When someone uses a word, it means what they intend it to mean. They may be using the word in a non-standard or even idioglossal way, but they cannot be "wrong" about anything other than their word choice on the mere basis of a disagreement as to what their words mean.

The claim that atheism is a religion seems to be a claim about what the author calls "strong" atheism. OK, then, why is so much of the article devoted to defense of weak atheism. We may or may not be born as weak atheists, but we are not born CERTAIN that there is no God. Strong atheism must be learned, like a religion.

I would also argue that a strong atheist's beliefs are held without conclusive empirical evidence. That makes them a matter of faith. We can say "what about Auschwitz"? til the cows come home, but it won't prove God does not exist or have a plan that includes what we mere mortals call atrocities. Strong atheists rely entirely on deists' failure to convince them, nothing more. To the extent that people share that view, they are, by at least one possible usage, members of a "religion."

Labels are generally useless and most often illegitimately weaponized. The object is to put someone in a category from which one would rather reason rather than deal with the real person in front of them. Who CARES whether atheism is a "religion"? A person's views are their views. All opinions are not equally valid, so why should the fact that something IS an opinion, or a "religion" make it somehow less better, or not better, than its opposite?

The author calls himself an atheist. I would call him an agnostic. But we'd both be right, because we'd both be reifying the same set of beliefs. His effort to say what atheism "is," however seem misplaced, because nothing flows from the answer. He still believes what he believes, as do deists and "strong" atheists.