Yes, Atheism is a Religion

[Esquilax]

Ridiculous or not, some atheists do emulate their religious brethren.

So why are you attempting to conflate "some," where "some" is a vague and ill defined number with no attempt at justification on your part, with "all"?

No doctrine? No dogma? No common text? No leader or worldview? We seem to be living in different worlds.

Judging from what you wrote next, I have no trouble believing that you do not live in my world, yes.

 It's special pleading if you don't count Darwin's Origin of Species as a common text.

How is that special pleading? No, seriously: how is that the logical fallacy special pleading? Do you even know what special pleading is?

Regarding Darwin's book being a common text, I've spoken to a few atheists who do not accept the theory of evolution, so... no, it isn't, by definition, being that it's not held in common by all atheists. Moreover, while Origin of Species is an important work in the accumulation of human knowledge, allow me as an atheist to point out that it's also incredibly out of date and wrong on quite a number of issues that got cleared up in the following century or so by a wide variety of other studies. I suspect that this won't be a controversial position to my peeps here either, so attempting to equate Origin of Species, being that it isn't held as valid by all atheists nor currently valid even by those who recognize the reality of evolution, with a holy book held to be infallible by the practitioners of its corresponding religion is simple equivocation. If you can't see the difference between recognizing that a book contains true observations and worshiping the contents of it, then there's no hope for you.

No leaders? What about Dawkins and his ilk? They don't count? They're the high priests of vocal atheism. 

And yet many of us don't care one whit about what Dawkins thinks. I don't, really. I've enjoyed some of his books, and rolled my eyes quite dramatically at a number of his public statements. He's just a man, something anyone here will tell you, again making what you're saying an equivocation, considering the myriad differences between how we view Dawkins and how religious adherents view a high priest: do you have any points to make here that aren't absurd reaching?

To say atheism has no worldview is like a fish saying there is no water: it's so pervasive it's invisible. Society never tires of using and abusing the media as a weapon of propaganda to get its religiously anti-religion across. It teaches us that atheists are open-minded and reasonable people who believe in the scientific method and who reject superstition. They are writers, scholars and experts who never misrepresent the facts or misuse words, while religionists are retarded Neanderthals who refuse to be persuaded by the brilliance of atheistic arguments, which of course only reinforces how stupid those knuckle-dragging religious types are.

So now you're positing some grand media conspiracy, in the face of the fact that at least some of the people working in the media are themselves religious? Seriously?

This narrative is repeated ad nauseam in our popular culture: atheists are smart, theists are stupid; atheists love science; theists hate science; atheism is clever, superstitious religion is foolish; atheism is open-minded and tolerant; religion is dogmatic and intolerant; atheism does not seek to impose its views on others; religion seeks to impose its views on others. Four legs good, two legs bad.

Perhaps you should turn your ire to the ignorance worshiping fundamentalists that cause this bad image to exist in the first place through their bad behavior, rather than having a go at us for some bizarre, unevidenced conspiracy you think there is to grant us favor?

There is no technology atheists will not pervert to their cause. The lessons are pumped into our children in government classrooms (for that is what “public schools” are – government indoctrination camps where reading and math have been supplanted by cultural indoctrination to secular humanist ideology). Those lessons are repeated in our television programs. Those lessons are recited dutifully by our news anchors. The goal, apparently, is to bludgeon religionists, and Christians in particular, into silence with the supremacy of  their “science” and “reason.”  

Technically, one is quite correct to say atheism is not a religion, but it certainly has all the hallmarks  of one.

Okay wow, you're just kind of crazy or a poe, then. What a waste of effort rebutting you.