As "religion vs atheism" is all the rage in sections of the UK media right now, I thought it would be a good time to try and sort out my own views on the matter. However, given the huge mess of confusion surrounding the issue, I want to put forward the definitions I?m using first (backed, I'm pretty sure, by most major dictionaries): Religion - worldview based around the concept of a divine being Atheism - lack of belief in the existence of divine beings Agnosticism - belief that the question of the existence of divine beings is unanswerable, and therefore meaningless Materialism - belief that the world is governed by natural (as opposed to supernatural or divine) forces Faith - belief in something regardless of the evidence Reason - proportioning the strength of a belief to the available evidence Now, with these definitions we're in a position to tackle some of the arguments floating about. However, I want to briefly comment on the word "belief": it isn't exclusively religious, and can refer to any idea or concept which we hold to be true. A belief can either a matter of faith or reason, depending on how it relates to the evidence. Atheism: Lacking a concept of a divine being, the core of the definition, it therefore cannot be a religious belief. Nor is it strictly a proper worldview. When people refer to atheists, they normally have in mind either humanists, nihilists, materialists, etc. each of which is a view about the nature of the universe (and often the values which stem from it) - something atheism on its own (consisting only of a disbelief) clearly isn't. Each of these is also a belief, the validity of which depends on the amount and consistency of the evidence brought forward to support it. Religion: The belief that the universe was created and guided by a divine being (or beings) can be either a matter of faith (if held regardless of evidence) or reason (if the believer claims evidence in support of it). Conclusion: If religious or non-religious views are held as a matter of faith, then no real debate is possible - as the faithful simply restrict themselves to picking at flaws in opposing arguments, while never admitting the possibility of any in their own. If these views are based on reason, then debates can proceed simply through evaluation of the evidence put forward. The best way - discovered so far - is the use of scientific method*. [*Science, properly understood, isn't really a worldview either: consisting as it does of simply a method of evaluation and the bulk of knowledge acquired through it.]