@ That Guy: Sorry for the wall of text it was intended to be smaller but.. yeah 
I agree with your statement about science but I'm not sure if it reffers to my post? I just pointed out that the way religion gathers it's answers is illogical that's not related to science. I just took science as an example as it is built upon logic (let's say logic here, proof was the wrong word I guess). In science things have to be logical to get attention. I just used science as an example, I could've also used detective work as an example.
Using the way religions try to "proof" their ideas is like a detective trying to solve a case without using logic: Without logic everyone involved in the case could be declared guilty as you "make up the rules". I hope you understand what I try to say (it's a bit late here.) Science is not that important to me and to most atheist neither I think. It is just used as a common example of logic.
I think the way science is often seen as the religion of the atheists stems from the religious people actually - because it makes it easy to say "there's more than just science!" But I think almost no atheist would disagree here. You can be an atheist without science.
Just to point it out: My "personal atheism" isn't related to science. Let me explain.
There are two things that have to be seperated, you could say there are two parts to atheism:
1. The personal believe that religion is doing more damage than good.
For me that means I personally believe the values of most (not all!) religions are wrong or they aren't respecting common values / their own values. This is what I pointed out with the brazilian girl and other examples in my last post. It isn't related to science in any way.
And just to point it out: This doesn't mean there is no moral, etc. There are studies indicating atheists have just as much moral as religious people. Why? Probably because you don't need religion to share common values. That's the case in my point. I even think you shouldn't believe in values because religion says so. In my opinion saying "you don't do that because of religion" is dangerous as you don't actually know *why* you shouldn't do something. You just know you shouldn't.
So there may be something to the religion of the family in your example but you don't need religion for it you could also use something else to teach your children these values.
Now look at it from my point of view: I think religion betrays its own values and thus for me it would be better to replace the religion of the family in your example with something else.
2. The personal believe that there is no god
Ok, there are many religious people thinking "yeah, a lot of religions abuse their own values" but they are still religious and one the reasons why they are still religious is their personal belief in god / jesus / etc.
In this case, though I think it is indeed important to take science into account as this is about "does god exist or not?" and so far the burden of proof is on the people claiming there is a god. Additionally because of the rapid pace science is going forward for me, personally, there is no reason to believe there is a god who created the universe.
Only if both points are true for you you will become an atheist. And one of those points really relies on science as it is a "yes or no?" question. The other one doesn't.
