Claiming Atheism is not a Religion (Nature) is an argument.
No, that is a claim, not an argument.The argument is the defense of the claim. When it is supplied, the claim becomes a conclusion of the argument.
So it is a belief system, right?
There is not enough to atheism to call it a belief system. Atheism is the result of the belief that nothing should be believed without sufficient evidentiary support (rational skepticism), and that this has not been accomplished for gods. That's it. It is the "No" answer to the question, "Do you believe in a god or gods?"
Rather than being a system of beliefs, atheism is an opinion that those making god claims have not convinced us. Atheism saves room for a belief system lacking gods. Mine is called secular humanism - a collection of beliefs that define a world view.
Incidentally, I don't find value in grouping godless worldviews with the religions, including atheistic Buddhism. For me, a religion requires a god or gods, which immediately negates the claim that atheism is a religion, especially since atheism offers almost none of the things that religions do - no gods, no concept of the supernatural, no mythology, no holy book, no clergy, no rituals, no sense of the sacred, no comment on the origin of the universe or man's place in it, no ethical system, and no epistemology.
what is the foundation of Atheism?
Rational skepticism and the lack of sufficient evidence to believe in a god or gods are the foundation of atheism.
It is the only rational position possible. Note that even if gods exist, there is as yet no reason to believe so, meaning that believing in gods is a choice rooted in faith, that is, insufficiently justified belief, which is an end run around reason and evidence. One can be irrational and still guess correctly, but he has no way of knowing he has until rational methods are deployed to confirm it, at which point holding the belief becomes rational.
you need to do something with the official definition of Atheism
There is no official definition of atheism. The one I use is similar to the one you cited, but I remove disbelief in gods from the definition, since the lack of a belief in gods is inclusive, and disbelief is ambiguous. Is it the same as passive unbelief, or does it mean active denial of the existence of gods? It becomes a nonissue if one just drops the word from the definition, since both cases are included in what remains. I also use the one noted above: Atheism is the "No" answer to the question, "Do you believe in a god or gods?" This means the same thing.
There is God who controls everything on this Universe. Else, there is NO SCIENCE.
The universe appears to run itself without a god. This was shown to us by the first wave of scientists, who revealed the clockwork nature of the universe to us - people like Kepler, Newton, Ampere, Volta, Galileo, Ohm, Harvey, Vesalius, Lavoisier, and Bernoulli. We learned from them that planets orbit suns not because angels or gods like Apollo pushed them, but because they passively and blindly submitted to the force of gravity. Electric currents go through wires under the proper circumstances (a circuit made of a conductor powered by an electromotive force) without an intelligence monitoring or causing the movement. Hearts pump blood without anybody needed to squeeze them.
We know of no role for a god to play in the mechanics of physical reality, and none of our phenomenally successful scientific theories includes a god. This realization led to the advent of deism, or the replacement of the creator-builder-ruler god with the creator-builder god. The second wave of scientists such as Darwin and Hubble showed us that we didn't need a builder god, either - that matter can assemble itself into galaxies, stars, and the tree of life without the help of a conscious agent.
The only jobs left for a god are the twin origins problems: Where did the early universe and the first life in it come from. We have naturalistic hypotheses for both of these. Whether our universe has a god or not is indeterminable, but it is clear to see that it very possibly does not, and living as if it does not is a reasonable position.
you need to research deeper to find out the natural truth from gods and religions.
Why? My present worldview has served me well for several decades. I realize that I don't have all the answers, but based on how long its been since a major change in my thinking has occurred, I think I have all the answers that I ever will have, and have accepted that some questions will remain unanswered for me however much I search.
Making an argument from ignorance is not Truth.
Asserting that a faith-based proposition is true is confusing a guess with truth. Truth is rooted in evidence, or it doesn't deserve to be called truth. Truth is the quality that facts posses, facts being linguistic strings that accurately map some aspect of our experiencable reality. This is determined by testing the idea to see if it can be used to predict or control outcomes.
What makes the statement, "I live five blocks north and three blocks east of the pier" true or not depends on if walking five blocks south and three blocks east from my front door gets me to the pier. If it does, I am in possession of a correct idea that I call a fact, meaning a true or correct belief.
If that's not the kind of thing you mean by truth, then what you are calling truth probably has no usefulness, and is therefore - well, useless.
Then prove your own existence, bring proof you are not atoms and not an empty space. What is mind (consciousness)? Can your senses be trusted? Are your dreams real or lie? If it lied to you in your dream, how can you certain it is not lying to you in this reality? Can you prove all these or living your life with magical fairies?
I think that you're chasing your tail here. You've made the problem too complicated and confused yourself. All ones needs to know is that he has desires and preferences, makes decisions, and experiences sensory perceptions of the outcomes of those decisions. If a man has belief B that some action A will produce desired result D such as with my example of the distance and directions of the pier from my home, if B is true, then doing A will result in D - I wind up at the pier. If A fails to achieve D, then B is false.
Either you agree that truth is determined by its capacity to inform decisions and produce desired results, or you don't. If this is not how your epistemology works - how you define and determine truth - then as I alluded, what you call truth has no value to me - no utility or usefulness.I can't use what you call truth.
Worse, you are untethered to reality if you don't use it as the test of your ideas that you call true, and are predisposed to the kind of thinking your are mired in now. I don't need to prove my own existence to discover and test potential truths about reality. It doesn't matter what I am made of, I don't need to know what mind or consciousness are beyond what is self-evident to every conscious mind - a parade of conscious phenomena collectively known as experience - or whether my senses are distorting their input if I can successfully navigate life using them. The essential nature underlying all of this may be beyond our understanding, but that's not a problem if we can manage experience and tailor it to our liking using a host of tested ideas demonstrated to yield desired outcomes, the sum of which can be called knowledge.
Instead of troubling yourself over the equivalent of the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin - useless ideas - look for ideas that you can use to avoid pitfalls and exploit opportunities as you walk through this life, and in so doing, maximize your satisfaction while minimizing your distress.
