I suppose that, in the technical sense of the term, a "religion" is a system of doctrine and practice which allows man to approach God. Now, mind you, I am not debating whether a particular system is a "religion" or the "truth" or whatever, I am just trying to answer the question. So, since atheism is not a system which allows man to approach God, it fails as a religion.

Those who maintain that atheism is a religion demonstrate that they have a basic recognition that atheism shares many of the same traits and has much the same impact on people as "religion." For instance, it comes with an accompanying worldview, it affects its believers emotionally, a certain philosophy of life and practice is compatible with it, and yes, it sometimes produces the same type of unreasonable zealotry as does, say, Islam .

However, there is an even more basic similarity between atheism and "religion." Both are essentially a position of faith. This is something that atheists do not like to admit, because they often want to present their position as if it is scientific or philosophical.

It is not scientific, however, because atheism is not based on the scientific method. Nobody has successfully tested or observed the non-existence of God.

And while it is "philosophical" in an academic sense (i.e., enroll in a philosophy class and you are likely to discuss theism/atheism), it is not "philosophical" in the sense that it does not really answer any of the questions that it purports to answer.

For instance, in my experience, talking to any atheist very quickly turns into a discussion of Darwinian evolution. (Perhaps this is not the case with all atheists, but in my lifespan it is certainly the case with 85% of all that I have ever had a conversation with....) But Darwinian evolution does not, in fact, indicate that there is no God.

First, even if the typical claim of the Darwinian atheist is accepted ("In the beginning was Hydrogen, which under tremendous heat and/or pressure yielded to the Big Bang, which produced all that is...."), then he has still not shown that God does not exist. At best, he has shown that God's existence may or may not be necessary. Well, my own existence is hardly necessary in the whole scheme of things, yet here I am.

Secondly, this argument only pushes the question back a step - it doesn't answer anything. If the Big Bang resulted in all that is, and the Big Bang resulted from some combination of hydrogen/heat/pressure/whatever, then tell me - whence cometh hydrogen, heat, pressure, or whatever element you would like to substitute?

The atheist, on mere faith alone, BELIEVES that back of hydrogen, heat, pressure, or whatever the current fad for explaining all that exists is, there is no God. But his argument doesn't necessitate this conclusion.

Therefore, while atheism is not a religion, it certainly is a FAITH.