Is Atheism a Religion? Why or why not?

[The Grand Nudger]

It never matters. These dipshits try to force people like you into some positive knowledge claim, but they don't have any interest in talking to me..a person who actually does make that knowledge claim, about it.

[GrandizerII]

So let's debate this. 

Anarchism is a system of government though it says it "is no system of government" at all. It doesn't get to win by default by saying that. It must be show that it is the true and best government system. Similarly, Atheism comes under Religous Systems. It is not excused from the obligations of showing it is the true and best form of religion or religious opinion. It must also adduce solid and weighty evidence in its favor to be taken seriously.

Thus, Dr. Craig rightly defends two propositions in most of his debates (1) There are Good Reasons to think (Christian) Theism is true. (2) There are no Good Reasons to think Atheism is true. And then gives evidence under either point. What evidence can Atheists offer to think Atheism is True?

I don't know if atheism (in the positive sense of the term) is true. I just find that the reasons for Christian theism, along with various other particular theisms, are lacking and not very convincing and often entail beliefs that I just find either too fantastical to be true or just clearly man-made. And if we're talking bare minimum theism (i.e., simply that a personal God exists),  I don't see why there should be. If we're talking just simply some impersonal First Cause, I don't personally consider that to be God anyway, and why should there even be that.

That's really all there is to it. My confidence in atheism being true is primarily dependent on my confidence in theism being true. And I suspect the same with many atheists here. Many atheists don't appear to think much about positive evidence for atheism, nor do they appear to hold to atheism to the same degree of confidence that Christian theists hold to theism.

[Angrboda]

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It never matters.  These dipshits try to force people like you into some positive knowledge claim, but they don't have any interest in talking to me..a person who actually does make that knowledge claim, about it.

While atheism per se is not a positive claim, there’s no conflict in an atheist (in this case, you) making that positive claim. Good on yer!

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

So let's debate this. 

Anarchism is a system of government though it says it "is no system of government" at all. It doesn't get to win by default by saying that. It must be show that it is the true and best government system. Similarly, Atheism comes under Religous Systems. It is not excused from the obligations of showing it is the true and best form of religion or religious opinion. It must also adduce solid and weighty evidence in its favor to be taken seriously.

Anarchism has tenets of "no government is the best government", but doesn't state anything about the existence of governments. My version of atheism makes no claims about the existence of gods, but rather about my state of belief.

Thus, Dr. Craig rightly defends two propositions in most of his debates (1) There are Good Reasons to think (Christian) Theism is true.

This is a non sequitur.

(2) There are no Good Reasons to think Atheism is true. And then gives evidence under either point. What evidence can Atheists offer to think Atheism is True?

This is, as well. How does this follow from your analogy to anarchism?

As for evidence that atheism is true, I suppose that depends on the brand of atheism. An agnostic atheist such as myself makes no claims about the existence of gods, but rather, only about whether I find what is proffered as "evidence" is entirely unconvincing. I need not prove to you my lack of belief.

Atheists making the positive claim that gods do not or cannot exist do have the obligation to evidence that positive claim. Given that I don't make that claim, and (more to the point) don't care what you believe so long as you don't inflict it upon others, why should I present what I think is evidence for a claim I am not making?

You, on the other hand, who propounds not only the existence of a god but one so full of contradictions as to be absurd -- you have your hands full with this demand for evidence. You should probably worry about evidencing your own claims before demanding such from others who disagree with you.

But I doubt you're interested in challenging your own beliefs. You seem primarily engaged in sermonizing them.

[The Grand Nudger]

Lets see if we can expand this silly shits mind. I'm an atheist...... but also a nationalist..... and a hardcore capitalist. Thats probaly why I'm anti-christian. There's absolutely nothing about christianity that helps my nation. It has only ever harmed my nation, it -can- only ever harm my nation. There's absolutely nothing about christianity that helps free markets, it has only ever harmed free markets, and only -can- harm free markets.

Discuss.

[Nishant Xavier]

[Kitan Etos]

An actual historical figure quoting a fictional religious book isn't evidence of god's existence. All I care about is the evidence, which you and every other theist always fails to provide.

[Nishant Xavier]

God's Existence is as mathematically certain as the fact that an infinite number of contingent beings cannot exist. That is the Demonstration from Contingency. Since these contingent beings cannot go on indefinitely, they terminate in a First Cause, an Eternal First Being, Almighty God.

God's Existence is as scientifically certain as the fact that chance, given the exceedingly narrow range of certain fine-tuned physical constants required to create life, can be reasonably inferred not to have been the true cause of the formation of life. Thus, the True Cause of Life can be Scientifically known to be a Benevolent Designer.

God's Existence is as morally certain as the fact that objective moral obligation - which we know from our Conscience to be a self-evident Truth - cannot exist in a blind, directionless, purposeless Universe, but can only originate from the Free Decrees of a Personal, and Supremely Good, Being, who gave us some objective moral "dos" and "donts" (thou shalts and thou shalt nots), which we know as a properly basic Truth from our Conscience.

One can easily come to 90+% certainty about God's Existence from these and such like similar considerations. Then, personal experience can bring you to 100% or close to it. God Bless.

[Bucky Ball]

It's a religion. Just like Catholicism is a religion.
Catholicism is worth the same thing as atheism. The absence of anything substantial.
See how that works. Your question implies you have no respect for your faith.

Of course it's not. The concept of "god" is incoherent without any coherent definition.
Do you believe in Pink Sparkly unicorns ? Do you have faith that there are no Pink Sparkly unicorns ?
Do you find it necessary to take a position with respect to Pink Sparkly unicorns ?

No. You dismiss the very idea. We dismiss the very idea of the gods as incoherent, and worth no consideration.
Dismissal is not religion, (unless you have so little regard for religion and equate dismissal as the same thing as your faith.)