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

[The Grand Nudger]

-and there we have it.  It wouldn't matter if it -were- hypocritical.  Hypocrites can just as easily be correct in their summary of a position as anyone else, and being a hypocrite doesn't make them any less correct.  It is easier, ofc...to call a person a hypocrite. To appeal...to their hypocrisy. Christians, for example, actually -are- hypocritical in their faiths...but that doesn't make them any less correct when they summarize islam as egregious bullshit. Some character flaw in another, real or perceived, is not capable of defending ones own position or weakening another's.

[Brakeman]

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.

Yeeeeeaaahh. It IS purely subjective to declare oneself a Gnostic Theist vs an Agnostic Theist.   Is there something I missed??

[Brakeman]

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.

Yeah.. Again, the gnostic murder trial witness "knows" (i.e. is convinced by his observed convincing evidence) the guilt of the plaintiff. The others could be Agnostic to his guilt, but believe he is guilty because of their "gut feelings"even though they know there isn't convincing evidence.

[abaris]

But the ones who do are usually engaged in actively taking a stance against atheism, and since in their view atheists are all also necessarily anti-theists, they try to equate atheism with religion to make them angry.

Have you ever thought that they simply can't wrap their heads around someone not following some hidden code in their lives? In my opinion, that's the main reason. Not understanding that absence of belief doesn't mean swapping believes.

[Longhorn]

I haven't. It does make sense though.

[Catholic_Lady]

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.

Yeah.. Again, the gnostic murder trial witness "knows" (i.e. is convinced by his observed convincing evidence) the guilt of the plaintiff. The others could be Agnostic to his guilt, but believe he is guilty because of their "gut feelings"even though they know there isn't convincing evidence.

That's what I'm saying though. There are plenty of people who believe in God because they have seen/experienced some form of evidence for themselves, not necessarily just because of "gut feelings."

[The Grand Nudger]

No, CL, there aren't.  There would need to -be- evidence in the first place....which there isn't. Why is it so difficult to come to terms with faith? Why the obsessive need to couch faith in the language of that which discredits it? Once upon a time, the very notion of evidence as it related to god was heretical. What changed, from then to now...in your estimation?

[Catholic_Lady]

No, CL, there aren't.  There would need to -be- evidence in the first place....which there isn't.  

How do you know what I have and have not experienced?

[Kingpin]

No, CL, there aren't.  There would need to -be- evidence in the first place....which there isn't.  Why is it so difficult to come to terms with faith?  Why the obsessive need to couch faith in the language of that which discredits it?  Once upon a time, the very notion of evidence as it related to god was heretical.   What changed, from then to now...in your estimation?

But Rhythm, surely what one person considers convincing evidence should not be discounted because you do not find it convincing.  Evidence can be subjective when it comes to unverifiable claims.  Eyewitness testimony in a court of law has to be taken at face value and some jurors may find it compelling, others not.  Does that discount its truth?  Hardly.  If I told you my wife loved me and showed you a picture of the breakfast she made for me, would that be enough evidence to convince you?  Do you need to see a picture of her making the breakfast?  Do you need to see her serving it with a smile?  As I've said before, for some, no amount of evidence will ever suffice when the presupposition is the result is impossible.

[RobbyPants]

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.

This is used to shift the burden of proof the atheist to prove there is no god.

If I mention a lack of belief due to a lack of evidence, they'll say they "lack a belief in the big bang", and then bust out some old, tired watchmaker arguments.