A Humanist trusts to the scientific method when it comes to understanding how the universe works and rejects the idea of the supernatural (and is therefore an atheist or agnostic)
makes their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy, and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals believes that, in the absence of an afterlife and any discernible purpose to the universe, human beings can act to give their own lives meaning by seeking happiness in this life and helping others to do the same. Now if that's a religion - then I'm religious.

I am honestly trying to have a discussion here, not an argument, and I thank you guys for not going 4chan on me! lol

I've no idea what you mean let alone whether I'm supposed to care. Clearly humanism shares many things with religion. Just as a religion, humanism can be described as a system of belief, a creed or a philosophy. Some may be drawn to it through social or tribal factors. As with any philosophy outside of total solipsism there are precedents taken on faith.

For example I have certain beliefs about the nature of our existence.
I believe that the universe is governed by fixed rules that may be discovered and deduced through observation and experimentation.
I believe in the value of human life.
These beliefs are compliant with the humanist manifesto:

• Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. (See empiricism.)
• Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of evolutionary change, an unguided process.
• Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. (See ethical naturalism.)
• Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals.
• Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships.
• Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness.

I'm aware that these tenets are merely a collection of subjective observations and that not all people will necessarily concur. I reiterate that this is something humanism has in common with religion.

However it is not in these similarities that I find fault with religion. My problems with religion start with demands for special treatment in society and when a tradition of irrational belief is expected trump the best determination of a confluence of evidence. That's certainly not the case for all religion and where it's not impacting on others then I have no problem coexisting with tolerant religion.

I often here this about atheism that it a religion.
A religion contain one or more of these god(s), faith, dogmatic scriptures,supernatual.
Atheism nor does humanism contain any of the above.
Instead of ask us to disapprove it you need to prove that it is a religion. You have the burden of proof

Try using a dictionary
religion
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

atheist
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

Secular humanists believe that this is the only life of which we have certain knowledge and that we owe it to ourselves and others to make it the best life possible for ourselves and all with whom we share this fragile planet. We believe that human beings have made society what it is - the good and the bad.

You've already undermined any chance for proof or dis-proof by putting in "practically" and "-esque" into your statement. If you really want to be shown differently, or to receive meaningful confirmation of your current sentiment, you should phrase it in a manner that is more precise. Also, the burden is on you to better define the meaning of the terms "prove", "humanism", and "religion" such that a useful criterion can be set.

To still engage with the meaningful topic you have raised, I'd start by reconsidering your statement as the following question: Is Humanism a religious ideology?

With that question raised, Humanism, as I understand it on a cursory level, does take some elements inspired from religion, namely recent unorthodox Christian liberalism and ancient pagan philosophy—along with modern scientific insights and non-theistic philosophical developments—to produce an ideological system that attempts to map out a complete world-view, particularly including ethics, metaphysics, personal meaning, and aspirations. (Though the metaphysics is formally one of the least emphasized areas.) These are things which are common to religions, but frankly, must also be common to any complete world-view. Up front, this does not make it a religion necessarily, though it does overlap with spheres of thought that are traditionally emphasized by religions.

Secular Humanism, however, is explicitly tentative about it's bases for the positions it takes in each of these areas of thought, nor does it include anything supernatural. As far as I—and others who I've heard promote Humanism—can tell, these two things set it apart from any "religion" in ordinary senses of the word.

So is Humanism "religion-esque"? Maybe... in that it over-laps with certain areas of thought and is an ideology with a desire to still form communities.

But if it is, then how could you define a complete world-view + related community that isn't "religion-esque"? Then, the problem is that such a concept of religious ideologies (which seems an over-expanded definition to me) risks simply calling every coherent and complete world-view, and any organization around such world-views, "religious/religion".

This misses what seems to me to be the important distinction between religious ideologies and possible non-religious ones, namely supernatural dogma. These are two fundamental ideological components which clearly exist in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc. It is much less clear that this is the case with Secular Humanism, though there is some plausible, reasonable argument about that.

As such, I don't personally consider Humanism religious, though I do recognize there are some parallels.

Why?

Western Culture has Abrahamic values embedded in every facet of its culture.