I think that the point is that atheism has a right to exist without religionists condemning it because they have the hubris to think that they are right. It really comes down to a personal approach to life. The issue is not one that can be approached by proving or disproving because there is no basis to test such a thing. It can't be done scientifically without calling into question an evaluation of someone's mental state.

I have no problem with people who believe whatever they want to as long as they don't sit in judgement with people that don't agree with them. I can even accept a flat earth society as long as I don't have to agree with it. I may think that it's crazy but the right to believe what you want is important to me as an American.

When someone condemns atheism because they somehow think that it's harmful or wrong, then I have a problem with them. There is nothing on this thread that has been said that is going to change someone's mind about what they believe or disbelieve. Absolute statements about atheism by someone who doesn't share that disbelief comes under the heading of arrogance. Saying that atheists are "stupid" or "narrow-minded" or "wrong" says more about the one making that claim than those they make the claim against. Insisting that there is only one way to believe or disbelieve is the problem.

You mentioned Jon Stewart's rally. I think the premise is correct. A civil dialogue on a subject is not as some have put it a distraction from evaluating important issues. It is identifying a process in the exchange of information and ideas. When the discussion takes place without name-calling or vituperative table pounding, then something enlightening can come from it.

Remember, though, that tolerance cuts both ways for those who believe and those who disbelieve.