Ask what they take "religion" to mean. If they say anything other than something along the lines of a formal system of beliefs and/or practices based around supernatural entities and/or phenomenon (I don't know the technical definition of "religion" off-hand, but the argument is the same), then they have a very idiosyncratic definition of "religion". Basically, a key part is the belief in supernatural as if it were a fact. Atheism itself does not entail the belief in such things.

That the problem, they define religion to be so general I could turn anything into a "religion". I think my com. will turn on, therefore I have a religion form there point of view. I don't know how to counter this.

Well, if you define a term in a way that it's always the case, you'll never be wrong.

Otherwise, just tell them that they have a very vague and idiosyncratic definition of "religion". You don't have to do anything else. If it really is the case that everything or at least everything we'd call a belief is a religion, then the term "religion" is meaningless. Period. It only makes sense to speak of something being a religion if it's possible to speak of things as not being religions.

The very problem as you point out, there no way to tell them that they are wrong, as they have define themselfs as always right. I could call them out and say that you could make anything into a religion but this does not seem to effect them.

Then there's not much you can do. They're deliberately defining "religion" in a way that's so vague that they're always right about it.

Well, one thing you can do is to point out that if everything is religion, then "religion" itself isn't anything special or unique. It becomes just a generic word for any belief system, regardless of whether or not the supernatural is emphasized.

I don't know what irritates me more, this absurd meme, or the smug, sanctimonious attitude that accompanies it. This is most simply countered by pointing out that atheism is not a belief system. It has no tenets, there is nothing you have to accept on insufficient evidence (Which is another way of saying 'believe.') in order to be an Atheist.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here, are you just as upset as I am, when I have to tell people that atheism is not a religion, or are you upset with the ideal that I asked for point to help me explain to other people that it is not a religion?

Sorry, I thought it was clear. No, I'm angry at the people who (erroneously) claim Atheism is a religion. Like I said, it's not just that the argument is logically bankrupt, but that they act so smug and superior about it, like we're just not on their level, or something.

Incidentally, I just started an Anti-Scientology group. Feel free to join.

That why I asked the question., I was not just mad at them ( people who think that Atheism is a religion), but also shocked. I could find no way my self to debate with these people because the very ideal that Atheism is a religion is so logically bankrupt there is almost nothing to debate with them.

Very ture, that why I find it funny that people are willing to put anarchism on a political scale. Which show which type of state it is. That why when some one show me there political scale, I just tell them, that with the same logic, I could make one with religion, and put atheism on it. Which in both cases does not make any sense.

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience!

perfect fit

Ask them "Is bald a hair color?"

Is not collecting stamps a hobby, and is not smoking a habit?

Honestly ask them if they happened to skip English class alot in high school. The prefix 'a' when put in front of a word (theism) means rejection of said word. Apolitical, Atheist, etc.

But yeah its never great to argue with idiots.