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

[Silver]

Theists do not rely upon logic; thus, it makes perfect sense that they would attempt to erroneously associate atheism with religion.

[Crossless2.0]

I take it you haven't had the "pleasure" of meeting very many of Ayn Rand's fanboys then.

No idea who/what that is lol.

Ayn Rand was a novelist/essayist (best known for her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged) and an atheist, who espoused a severely libertarian viewpoint based on what she referred to as her philosophy of Objectivism. When it came to questions of politics and economics, she was such a staunch Capitalist (the upper case "c" is justified in her case) that she made Goldwater and Reagan seem like bleeding heart liberals.

In my opinion, her philosophy is sophomoric and her novels (popular as they are) are a dreadful, wooden-prosed bore to read. She never met a straw man she didn't like, and her work is crammed with blatantly unfair characterizations of those she regarded as philosophical and political enemies. Her main characters, meant to strike the reader as examples of heroic individualism, are so distasteful that I wouldn't care to get stuck in an elevator with one for even five minutes.

Yet she has a large following of fans and routinely makes the short list of preferred authors among American libertarians and conservatives -- at least among those who can overlook her atheism.

[Shining_Finger]

I supported CLASSIFYING Atheism as a Religion a while back.
It definitely has it's benefits, hate crime protection, non-profit status and just as Employers HAVE to give Employees time off for church, whether it is on Sunday or Tuesday, Atheists can get time off for things like Secular Charity at the least.
This is an example of the argument I would make if I still supported that position.

[Shining_Finger]

I take it you haven't had the "pleasure" of meeting very many of Ayn Rand's fanboys then.

No idea who/what that is lol.

Aye Rand is a famous Atheist Philosopher that is practically responsible for the entire Libertarian Political System. 
You know, No regulation on Business, isn't against Rape nearly enough, etc etc etc, yadda yadda yadda. 
I am reading one of her books, "Atlas Shrugged." It really isn't good at all, I would rate it 3.7/10. It is gigantic and I am about 1/4th of the way through it, so that it isn't like I only read the front and back cover.

[Cecelia]

Ayn Rand is the only Atheist that Conservative Christians love for some reason. She's a horrible person, but they consider her the latest of God's prophets come to deliver truth to everyone.

[Crossless2.0]

Ayn Rand is the only Atheist that Conservative Christians love for some reason.  She's a horrible person, but they consider her the latest of God's prophets come to deliver truth to everyone.

"The latest of God's prophets" is going too far, but otherwise you're on to something. There are a number of conservatives who at least pay lip service to Christianity and who love Rand. I've never been able to figure out whether the politicians who love Jesus and Rand are lying about one or the other, or if they're really that fucking stupid. Then again, a theist with compartmentalized thinking and a propensity for bullshit isn't that hard to understand, after all.

I wonder if the Jesus/Ayn conservative hybrid is a purely American phenomenon?

[Catholic_Lady]

No idea who/what that is lol.

Ayn Rand was a novelist/essayist (best known for her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged) and an atheist, who espoused a severely libertarian viewpoint based on what she referred to as her philosophy of Objectivism. When it came to questions of politics and economics, she was such a staunch Capitalist (the upper case "c" is justified in her case) that she made Goldwater and Reagan seem like bleeding heart liberals.

In my opinion, her philosophy is sophomoric and her novels (popular as they are) are a dreadful, wooden-prosed bore to read. She never met a straw man she didn't like, and her work is crammed with blatantly unfair characterizations of those she regarded as philosophical and political enemies. Her main characters, meant to strike the reader as examples of heroic individualism, are so distasteful that I wouldn't care to get stuck in an elevator with one for even five minutes.

Yet she has a large following of fans and routinely makes the short list of preferred authors among American libertarians and conservatives -- at least among those who can overlook her atheism.

Interesting. thanks for the info.

[Whateverist]

It's definitely not a religion, but it does at least "feel" like an ideology to me sometimes, as an outsider looking in. An ideology in the sense that a lot of atheists have a set of common ideals and ideas that go beyond just the disbelief in God.

More often I'm aware of the diversity of outlook amongst we atheists.  But it kind of makes sense that there might be some default commonality that results regarding questions of purpose given a no-supernatural outlook.  It would also make sense that what patterns there may be would be more striking to you but seem inconsequential to us.

[Jenny A]

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.

Dead on.   Religion is a belief.  Atheism can be a belief or a default position of not proven.

The annoying idea to me is either that you can or should choose to believe without evidence even if the belief is that there isn't a god.  If you choose to believe rather than rely on evidence, you ought to realize that that is what you are doing.

[Brakeman]

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.