Yes, Atheism is a Religion

[Esquilax]

As you know the enormous quantities of unsubstantial garbage atheists post make responding uninteresting. But for substantial posts, why not?

So you begin by acknowledging that you rarely respond, and then you immediately turn around and say that my response lacks substance, as though no responses somehow contains more substance?

The basis of what? What you believe as I correctly described, right? Let's get that out in the open and agreed on first, before I systematically refute your feeble defense for your beliefs.

The basis for my lack of belief in god, as distinct from your "god does not exist," strawman, or your assertion that I believe nobody could have a rational basis for believing in god. See, unlike you, I don't like to make sweeping blanket statements backed only with empty grandstanding; I fully recognize that I can only speak for myself and the things within my sphere of experience. It's possible for someone to rationally believe in god... they'd just have to do it on the basis of an entirely new suite of theistic evidence, since all the evidence and arguments for god that I've been exposed to fail completely. It's not that nobody can rationally believe in god, just that thus far, everybody has failed to do so.

This all, by the way, goes to my central point, which is that it's both hugely presumptuous and rife with inaccuracies for you to begin by telling us what we believe, rather than asking and then building your case based on that, rather than on your preconceived notions. It reeks of painting bullseyes around bullet holes, this idea that you can just construct an argument about why we're wrong without needing any input from us.

Everything else you've posted is equally pointless. You (mistakenly) "know" I've never met atheists...how exactly? Is this another example of atheism's blind faith without evidence?

Do you honestly not see an appreciable difference between the statements "atheists believe," and "the atheists I know believe"? Because you were attempting to make the former case, apparently while appealing to the latter as evidence. But you've certainly never met me, and I'll hazard a guess that you've not met the majority of the atheists here, either. You don't exactly seem interested in ascertaining what we believe before you decide what we believe, anyway. If your whole point was that all the atheists you know work this way, then I'm happy to be excluded from that group, as would all of the atheists here, I imagine, which leaves you without an applicable case to be made here, making this entire thread an irrelevant, pointless ramble.

But then, you never did specify you were only talking about the atheists you know, did you? Instead, you repeatedly use terminology that indicates you were discussing atheists as a whole, which is where the whole thing falls apart. Because you don't know the contents of my mind, and you don't know the contents of the minds of any atheists you haven't met, and yet you feel confident in speaking for them anyway. That is exactly why I asked the question: how did you determine what the beliefs are of atheists you've never met, which I think we can safely say is most of them? Appealing to atheists you've never met doesn't answer that question, and since you didn't specify that you were just talking about those atheists you know, it would have been blind faith for me to assume so, not for me to take your words at face value.

So which is it? Are you only talking about atheists personally known to you, excluding us all from your argument and rendering your entire thread pointless? Or are you talking about us all, as your language would indicate, meaning that my objection still applies?

Take your response that "wouldn't that make everything a religion, under your logic?"

No it wouldn't because not everything is an ultimate concern. Perhaps more precisely you mean to say that everyone has a religion.  That would make more sense. And I think that might be true. So what? It makes more sense than excluding people who worship nature as not being religious because they lack supernatural elements in their beliefs. Wouldn't you agree?

I already accept that there are religions without supernatural elements to them. But they do have other criteria that atheism does not share, like leader figures, dogma, worship of something or other, rituals, designated places of worship, and so on. There's a lot more to religion than just whether or not its adherents possess an ultimate concern, and the definition you're cultivating here is so broad as to be meaningless.

Uh-huh. Sure you would. There's no way in hell you'd move goalposts to dodge belief in God.

If you're just going to make an assumption about what I'd do, without ever seeing me do it, then you're just engaging in fantasy. I get that you prefer that I be this cartoon atheist for whom no amount of evidence will ever be enough, but all you're doing here is making shit up about me, based on nothing, to reinforce the conclusion you'd already decided on before we ever spoke. I don't need to refute the things you imagine to be true about me.

This is my gullible face, so I can believe the charade. ;

Sarcasm and passive aggressive intimations about my character, a person whom you've never met, I'd remind you, don't exactly make for a good counter-argument.

But you miss the point here. The point is that being an atheist bars you from believing certain things while you are an atheist. This is exactly what religions do.

Are you serious? That's a problem with the language, not with the people. By definition, an atheist can't believe in a god, but that's just because the word means "doesn't believe in a god." That says nothing at all about the mindset of the person, and if all you want to do is play word games then you're hardly saying anything at all, are you? You're just showing off how elastic you can make language.

PS- Don't mistake the numbskulls cheering for your post for its quality. A monkey on a typewriter would get atheists cheering if it was wearing a fedora and a neckbeard.

Insults are not arguments.

Seriously unimpressed with your response. I suggest you start smaller. Lay out what it is you believe about whether there can be someone in existence today with a rational basis for believing in God. 

Neither is grandstanding.