Atheist’ movement is quite simply the natural progression society will take, once the churches and the establishment have had their grip and influence on society loosened.

In order for an idea to be classed as a religion, it must entrust certain basic principles to define it as such, illustrated in the Oxford English Dictionary's definition of religion. 'New Atheism' possess none or little of these, so its unreasonable and illogical to tarnish it as a religion. It is a movement, yes. But not every 'movement' is a religion, even if the context of what it is addressing is theology.

I'm proud to be an Atheist. Its progressive, forward-thinking, and representative of the scientific community at large, with some 90% plus of the world's leading scientists being atheists or sceptics. Contrastingly, about 90% or so of the population at large do profess at least some kind of religious faith, so that is certainly a strong indicator that science is either not being advocated enough or is generally ignored. I’d say this is where my admiration for the likes of Prof. Richard Dawkins and Prof. Brian Cox stems from. Science in a mild form is apathetic to religion (and god). At the smallest of levels, it doesn't care. Its not concerned.

But science at its strongest and its highest potency, is atheistic. 'God' has no value in science, for the simple reason that it explains nothing. If scientists were in the least bit tempted to use 'god' to explain unexplainable phenomena, then there is no reason to carry on doing science; meaning there would be no reason to carry on exploring, to investigate, and to implement the scientific method because those 'gaps' in knowledge would have been filled.

It is for these reasons, at least at a fundamental level, why I am an atheist and for why Atheism itself is not a religion. If anything, Atheism is a natural second phase of a more progressively scientific and non-religious society.