An axiom is defined as a theory that doesn't need to be proven or disproven, so it's a matter of faith.
Here is an axiom for you. I propose that 1=1.
I don't need to prove that, because it defines the system I use, not because of faith. If I say 1=2, than I could still perform all math we have today. I'd just need to rewrite it so that it is in base 2. E.g. rather than 0, 1, 2, etc. we would have 0, 2, 4 (assuming all relations relative to 2 stayed constant, so 4 still equals two plus two etc).
An axiom is basically setting up the background for the theory, the language you use to construct it in, and without it, you can have no theories, just as you can have no language with out some basic elements of communication.
So is atheism [an axiom]
Athiesm is not an axiom, it is a conclusion arrived at via application of a variety of arguments and logical tools. Athiesm arises out of a logical approach (whether or not said approach is valid is irrelevant to the discussion, and given that there are numerous methods of reaching this conclusion, too tedious to go through right now. Read the wiki.)
Also, emperical science isn't useful in any way
You do realise that penicillin is the result of the "worthless" "emperical (sic)" method?
... in diluting itself of absolute truth it's saying "Ok, don't bother refuting this, it's just emperical observation, but hey look what it proves!". It's such an immature tactic to say that a theory is not open to argument before proposing it. And if it can't stand up to argument, it's worthless.
The irony implicit in the second sentence of this statement aside, no scientist has ever stated that a theory is beyond argument, as the minute they do so, they are no longer a scientist.
Science is the search for the most accurate description of what is going on around us, and if a theory is proposed that is both more accurate and more efficient than the existing theory, the existing theory is replaced (though the original theorist may not be too happy about it, we scientists are human after all).
As such, science does not claim absolute truth. It can't. It can only say this is the best example of what happens and why. However, this method has given us everything from antibiotics to space travel, and so much more in between. Virtually all of it, I would consider worthwhile.
But these are my own biases, I once repeatedly questioned my friend, a mathematician, about how .999r = 1 , eventually he exclaimed, "Maths isn't 'truth'! It's just based on axioms/rules". Let's hope true scientists and mathematicians don't rely on axioms and suchlike.
Ummm... 0.999 repeated does not equal one, and no mathematician worth the name should ever tell you that (well except for computational ones, but that's because of rounding errors). Any mathematician
should, however, tell you that, as you increase the number of 9s appended to the digit, it will tend towards one, without ever reaching it.
In mathematical parlance, it limits to 1 as n (the number of nines) approaches infinity. Basically, it means you can tack on as many 9s on as you wish, it will just become increasingly closer without
ever reaching 1.