Are the New Atheists of Richard Dawkins a Religion?

My quote 'There is no God and Richard Dawkins is his Prophet

http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.co.za/2010/07/atheism-is-religion.html

They have their own worldview. Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. Far from being the open-minded, follow-the-evidence-wherever thinkers they claim to be, they interpret all data ONLY within the very narrow worldview of materialism.

They are like a guy wearing dark sunglasses who chides all others for thinking the sun is out.

They have their own orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, there is an atheist orthodoxy as well.

In brief, it is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution. No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.

They have their own brand of apostasy. Apostasy is to abandon one’s former religious faith. Antony Flew was for many years one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind.

You can imagine the response of the “open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.”

They have their own prophets: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx.
They have their own messiah: He is, of course, Charles Darwin. Darwin – in their view – drove the definitive stake through the heart of theism by providing a comprehensive explanation of life that never needs God as a cause or explanation. Daniel Dennett has even written a book seeking to define religious faith itself as merely an evolutionary development.

They have their own preachers and evangelists. And boy, are they “evangelistic.” Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens (Speaking of which, our prayers goes out to Christopher Hitchens in hopes of a speedy recovery for his cancer, we need more time with him Lord) are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect. They are seeking converts. They are preaching a “gospel” calling for the end of theism.

They have faith. That’s right, faith. They would have you believe the opposite. Their writings ridicule faith, condemn faith. Harris’s book is called The End of Faith. But theirs is a faith-based enterprise. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven.

To deny it takes faith. Evolution has no explanation for why our universe is orderly, predictable, measurable. In fact (atheistic) evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why there is such a thing as rational explanation.

There is no accounting for the things they hope you won’t ask: Why do we have self-awareness? What makes us conscious? From what source is there a universal sense of right and wrong? They just take such unexplained things by … faith.

There are days when evil and suffering are hard to explain, even for the most ardent follower of God. There are questions we cannot answer.

There are days when every honest Christian will admit doubts about some specifics, but we don’t become atheists. It is because our soul JUST KNOWS that God is there, because God revealed Himself to all of us. Romans 1:18-23

And maybe because atheism is a religion that requires too much untenable faith.

Not only is Atheism a religion, the entire premise is a negative proof fallacy.

That depends on how you define "atheism".

There is nothing special about belief in a God.

I've found that younger people tend to espouse the more militant variety of atheism, especially those who had grown up in religious households. They may have experienced the displeasure of their families when they announced their rejection of theism, maybe even ostracism from members of their former church community. Their stance is often a counter-reaction to the condemnation they receive from religious believers and they assume an antagonistic stance which mirrors the wrath directed against them. It takes a certain amount of maturity to realize that "belief" isn't the same as "knowledge". I've never found a good reason to believe in a personal supreme creator god but I have no objection to using the term metaphorically – an "act of god", "all god's children", or Einstein's god who "doesn't play dice with the universe". I had a theology instructor who said he only believed in
questions!

Doubter is correct, however, that atheism IS NOT a religion.

But it is as much belief and faith driven as any religion.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Doubter is correct, however, that atheism IS NOT a religion.

But it is as much belief and faith driven as any religion.

If you define faith as believing what you are told despite the lack of any evidence in support, I would say atheism is not faith driven, just the opposite. It is lack of blind faith, an insistence on proof. I think that is the fundamental difference and disagreement with religion.

True, but they haven't been replaced by people who could intelligently argue their positions.