I didn't see anyone address this (but maybe I missed it).

Rizeagainst is making a very specific point using language somewhat precisely. This particular use of language is confusing because it does not come up frequently in ordinary discourse.

Neither of your examples are counter-examples.

Think of it this way. You've heard the expression "you're either with us or you're against us." Well, no. I could be with you, against you, or neutral on the matter, or with mixed feelings. So in the context of religion, a similar kind of claim is frequently made: either you believe there is a god, or you believe there is not a god. Well, no again. You may (1) believe in a god, or you may (2) believe that a specific god (or any god(s) at all) do not exist, or you may (3) not know/think one way or the other.

The tricky part is that atheism, as many young and/or "activist" atheists define it, is a word that encompasses everyone in group (2) AND group (3).

As long as you cannot hold your hand over your heart and say, "I believe in gods," you are an atheist.

Another analogy that gets tossed around a lot is "do you believe there are an odd number of stars?" No, I don't. "Aha! So you must believe there are an even number of stars!" No, I don't. I don't believe either; I simply don't know the answer, even though I suppose one of them must be true. And so it is with the existence of gods.

On the other hand, if someone proposes a specific god, say, my laptop computer, then I definitely do believe in that god -- I'm typing on it right now! But if someone then claims that this god/laptop-computer has the power to raise the dead... I become skeptical, and I require more than simply their word, because honestly this looks and feels like an ordinary laptop, and raising of the dead is not something ordinary laptops can do.

Hopefully this is clear... but it is late so forgive me if it isn't.

This is such a perfect level. Splendour reads it and it makes perfect sense to her. Obviously she can elaborate. Concerto chimes in, but has nothing to say about the ridiculousness of the OP, instead focusing on an imprecisely worded response by an atheist. It also has just about enough plausibility to have some atheists actually address it seriously.

Seriously though, being able to define your own beliefs is just plain cheating. If you are an atheist, you believe there is no God and must argue from that point of view. Having a reasonable stance is having your cake and eating it, and that's just not cricket. Anyway, if you say your atheism is simply lack of belief in God and nothing more, you are lying anyway. Why do you need to debate on a forum if you are not as zealous as I am, as a theist?

No, that is all rubbish. You are an atheist, and I will tell you what an atheist is and therefore what you believe, and that is the stance you must argue from. Nevermind that you don't think that's what you believe. You do, you're an atheist.

Actually serious though (I couldn't help it), this is just a convenient conflation of two meanings of the word "religious". There is a sense of the word where you could say "I brush my teeth in the morning and in the evening, religiously" or "I am religious in the support of my football team". In this sense of the word, I would be implying adherence to routine or strong devotion. Brushing my teeth and my football team are not religions. And so it is for atheism, which is one aspect of my worldview that doesn't imply all other aspects. This is different to certainly the big three religions, where if everybody could agree on what their holy book says, they would broadly share the same worldview. This difference is what makes Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, etc a religion and atheism not. That some atheists act zealously does nothing to say otherwise.

OP is a troll, but sure "atheism" can *function* similarly to a religion. But then it's not atheism as such but an ideology like secular humanism.

But even then it's not a true religion because its adherents at least believe that it is well-founded in reason (whereas no intelligent religionist can believe that about their faith... at best they can think their faith is not inconsistent with reason, although I think this belief is false).

However those religionists who think that atheism is inherently a matter of faith rather than reasoned opinion are simply wrong, and suffer from a dismal lack of imagination at that.

It's been said many times by others, and I still think it's the best way to sum up why atheism is not a religion.

If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.