There is a misinterpretation of militant atheism which I don't think is real. Any refutation of religion is going to be interpreted by believers as militant as it offends what they think people should believe.

Dawkins has been accused of being "militant" when I think he is just reasonable.

Atheism can never be a religion because there is no unilateral thought that guides it.
Every atheist is slightly different in their objection to religion.

Every atheist I know, and I have known quite a lot, is not militant but searching and seeking a rational way to view the world. They are open to science which is always evolving and changing and never as dogmatic as any religious tenet.

This "militant atheism as a religion" is a propaganda device delivered by those who object to anyone who objects to their religious beliefs as being "universal".

You can't use science to support something that isn't real but is only in the minds of believers.

The logical fallacy remains, you can't support a negative in a discussion. The existence of a god is a negative. You can't prove it.