This is a bit off topic, but I would like to object to the declaration that “Atheism is a Religion”.
Dictionary.com defines religion as:
1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

The only definition here that might sometimes be applied to atheists is the fourth one, but that definition would equally apply to someone who watered their garden religiously, or followed a ball game religiously. I doubt that you would contend that sports fanaticism is a religion in the same way that Catholicism is.

Regarding the first three definitions of religion in comparison to atheism, each of those meanings expresses the need for a belief in something spiritual or supernatural. A lack of belief in the supernatural is not a merely variation on a belief in the supernatural; it is the absence of belief. “I do not believe in a god” differs from “I believe in a god” not merely because the words express a different opinion on a god, but because the later opinion requires belief and the former does not.

I think it’s important to be careful in the use of words that have specific meanings so an audience can understand exactly what is meant. Blurring the definition of the word religion to the point where it encompasses people who have a lack of belief in religion is one of the more egregious examples of the misuse of language I’ve seen.

To try to bring my tangent back to the discussion at hand, if atheism is a religion, then so is nationalism, so is the desire to economically grow by dominating markets, so is the idea to expand ones borders, etc. If every rationale is religious, then religion is the cause of all wars by default.

That’s a pretty pointless argument.