Religion or not?

There's an argument I tend to see and hear fairly often these days whenever debate over religion heats up between a believer and an atheist. It comes in many different flavours, but it typically boils down to the atheist mocking the religious only to be countered with the claim that atheism is itself a religion.

So is atheism a religion? well, no. But before I give you my reasons why it isn't, I'd first like to address these kinds of arguments. It always reminds me of two squabbling children, where one kid is mocking the other about, oh let's say his dad being a crook that knocked over a 7-11. The other child counters by accusing the other child's father of cheating on his taxes. As if the fact that he too is a criminal ceases all conversation, despite the fact that one crime is far worse than the other. Regardless though, it's a pointless argument that typically only devolves from there.

So taken back to the fight between adults, the accusation that the atheist is in fact a follower of a type of religion is played as a trump card. If atheism is religion too, then you have to stop mocking mine, I guess is the logic there...

Let's take the position for a moment that atheism IS a religion, does that somehow mean the questioning or doubt of other faiths ceases? I don't think so. I don't know many Christians who, because they're Christian accept that the Norse of Greek pantheons are just as valid as theirs.

If that's the case then why exactly does this approach get taken so often? I don't really know, however it does seem to be a type of logic that certain religious folk possess. I've seen it with the fight against evolution as well. The reasoning seems to follow that if just one bit of data is incorrect, it all must be spurious. While I can understand where this train of thought comes from as religion, unlike science does fall apart when it's writings or history is proven false. So if it's true for their religion, it follows it must be true of everything else. At least that's the only reason that makes sense to me.

But getting back to my earlier point, atheism is not a religion, although I think I see where the assertion that it is comes from.

Merriam-Webster has several definitions of religion, but I think the only one that could apply here is the following;

re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
Definition of RELIGION

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Now at first glance I can see how one could apply that definition to an atheist, specifically the type that state unequivocally that, "There is no god." That statement is one that can only be made on faith, most would claim. To say you know there is no god requires the same faith that stating there is one does.

Here's the thing though, when pressed, almost all atheists will admit that they don't know for certain, but rather the odds are so stacked in favour of no deity existing that it's practically the same thing.

It's a shorthand we're all guilty of, how often have you claimed something to be impossible, where in actuality you should say something along the line of, the odds of that occurring are so statistically unlikely as to be almost certainly impossible. Which phrase would you rather use in casual conversation?

So it's not a matter of faith when we state there is no god, it's just the same shorthand being applied.

So is there any faith involved in atheism, no. Just as there is no belief, in fact that's the basic definition, without belief.

But in conclusion, (and thanks for staying with me so far as I digressed) I really hate to see discussions of belief come to this point because typically when it does it shuts down any real communication. I'd urge calm and reason in any religious conversation, whether you're a believer or not. The only way someone will listen is if they're not being shouted at or mocked, I find.