Is atheism a religion?

[ http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. Disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings ]

This seems to include all defections of “supreme beings”.

If science can’t prove it knows everything, how could you say that there is proof that no deity exists? Certain definitions of a deity are clearly disproven by science. But, is the “disbelief in the existence of a supreme being” based on logic? Perhaps an atheist rejects the definition of God that they were taught? Perhaps some atheists don’t know that there are many spiritual concepts which science didn’t investigate?

[The Guitar Man] “Alternatively you need to logically prove that the religious viewpoint is logically superior to the scientific viewpoint. You are going to have a hard time with that.”

From the early days of the scientific method many scientists believed that either God does not exist or, he is un-provable. Both of these assumptions are non-scientific.

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

“…a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses...

These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently-derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective to reduce biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established. ]

Prior to science there were few people who didn’t follow a religion. Even after many years of science majority of people still believe in a religion.
Is there a rule of nature that is 1) as repeatable as religion 2) has “wider domains of inquiry” than religion?

In the early years of science masses turned to atheism. In the past 30 year spirituality is growing exponentially. Isn’t it logical that since humans believe in spirituality after hundreds of years of science, people will always continue to believe? On this evidence alone this blog is a scientific “hypotheses”.

An open minded intellectual would say “I’m not sure if there is or isn’t a deity” unless they have proof either way. If someone says “I believe that there is no God” how is this different from the leap of faith that there is a God?

[The guitar man]“There is a wealth of wisdom that awaits those who venture away from their Bibles, churches and mosques. I think it is every man's right to explore these ideas and take from them what comfort and hope he can.”

I partially agree with you, I think people should venture. This includes venturing through the Bible/s and science. If people accept scientific theories without rethinking the evidence and method then the scientific method won’t work. The reason scientific method works is because numerous challenges cut away mistakes and whatever is left has a good chance of being true.

I began presenting Social Scientific signs of the super-natural. I already discussed them with psychologists many of whom agree. After reading each post, feel free to propose an hypotheses which contradicts this blog.

OK, enough atheist talk. Next post we will return to logically searching for spirituality.