Can Atheism Be Proven Wrong?

Apologists frequently assert that atheism is a religion. Whether this is true or not depends greatly on what definitions of atheism and religion are being used. The argument is most effectively made against strong atheism, in which positive assertions are made that no gods exist, but even in that case there are real problems with applying the label of religion to something that is explicitly denying a central belief of almost all religions (and providing no alternative beliefs in its place). Further muddying the issue is the purely legal notion that, for the purposes of the First Amendment's free exercise clause, atheism should be considered a form of religion worthy of protection.
=====

From where I am standing, atheism is a DISbelief that a god or ANY gods exist. When I speak of my atheism, I don't say "I BELIEVE in no god(s)," I say, "I DON'T believe in god(s)."

Also, religion has rituals and dogmas that must be adhered to.

=====
According to dictionary.com, the primary definition of religion is:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

There's a lot of wiggle room in those "especially"s and "usually"s. Does atheism (strong or not) consider the universe as a creation of superhuman agency? Of course not; just the opposite (in that atheists do not believe in such a superhuman agent in the first place). Does atheism involve devotional and ritual observance? No. Does it prescribe a moral code? No. Of course, there are systems of morality that atheists would be comfortable calling their own, but atheism in itself does not suggest which moral system one should follow.

More to the point, is atheism a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe? No. Even strong atheism is simply a position on one particular issue: there is no god. Thus, even assuming strong belief in this point, that doesn't say anything at all about the actual cause, nature or purpose of the universe, except in the negative ("it's not God").

People who think that atheists are all of one mind about the nature of the universe need only consider the beliefs of Raelians to see this is not so.

* Some people claim that atheism is a religion based on later definitions of the word, such as:

something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: [for example] to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

Technically, atheism could be considered a religion in this sense, but this wanders very far from what theists imply when they call atheism a religion, and can thus be considered equivocation. As the entry itself mentions, under this definition "fighting prejudice" is a religion. If this is true, then so are capitalism, football, and Star Trek. It is surely not much of an insult to be included under such a broad definition. (On the other hand, many theists would likely be insulted if this were taken to be the only meaning of the term when applied to their own religion!) Atheism would be a religion in the same sense that golf is a religion but not in the sense that Catholicism is a religion.

If atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby.
If atheism is a religion, bald is a hair color.
If atheism is a religion, being healthy is a disease.

Tu quoque! This argument exists to defend religion by claiming that atheists fall into the same category. This serves to derail the argument and prevents focusing on the lack of evidence for the religion. Beyond shifting the burden of proof, the argument serves as a non-sequitur.
=====

Source: (http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheism_is_a_religion)

Following the links on this one is a whole lot of fun. I've got four more windows of articles open.

Like anarchy being a refutation of politics, I see atheism as a refutation of religion. I am not an atheist, however. I will embrace it (the idea, not the dogmatic desire to convince another) once my open-ended "why" questions are either answered (which I do not expect to happen), or when an atheist can convince me that the "why" questions I am asking are irrelevant.

As far as religion goes, I believe it is crucially important to understand it, and to spend a great deal of one's lifetime learning about the religions closest to the area of one's own upbringing. We are all greatly affected by American Christianity, those of us who live on the North American continent. To dismiss all of it as poppycock without respecting its tremendous influence in one's own existence is a serious mistake. (This does not mean that one has to embrace myth, however.)