Per the definition religion does not need a god to be a religion. All athiests may not be religous in the dislike of the fact that some of us have God but the groups trying to remove God are a religion.
I honestly mean no disrespect to you or your beliefs. And furthermore, I do not mean to be consdescending or pedantic, but I think you might want to take another tact or approach.
I have begun to notice that some people on RF tend to let rhetorical devices lead them astray. And what I mean by that, is that they will employ rhetorical and/or poetical devices in their arguments, such as the use of oxymorons like "atheistic theists" or "religious atheists". These exressions may have some bombastic or articulate value, meaning they may serve to stress a point or highlight a particular element of one's argument, but they are misapplied when one seeks to make a pronouncement of actual truth with them.
Atheism is NOT a religion. And while the behavior of some atheist might indeed appear almost canonical or prescribed by doctrine, I assure you there is no organized Atheistic religion with documented observances and instructions. There is nothing which all atheists worship in common. Now, one might claim that certain atheists worship "TRUTH" or "REASON", and that might be somewhat correct, at least figuratively. But again, that would be a rhetorical pronouncement. Since atheists actually worship nothing but submit to verifiable truth or the dictates of reason, then one might make a poetical or rhetorical pronouncement that, "atheists worship reason", but this wouldn't be literally correct.
I don't know. I am sincerely trying to help, not to ridicule or insult. I am an amateur writer and I notice these misapplications of words and meanings all the time. I am as guilty as anyone on RF because I often let my poetry and my prose get the best of me. But doing so can hold dire consequences for one's argument.