regardless of what any atheist says.

Atheism is usually included in surveys of religion as a "type" of group in relation to religion, because religion is so pervasive that atheism actually requires a label.

But the tactic of the right equating atheism to religion is pretty old now. Saying atheism requires faith, etc. etc.

Believes it is a religious subgroup. A subgroup which apparently has rallies (in cities based on whether or not the city hosts other religious conferences), meetings, speakers, is nonprofit, and seeks donations on their website with a default value of $1,000.

Certain surveys include atheism as a religious subgroup, because the topic is religion, or because the survey doesn't understand the definition of religion.

Many pollsters don't understand what agnosticism is. Many people don't either. But they identify as it. Which is why pollsters include agnosticism and atheism as separate groups, when they aren't exclusive of each other in any way. Religion and agnosticism aren't exclusive of each other either.

But many, if not most Americans, don't know the definition of atheism, or agnosticism, and many atheists don't either, and many therefore incorrectly conflate atheism with religion. But it's just a matter of ignorance of terms.

to each person who participates or looks on. Surely you're not saying that the President of the organization isn't entitled to his opinion about it, and certainly you're not saying he's ignorant of the subject?

and I don't think he was saying atheism is a religion, it sounds like he was citing a survey of religious demographics, where atheism is often defined as a separate group under the overall "religion" heading.

Some atheists are definitely ignorant on the subject. There are some self-loathing atheists out there, that seem to almost be always conservative as well. S.E. Cupp comes to mind as a pretty ignorant atheist on the subject of atheism.

But never in the context of Mr. Silverman or anyone else stating the context is other than as quoted. If you have more of the statement, now I'm curious.

My goodness, that puts them right up there with Jimmy, Tammy Faye and Joel Osteen.

They'll be able to buy another booth at CPAC next year.

That doesn't mean it's a religion, but it is certainly a subgroup (or should be) when surveys and studies are being done.

I really see proselytizing, raising money, going to rallies, etc. is nearly indistinguishable from religion.

That said, an atheist or a Baptist whom I have to ultimately ask their beliefs if the appropriate circumstance arises and/or I know them well enough to care, are generally not offensive in the least to me. If they are actually living their professed affiliation (regardless their belief) and leaving others alone actually gain respect.

I think it's useful to distinguish belief systems based on the supernatural from those that aren't.

Rejection of one in favor of another is no more valid than embracing one.

Rejecting some kinds of "supernatural" beliefs which are considered religious has something to do with religion.

You may not like the term, but you will have to come up with another one if you want a new nomenclature.

They aren't all religions. That's what I was saying.

They have a thing called group and set theory.

According to this theory every set contains a empty subset.

If one looks at religion in relation to set theory, religion is the set, and atheism would be the empty subset. Atheism is not a religion but is included in any discussion of religion as being the empty set.

Or another way of looking at it is to imagine you are given a lists of cakes you can have. The list includes no cake as an option. This does not mean that no cake qualifies as a type of cake, but it makes sense that it is included.

.. Zero?

Zero is a numeral, but it is not a number, correct?

It is on the number line, and you can use it to do computations that give real answers. So, while close, I do not think that comparison works.

The deal with sets, is that the empty set is a set itself. Its is real, but it does not contain anything other than itself (again all sets include an empty set).

....interesting.

(Caveat: I'm not trying to be difficult, I'm truly curious, so please don't take the following questions/discussion in a negative manner. Oh, and I apologize for thinking I have to apologize up front, it is only because I've observed some threads spiral out of control due to what I perceive as simple mis-interpretation of "text" based comments. It is very difficult to affect a lighthearted, but respectful, tone of voice with just text.)

So that being said:

1) It is on the number line

2) You can use it to do computations that give real answers

3) The deal with sets, is that the empty set is a set itself. Its is real, but it does not contain anything other than itself (again all sets include an empty set).

I think there is a need for a new nomenclature where atheism, agnosticism, spiritualism, etc can be discussed as a subset of religion without being labeled as a religion.

I don't really have any concrete ideas about the nomenclature, but I see an increasing need for it.

If it were religious, it would be based on a belief system in the supernatural. There are plenty of secular community events and secular activism. I believe atheist events are compared to religion because religion is so indefensible that it's a good strategy to link atheism as simply another type of religion.

This is a strategy I see on the far right all the time. Atheism is somehow no different from religion. But that's just hilarious. I see it parroted on here often enough, which is sad.

For others it's means virtually nothing except just a lack of belief.

This group clearly has a mission, vision, set of beliefs, rules, agenda and a clearly defined set of "aims and purposes". There is much at their website that one might even see as dogmatic.

Clearly it's not a religion, but it has some hallmarks of religious organizations.

It is no more reasonable to say that there is absolutely nothing in common than it is to say that there is everything in common.

The truth lies in the middle.

Technically, everything has something in common with everything else. I wasn't saying they don't. But equating a mission, set of beliefs, etc. as a strictly religious things, is what makes no sense. And having them doesn't make an organization or belief system more or less religious.

You can call it anything you want, but it's a belief system.

It certainly isn't a scientific organization.

And it's certainly not a religion.

just a s religion is for so many.

all of the following are religions:
political parties
sports teams
fantasy sports leagues
weight watchers
political activism groups

And, hey, if you want to say that, fine. But then the word "religion" becomes meaningless.

Atheism is not a religion. It has the protections of a religion under the Constitution per SCOTUS ruling. Does not make it a religion. Just that if you are an atheist you have 1st Amendment protections.

Like, what makes it "hardcore"?

Wow, so "hardcore".

Really? I think believing the devil is behind marriage equality efforts is hardcore, and much more so.

Let's discuss his words not yours. That's twice now.

It's not hardcore to put it on a billboard.

Which one do you think is the worst and I'd be glad to discuss it.

by showing some quotes. Not trying to show whether he was hardcore or not.
Truthfully, I don't even know what that means.

It's code for "extremist who is just as bad as a religious wacko who calls for the death of infidels."

It's meant to marginalize, demonize, and dismiss critics of religion.