Why do religious people desperately want to class Atheism as a religion?

[ApeNotKillApe]

Why do the religious say "atheism is a religion" like it's a bad thing?

[Catholic_Lady]

^Probably because they see it as hypocritical. That would be my guess, anyway.

[dyresand]

It's a tactic.  The argument goes something like this:

Atheism is a religion in that it is a worldview and a belief that no God's exist.  Atheists claim that it is simply a lack of belief in the existence of any God and then Theists will define it as believing there are no Gods.

Honestly, both definitions are correct in my opinion, but for a theists to argue that Atheism is a religion it is important for them to classify atheism as a belief.  Because then they can use the common quip, "Oh I thought you believed it to be true?"  It's a word game honestly.  Do i believe Atheism is a religion?  By the definition of religion, no.  Is Atheism a belief system?  No (system being the qualifier).  Is Atheism a belief?  That can be argued.

It's not a belief to believe that a god  doesn't exist, it is a belief to believe that a god exists.
Also we don't have a book so there no.

[dyresand]

^Probably because they see it as hypocritical. That would be my guess, anyway.

It would only be hypocritical if a god did exist and we atheists deny said god existing.
Ironically chances of any god existing is very very small.

[ApeNotKillApe]

^Probably because they see it as hypocritical. That would be my guess, anyway.

It puts me in mind of an addict in denial, pointing out that "caffeine is a drug just like heroin", as if that somehow justified the heroin.

[Mr Greene]

Atheism is a religion like healthy is a disease.

[Kingpin]

I wouldn't totally agree with that.  I do think Gnostic Atheism makes a claim. 

Not the type of claim you are inferring. Gnostic atheism is a layered claim. They are first unconvinced with the unevidenced claims, and then decide a state using the likelihood.

This differs significantly from it's theistic counterpart. The gnostic theist claims convincing evidence of a god but an agnostic theist only claims unconvincing evidence of their god of choice, relying instead on pure faith. Because "convincing evidence" cannot equal "unconvincing evidence" they are separate paths as apposed to the additive atheistic path.

Sure but what some see as "convincing" others see as "unconvincing".  it's purely subjective.

[Esquilax]

Sure but what some see as "convincing" others see as "unconvincing".  it's purely subjective.

Subjectivity, however, does not preclude upper and lower bounds. For example, regardless of your standards, I suspect you have minimum and maximum tolerances for credulity, that roughly align with everyone else's. Were you to see someone standing in front of an object, staring right at it and denying that object's existence, I would think you would think that person is being unreasonable by being unconvinced of that evidence. Likewise, were you to see someone convinced of an obvious scam claim on the basis that some guy said so, you would most likely conclude that that person is being unreasonable by being convinced on such evidence.

When you get to extreme ends of the spectrum, it's no longer subjective whether one should or should not be convinced by a given set of evidence, in that there are clear epistemic issues with picking one or the other option at that point. Religions all fall into the latter extreme, where if they convince someone, they are doing so on insufficient evidence that followers would never accept for other claims, or even other claims within the same type.

[Catholic_Lady]

Sure but what some see as "convincing" others see as "unconvincing".  it's purely subjective.

Subjectivity, however, does not preclude upper and lower bounds. For example, regardless of your standards, I suspect you have minimum and maximum tolerances for credulity, that roughly align with everyone else's. Were you to see someone standing in front of an object, staring right at it and denying that object's existence, I would think you would think that person is being unreasonable by being unconvinced of that evidence. Likewise, were you to see someone convinced of an obvious scam claim on the basis that some guy said so, you would most likely conclude that that person is being unreasonable by being convinced on such evidence.

When you get to extreme ends of the spectrum, it's no longer subjective whether one should or should not be convinced by a given set of evidence, in that there are clear epistemic issues with picking one or the other option at that point. Religions all fall into the latter extreme, where if they convince someone, they are doing so on insufficient evidence that followers would never accept for other claims, or even other claims within the same type.

Another thing is that some may not have seen/experienced the same type of evidence that others have. 

If there is a murder trial and a witness comes in and says he alone witnessed the defendant in the act of murdering the victim, that person can be 100% sure the defendant is guilty, because he has seen evidence for himself. But that does not mean that everyone else should take his word for it because they were not there and they did not see/experience the same evidence that he did. Unless the witness is able to find another way to prove it, it remains evidence for himself and himself alone.

[dyresand]

Subjectivity, however, does not preclude upper and lower bounds. For example, regardless of your standards, I suspect you have minimum and maximum tolerances for credulity, that roughly align with everyone else's. Were you to see someone standing in front of an object, staring right at it and denying that object's existence, I would think you would think that person is being unreasonable by being unconvinced of that evidence. Likewise, were you to see someone convinced of an obvious scam claim on the basis that some guy said so, you would most likely conclude that that person is being unreasonable by being convinced on such evidence.

When you get to extreme ends of the spectrum, it's no longer subjective whether one should or should not be convinced by a given set of evidence, in that there are clear epistemic issues with picking one or the other option at that point. Religions all fall into the latter extreme, where if they convince someone, they are doing so on insufficient evidence that followers would never accept for other claims, or even other claims within the same type.

Another thing is that some may not have seen/experienced the same type of evidence that others have. 

If there is a murder trial and a witness comes in and says he alone witnessed the defendant in the act of murdering the victim, that person can be 100% sure the defendant is guilty, because he has seen evidence for himself. But that does not mean that everyone else should take his word for it because they were not there and they did not see/experience the same evidence that he did. Unless the witness is able to find another way to prove it, it remains evidence for himself and himself alone.

And that is why we have what it's called a polygraph to make sure that the evidence that  he/she is presenting is credible
also let's not forget DNA forensics as well.