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

[Rokkein]

Because they hate people disproving myths and unethical stories in their holy books. So they try to dismantle people who criticize it for not being true. And calling atheism a religion is their way of justifying that cause.

[Crossless2.0]

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.

Who said anything about "impossible"? There's a world of difference between accepting or not accepting a mundane claim such as "Kingpin's wife loves him" on the one hand and an extraordinary claim such as "the creator of the universe, who exists somehow beyond time/space, communicated with me after breakfast" on the other.

You know that perfectly well.

[Kingpin]

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.

Who said anything about "impossible"? There's a world of difference between accepting or not accepting a mundane claim such as "Kingpin's wife loves him" on the one hand and an extraordinary claim such as "the creator of the universe, who exists somehow beyond time/space, communicated with me after breakfast" on the other.

You know that perfectly well.

Ah but what is mundane to you, may be of profound importance to someone else.  For example, if you don't care God or no God, then you are less likely to critically examine any evidence.  If it has importance to you, you are more likely to examine it objectively.  There are thousands upon thousands of first hand accounts of encounters with God/Jesus.  There are also thousands of first hand encounters with aliens.  But it seems some are willing to accept the idea of aliens more than God, even though there is no definitive proof for either besides testimony and stories.  Why do you suppose that is?

[Whateverist]

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."

But surely you don't claim to have any 'evidence' which amounts to more than your appraisal of otherwise mundane happenings.  I mean I assume you didn't get transported up to heaven and stand before a throne or anything else which couldn't be explained otherwise? If that is right then in some sense your evidence does depend on your gut feelings regarding otherwise ordinary sense data. Hell, I don't think you have to have evidence for everything you believe. I know I don't.

[Crossless2.0]

Who said anything about "impossible"? There's a world of difference between accepting or not accepting a mundane claim such as "Kingpin's wife loves him" on the one hand and an extraordinary claim such as "the creator of the universe, who exists somehow beyond time/space, communicated with me after breakfast" on the other.

You know that perfectly well.

Ah but what is mundane to you, may be of profound importance to someone else.  For example, if you don't care God or no God, then you are less likely to critically examine any evidence.  If it has importance to you, you are more likely to examine it objectively.  There are thousands upon thousands of first hand accounts of encounters with God/Jesus.  There are also thousands of first hand encounters with aliens.  But it seems some are willing to accept the idea of aliens more than God, even though there is no definitive proof for either besides testimony and stories.  Why do you suppose that is?

Thousands upon thousands of people who claim to have had first hand encounters with God/Jesus (or Shiva or Allah or Apollo or . . . whatever), not to mention the thousands who claim to have encountered aliens, are more likely to examine their claims objectively?!? Tell me you're joking. If not, what is your evidence for this claim? Because my experience of people is that the more profoundly significant the experience, the more likely the person in question will get defensive when the experience is examined objectively.

And I'm not sure where you get the notion that I "accept the idea of aliens more than God" (I assume we're still talking about aliens visiting Earth) since I don't recall ever speaking to that point on these forums. I find the idea of intergalactic travelers of such technical sophistication that they can cross unimaginable oceans of space just to come to Earth to visit -- and in some cases anally probe -- a variety of hicks from the backwaters ludicrous in the extreme -- certainly the type of extraordinary claim that requires more than personal testimony before I'll buy into it.

Just like god claims.

[Cato]

Jerry Coyne's take on the subject, albeit addressing when science is called faith.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and...ature.html

A one sentence summary:

The conflation of faith as “unevidenced belief” with faith as “justified confidence” is simply a word trick used to buttress religion.