but it feels disrespectful when I am capitalizing the religions.

Capitalization rules are conventions, nothing more. They have nothing to do with respect.

We bother because the question is really about faith. Once an atheist realizes his position requires faith just as a theist's does, it has potential to rattle his outlook a bit.

That depends on what you mean by faith, and I've seen a few threads here trying to settle that question.

If you mean that my position requires me to believe a few things that I cannot prove, then I'm not the least bit rattled. I call those unprovable beliefs assumptions. If it pleases you to call them faith, I don't care a whole lot.

Now, if you tell me that, in additional to those things I already believe without proof, I should add a belief in God the father almighty and in his son Jesus Christ, then I will ask you why, and we can discuss whatever response you offer.

Why exactly do we even bother? I mean, if atheism is a religion? So what?

I have long suspected that people who insist on atheism being a religion are under the impression that it is to their rhetorical advantage to claim that it is impossible for anyone to not have any religion.

Hmmmm...just 6 days ago you were posting about the definition of religion and viz atheism...but I am happy that you pointed out that we are changing directions...the subject of the original article was: Is atheism a religion? So, being slow that I am, I thought we are looking at definitions to enable us to answer this question...but no, apparently we are looking at identity?...I am too dim-witted to begin to imagine how this relates to the question at hand (ie. Is atheism a religion)...I am a football fan (the american version) -so this is part of my identity - so football=religion? Is this what you are saying? If so, this is rather silly and facile...but i don't think this is it at all, it is about definition if you follow the thread (even in your original post 6 days ago)...no keeping up on definitions -
paradox: a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory

How exactly does the concept of atheism fit this definition? Perhaps you meant ironic, i dunno..

In any case, of course there would be no atheism without theism...this is an argument apropos of nothing...anytime there is a claim made (a hypothesis) automagically there is a null claim implied (null hypothesis)..so when one claims, for example, that dragons exist, automagically the null claim that dragons do not exist is generated...if one subscribes to the dragons existing camp then one is a dragonist...if one subscribes to 'dragons do not exist' (which should be everyone other than the one making the dragon exist claim, pending evidence of dragons existing) then one is an adragonist..nothing more, nothing less

1. Agreed , but not all religions are metaphisical. Buddhism for example. Animism aswell.

2. Any human gathering creates this, which will also apply to atheists gathering.

3. perhaps instead of going with the negative we should say things they DO believe, which again atheism will fall within.

If you haven't noticed, it is not the definition of atheism but the identity we are discussing.... try to keep up.

IMHO, defining religion first and then arguing it also includes atheism is a tautology which attempts to do what is desired to be done. I think the real question is whether human beings BY NATURE has to have a belief system (as defined above) or not. My observation tells me that everyone, theists or atheists or nontheists or agnostics or deists (or what-not), will always have a defined belief system with assumptions that cannot be proven true beyond reasonable / natural doubt resulting to a specific culture (e.g. catholic culture, atheistic culture, protestant culture).

I think that the faith of atheists rely on their adherence/faith in the assumption that "everything to be believed has to be provable empirically."

They believe in proving things "in an empirical way". It is assumed that this is the "reality". If not the whole of it, at least the most important part of it. This can not be proven, it is an axiom you take for granted. You actually have absolutely no guarantee that this is true - it is just an accepted "language game" among large parts of the contemporary society. What is "scientifically proven" has now the ring of absolute truth, which religious "dogmas" enjoyed in the past.
This is usually accompanied by a whole worldview, which, if you do a little bit of investigation, shows to be based on a certain type of "natural philosophy" of the 19th century. It was called empiricism or positivism. It is now a very much outdated form of philosophy, but it is still popular in non-philosophical spheres because of its implications for the technicist worldview, which seems to go well with the liberal capitalism/consumerist society.
Therefore: there are some fundamental PHILOSOPHICAL assumptions (shall I call them "dogmas"?) about the world that lie behind the contemporary atheism (or at least the most of it). The fact that they are usually not reflected or recognized as such at all, makes them even more problematic and questionable.