Gundato: Except that someone who simply believes something written in a book, whether it be a religious text or a science textbook, is not practicing religion. Religion is a process of thought and evaluation, not a belief.
You see what I did there?
DarrkPhoenix: Showed your usual intellectual bankruptcy, demonstrating again why any discussion with you is absolutely worthless.
Well, you completely converted me. I bow down to your logic.
Time to go say five Hail Darwins, twenty Our Professors, and The Investor's Prayer.
Seriously though, you should probably look more into the thing you are trying to bash (except for me, I am pretty much an open book).
Maybe it is a rare thing, but the way I was taught religion as a youth (Catholicism, for those who care) is that you aren't supposed to just memorize what the Bible says. You read the Bible, interpret it, and try to apply its aspects to your life. And if you see something you disagree with, you think about it. You talk to your priest and the like and try to gain a better understanding.
I have long since abandoned the religious aspect of that, but it is still a great way to live life. Read things, interpret them, and apply that which you learn from it to your life. Sound familiar? :p
Same thing with The Religion of "Science',err, atheism. The only differences are your source material (textbooks and hip websites as opposed to Holy Books and people with robes) and who you talk to about things (instead of priests we have professors and scientists).
The key difference between the way that many believe in "Science" and the way that people believe in religion is the core assertion.
For Religion, it often boils down to "there is a God and schle had prophets of some form". From there, most scripture is based upon the interpretation of said prophets/God(s), but with those things being backed up by that fundamental assertion. They are "right" because, at some point, some deity said they were (or at least said something they wrote down).
With Science, it is all a matter of the fundamental assertion which is summarized as "The Scientific Method". Observe stuff, think up a potential solution, and then test said solution. Repeat until the hypothesis seems correct. Beyond that, it then becomes a matter of a bunch of people who used that method and came up with hypotheses that they could make seem correct. They are "right" because at some point, the scientific method said they got close enough (yes, it is more complicated than that, but that is what it boils down to. It isn't proven correct, just likely).
While I would really prefer we go with the scientific method for advancing the state of technology, as far as the belief system (which is really what we are discussing, and why I keep saying "Science"), they are essentially the same thing. When asked why someone believes in God, the answer is "I know it in my heart" and the like. When asked why someone believes in Science, the answer is "I know it in my brain".
But then you realize that we don't think with our hearts, and that those two are the same answer :p
Everyone is searching for belonging and something to Believe in. For a lot of Atheists, that ends up being "Science" and the like. For a lot of religious people, it is Religion. And so forth. And THAT is why people keep referring to Atheism as a Religion and as having Beliefs. Because, at the end of the day, it is basically true. Maybe not a highly organized set of beliefs and maybe not according to the dictionary definition, but whatever.
