So if you find one atheist that is not well versed in metaphysics, doesn't care about the origin of the universe, and is not interested in the sciences... will your brother admit he's wrong?  I know many atheists that are just as I described.

Of course it is not a religion.  I grew up in a majority atheistic society, and I can tell you for a fact that an extremely small majority resembled the atheists on this forum.  People as a whole find other irrational 'world views' to hold in order to fill the void religion makes.  I think your brother is thinking of an idealized atheistic position where one applies critical thinking to every aspect of one's life... which still doesn't make it a religion. 

Ask him to define religion and go from there, you can break down his argument by showing him the definition is wrong. 

Lol, ya, it's crazy that you have to pull their heads far enough out of their asses just so they can teach them the basics of 'polarity'.

First of all, their 'premise' is a false premise to begin with.

In their minds there are only 2 positions on any given topic. Either 'for', or 'against'.

When of course, in reality, there is a 3rd.

Neutral.

Because atheism is the 'default' position, anyone who 'deviates' from atheism, is the 'deviant'.

Not the other way around...

But, to their 'mentality', if someone is not 'for' their dogma, that someone is 'against' their dogma.

Because they are 'militant', 'anti social' and 'unsociable' towards any heresy, any 'dissent' incites an extreme 'fight or flight' response, because to them, it's their 'core'.

Fundamentally, Christians (IME) are every bit as emotionally out of control towards heretics, as Muslims are towards heretics (apostates). The only real difference of course, is simply the level of action that militant Muslims are mostly willing to engage in.

There is no 'religious' content even among the most vocal anti-religious individual(s).

Just as being 'apolitical' is not a different party, being 'anti religious' is not a different 'religion'.

Saying that an 'anti-religion' is a 'different' religion clearly demonstrates just how completely dishonest, desperate, delusional, undiplomatic and irrational they are.

The bottom line is that they are 'supernaturalists'.

Anyone who 'only' deals with 'natural' things, only 'accepts' that which is 'natural'.

So, anyone who only adheres to natural phenomena; they consider 'naturalists'. Because skeptics/atheists won't 'deviate' from natural, to 'include' the 'supernatural', they'll stick the 'dogma' label on 'naturalists' as ones who cannot divorce themselves from their 'naturalistic' worldview.

Which is just a retarded way to view individuals who don't 'deviate' from reality.

The real hardcore 'believers' and 'adherents' are just looking for a reason to justify their extreme hatred and extreme bigotry, which is at the 'core' of all these beliefs.

Isn't that the same one as the evolution is a religion thing? It answers the four questions: where are we, Who am I, what is our purpose, what do I do? with, in a law-governed universe, a bunch of particles, reproduce and reproduce. Supposedly.
Of course, atheism doesn't say one thing about morals and values, so in that way it's not religion. It's not even a world view. Humanism is a worldview, atheism isn't.

 Now if only we could get the IRS to accept such a broad definition of religion, I could declare my corporation a religious organization and get a tax break 

What makes you think it isn't a religion already? We live in a two party system paid off by the dogmatism of "no rules".

The Supreme Court has ruled that a company can be treated like an individual. And what happens when ANYTHING gets big enough, and has money? Abuse of power, just like the god of the bible.

China's Communist party wouldn't have power if they didn't have money. Saudi Arabia wouldn't have money if it didn't sell oil.

You think our Constitution will always protect freedom? It wont as long as those with money insist on no oversight and have the money to strip the checks and balances set up by our founders to prevent ANY monopoly of power.

Your problem is that you think that speed limits are anti-car.

ANYTHING, class, political party, or religion, when left with no oversight or check on it, WILL lead to abuse.

That almost made sense.  Be still, my palpitating heart.

No.

It's indifference.

It's complete indifference and amnesty from religion.

Liberty.

Quit being butthurt over your inability to be as strong as us...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcnFbCCgTo4 

Tacking on humanism to atheism doesn't make all theists humanist... some atheists follow Shintoism or Buddhism..

Atheism, broadly speaking, is the LACK of a belief system about god.... Anything else added to that is not inherent to atheism.

I agree with you - and thanks everyone for your input.

It's silly but when some one insists something with deep self belief - particularly when they do it after redefining materialism as part of overall metaphysics that includes a natural theology alongside reality - it's surprisingly sticky to unravel on your feet. 

The fact scientific method resists claiming assertion as truth can be exploited by god people in areas where our knowledge is limited - neuroscience being the main one. I wish we better understood the brain. The position "we don't know yet" in the course of an argument can sound feeble regardless of its intrinsic integrity.

Does your brother lack a belief in Odin? and what religion would that be?

Boat can also mean a full house in poker.. Just saying.

But it's not the only term that defines a vessel that displaces water with a lighter substance.

Wood floats by ratio of the air in it's structure compared to it's weight.

Steel and concrete achieve buoyancy by their surface geometry and displacement of things that are lighter than water. That's why oil tankers 'float', even though they 'contain' very little air.

Ergo, just saying 'boat' is not signifying anything precise, or elaborate.

So, language and vocabulary is not the major problem, or obstacle, to lame brain ideas.

What religion doesn't have a place or building where they gather to worship their god(s) on a regular if not weekly basis? There is the reverence factor as well, even to the point of fear. Atheism misses those key factors.

Religion is so self-centered it can only view the non-believers through its own bias. Christians, people of a limited book, especially have issue. The bible refers to pagan gods. So if you don't worship Jehovah you are worshiping Baal, etc. Atheism bewilders Christians because they cannot think outside the Book. So they slap a little paint on the decayed idea, dressing it up to say atheist worship a pagan god. ' You got to serve somebody'. It is slave mentality which is the origins of this faith.

Well, to some extent it is a beliefsystem. We(atheists) normally believe that science in one form or the other will create a better place/time, and to some extent its a fact. I might be grasping at straws but I think without a logical and scientific mind that we put faith in to use and derive various mechanics in the world, we wouldn't be atheists. The difference from a theistic viewpoint is that atheists are moving forward in progression, while theist aren't( and why would they? Material wealth and life conditions are meaningless for them and the great spectre will save them at the end of the day either way it turns out).

But it isn't a beliefsystem as theism or religion, whatever religion your parents choose or was taught to worship. As an atheist it is fundamentally important to see facts and test them and ultimately falsify them, to constantly change your opinion. As a theist these standards/opinons are set. Whatever book they think is holy, thats the story. There is so progress for them, because they think they already know everything.

Im not so good at this forum bit but the one w a flashy nice skull as a picture mentioned that theists are afraid science will prove them wrong. Personally I think science have managed that countless of times, the problem is more profound then that. They just won't accept proof, their book is better proof or some gibberish that people have distorted it. The thing is that we atheists "involuntarily" believe in a proof oriented world. If we can't prove it, it doesn't exist.

Atheism is a conclusion not a belief.  Put an "a" in front of anything and you have its negation. Agnosticism is the lack of knowing.  Amoral is the lack or morality. Atypical is the lack of typical.  There is not set belief system, no common thread any more than say the set of those who like the Beatles. You can look for tendencies as to why the group likes the Beatles but that is not a system nor a set of beliefs.  For example there is a tendency for those who like the Beatles to have better taste than those who like the Stones.  Atheists tend to have more critical and skeptical thinking than theists.  Theism is an enculturalization entailing language, customs, rituals, ethical norms as a world view whereas atheism is a rational or deductive conclusion about a particular namely a god.