You people can argue this back and forth until you a blue in the face and after it’s all said and done there is only one thing for sure.
Everyone needs SOMETHING to believe in.

(i believe i’ll have another beer!) 

Well, that was a WOFTAM.
All I got from reading what happened while I was asleep was a small-minded one-dimensional troll trying the old ‘atheism is a religion’ argument.

I’ll betcha you’re going to one of those jesus-humping or munching colleges … where they teach how and why atheism is a religion … that’s assuming you go to college.
You’re probably Ted Haggard trying to stay away from Arsoles and meth.

The problem with your continued existence is that you give good Christians a bad name. 

I just came on here to see more on the news story.  Wow, so people sit and argue about atheism and baldness for five hours.  Interesting, but a little off of subject.

Too bad he didn’t pose that Humanism might be a religion;  there is a strain that could be described that way.  Religious Humanism has a body of belief, rituals, an ethical philosophy, a manifesto, even chapels.  Some Humanists - even some Religious Humanists - are also atheists, some aren’t.

WOFTAM - gonna remember that one.  Might come in handy.

Whoops, didn’t mean to slight you, lebengehtnicht!  That’s pretty much how it is here. 

“SEB: come for the topic, stay for the WOFTAM” 

It’s all good.  Just here for opinions… at least those are abundant here!    Like I said… it’s interesting.

Great big dumb fuck should feel special. It takes a lot of time and effort to get your own personal moniker on this site!
As a matter of fact, unless I am mistaken, he is the first person to be so honoured. I congratulate him.

Your humble scribe;
Allan W Janssen

You’re probably Ted Haggard trying to stay away from Arsoles and meth.

Heh, reminds me of what John Stewart said about Ted Haggard’s attending “anti-gay” camp.  to paraphrase, he said: “Ted Haggard attended the camp, and some people are wondering how the heck they do it (“turn” the gay back to straight).  Well, you know how when a kid gets caught smoking, and his father makes him smoke a whole carton…“

religion = “a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe” (taken directly from dictionary.com)

atheism = a set of beliefs that say there was no cause or purpose of the universe

therefore

atheism = religion

and

you (what color is bald? people) = pathetically ignorant - or enlightened, take your pick.

Ok, we need to just give up and accept it.  We can discuss this at the secret handshake, evil religious meeting next Saturday night.  I’ll bring the donuts.

Check it out… another troll that can’t figure out how to use the scroll wheel of a mouse and read the comments from above.

all the other comments (concerning the atheism and religion topic) were a page long and didn’t give a straight answer.

I’m not even going to bother repeating myself. Instead I’ll just say this:

Anyone who claims atheism is a religion will be considered an complete and total idiot in my book and anything they say from that point forward will be worthy of nothing more than ridicule and scorn.

Cheesemaster: didn’t give a straight answer.

Obviously you didn’t look = obviously you’re a xian = thick as two short planks = you’re a clown = betchya one of those fucking clowns who got outa the nursing home = ...
I’m too apathetic to go on.
Hey, smegmaster, you win ... now go bother some drunks with your superior mental masturbation.

I haven’t the time to devote to this thread that I would like at the moment and the last week has been a very trying one.  So, I will just comment on these remarks:

DOF: It is an attempt to make all beliefs equal, not by elevating the ones unsupported by evidence, but by pulling down the beliefs that are.

It is an attempt to make all “beliefs” equal.  However, if you are implying, and you seem to be, that atheism, especially strong atheism, is “supported by the evidence” I think you have vastly overstated the case.  At most, you can state that you believe that all major religions, in your assessment, fail to carry their burden of proof. That in no way suggests that strong atheism has met the burden of proof that is has to carry. There is only a lack of evidence.

Les: Again I point out that simply because you can find a definition on how a word is used that doesn’t make it the final authority on what the word means.

What would be “the final authority” Les? 

Les: Anyone who claims atheism is a religion will be considered an complete and total idiot in my book and anything they say from that point forward will be worthy of nothing more than ridicule and scorn.

Really?  I happen to believe that there are certain strands of atheism, specifically strong atheism as referenced above, that qualify as religions definitionally.  To other strands of atheists it does not apply at all.  In any event, you shouldn’t allow whatever the above poster’s name is to goad you into making rash statments.

Consi writes…

What would be “the final authority” Les?

There isn’t one.

Really?  I happen to believe that there are certain strands of atheism, specifically strong atheism as referenced above, that qualify as religions definitionally. To other strands of atheists it does not apply at all.

You can believe it to be whatever you want, but just like your God, your holding that belief doesn’t make it true.

In any event, you shouldn’t allow whatever the above poster’s name is to goad you into making rash statments.

I don’t feel it’s a rash statement. To suggest that atheism is a religion is just as stupid as to claim bald is a hair color. Weak or strong, atheism has none of the trappings of religion.

Double-dipping to point out to the Chicken or Bong or whatever your name is that baldness is exactly like atheism if the analogy is made correctly.  The problem that you are having is within the analogy it is inaccurate.  You allowed the issue to be switched by the analogy.  Just because someone frames a picture doesn’t mean that it ain’t crooked within the frame.  Look at the picture before you start messing with the colors that were used.

Calling religion a hair color would be equally as silly within the context of the analogy.  It would be silly because in the analogy, hair is the issue, not hair color.  Yet, that is what they have done above.

In that vein, it might be helpful to know that male pattern baldness “occurs when the follicle shrinks over time, resulting in shorter and finer hair…Ordinarily, hair should grow back. However, in men who are balding, the follicle fails to grow a new hair.“

If religion is hair in the analogy, then yep, atheists have male pattern baldness.

Cameron is a dipshit.  Whether or not you believe in Jesus the man, Jesus the son of God, Jesus the imaginary friend who is actually a hippie turned homeless after a horrid Jamba Juice incident, or whatever version you think portrays “Jesus”, Cameron is working a quick buck from a shit dig in 1980.  First, the BBC did the same story more than a decade ago, literally(1996).  Second, some of the archaeologists who performed the dig like Shimon Gibson, claim it is a skeptical find. Snickers and Jeers at the religious are one thing, and they probably don’t care.  That goes with the territory, I suppose.  This on the other hand is insulting to all of faith and science.  Maybe he can pair up with Spielberg and snazz it up with CG.  Don’t forget to put the THX brand on it, and then in 20 years they can make more episodes of this crapfest that presuppose that Jesus (the man) was really an alien(I mean Hell, why not ? You believe in religion, lets pour it on).  Please don’t watch this shit.

DOF: It is an attempt to make all beliefs equal, not by elevating the ones unsupported by evidence, but by pulling down the beliefs that are

.
That’s what they do cos there’s nothing else they can do.

I suppose we could always use the KISS principle to determine what is, and what is not a religion.

Every religion has at its central theme a powerful invisible being.
Every religion has a belief in the soul which lives on after the body dies.
Every religion has a method by which anybody can get to the highest place after death.
Every religion has a book of beliefs and laws that must be abided by - failure to do so precludes one from the highest place.
Every religion has tests to pass.
Every religion has holy centres where the faithful gather.
Every religion has rituals to be performed in often traditional ways.
Every religion extracts money from adherents in exchange for empty promises.
Every religion has elected or otherwise appointed guardians who have almost as much power as the invisible man.
Every religion thinks it has the only truth.
Every religion thinks non-adherents to their particular version of the truth will be cast into lakes of fire or something similar for eternity.
Every religion realises that fear of the unknown is the big converter for prospective adherents as long as they are the least intelligent and gullible.
Every religion preys on the gullible and least intelligent among us.
Another thing I nearly forget is that religion’s invisible man is responsible for all the good stuff that happens anywhere to anyone.
All the bad shit that happens is the result of the bad little being who the invisible man still gives life to even though the it’s in the invisible man’s power not to.

If I wasn’t so apathetic I could go on but I think I made my point. There are even some obvious ones I may have missed.

Every religion subscribes to most if not all of the above.
Atheism subscribes to none - not fucking one!!

The other major difference between Religion and Atheism is that, because there are no tests or rituals, you can think whatever you like and still call yourself an atheist as there is no invisible man to send you to no place called hell for lying.

Because I dunno enough about EVERY religion I think I’d better say every religion equates to Judaism, Islam and Christianity.

Consi, the religionist makes a claim that must be supported by evidence.  The atheist simply denies that claim and asks for evidence.  Religionist can provide none. 

The strong atheist’s claim is the same as the a-Thor-ists claim and really requires no evidence.  I do not have to prove that Thor is… well whatever the hell he was in Norse mythology.  Nor would I have to prove the universe is not a dream in the head of a peacefully sleeping unicorn.

But my original statement was aimed somewhat more broadly at those who regard naturalism as a faith, and naturalism is supported by lots of evidence.  It all got a bit jumbled up a little in the headache-inducing exchange with whatzizname. 

The basis of the disagreement might be traced to the difference between a semantic definition and a practical definition.  LJ laid out a darned good practical definition of a religion just above.  Since the thing being defined is not a physical object, a semantic definition can, as we have seen, pretty much go on forever. 

And I have no desire to go on with it.  All I really wanted to say was; “Mmmm, donuts!“

What is the matter with Cameron making a buck from it. I say go for it and let people think what they will.
Cameron is probably laughing his ass off that such stupid shit can cause so much fuss.
But then again it beats the hell out of watching Geraldo open an empty safe, or tomb or whatever that was!

Your “damn the torpedoe’s” scribe”
Allan

Apparantly Wikipedia has had some problems with having a religious slant in articles…

All I really wanted to say was; “Mmmm, donuts!”

Okay.  I have no qualms with that. So, the inaccuracy of this statement

The atheist simply denies that claim and asks for evidence.

as applied to the strong atheist, I shall let pass.

The atheist simply denies that claim and asks for evidence.

as applied to the strong atheist, I shall let pass.

Gee, thanks Consi.  You’re a chocolate-covered peach. 

Gee, thanks Consi.

You’re welcome.