In response to “Is Atheism a religion?” by Craig Portwood via Examiner.com:
Another non-response to straw man atheism. To quote, "Atheism is the belief that there is nothing in existence that can be called God." No: atheism is a response to the belief claim that gods exist, not a belief claim in itself. In of itself it's a single position on a single claim, this is hardly sufficient to be a religion.
The article really falls apart when the author decides to conflate science and atheism. Unlike atheism, science doesn't have a position on the existence of a god (being an untestable proposition, science as a tool doesn't reply to it and remains both apathetic and agnostic.)
"Other philosophies which hold themselves to be above and beyond religious thought, fit neatly into such a category as religion. Evolutionists for example, fancy themselves to be part of the science community. Even though their position has yet to be proven,(hence it is described as the theory of evolution) they put forth their proposition that life somehow magically appeared as if by random accident."
(1) Science doesn't deal in proof but the collection and modeling of evidence;
(2) The theory of evolution exists to model how the fact of evolution functions; (to see how absurd this statement is replace words with "Gravitationists" and "theory of gravity.")
And the real failure here:
(3) ...the theory of evolution does not postulate how evolving life "appeared" it makes no claims about abiogenesis. To state that it does it to dishonestly misrepresent the theory of evolution.
The author continues to make outright distorted statements about disbelief in gods and other non-related subjects like economics and politics.
After the first failure to honesty research this subject, I decided it wasn't worth my time to continue reading. If a person cannot do the bare minimum of honestly presentation, I don't have time for their propaganda.
Link, via Examiner.com.