who created god?

-> someone, then he's not all mighty... but who created that someone? (goes in a loop)

-> himself, this implies a begining of time, and a notion of emptyness before.... what is that? yes it's the same thing as the big bang. The only difference is that religion belive that there is a sentient being resulting from it and that this being is eternal and all powerfull, whereas science will just tell you matter was created and then interacted.

-> he was always there. Can't argue against this, besides the fact that timelessness is not a notion that humans can easily comprehend. Try it and you'll see you can't immagine it, you'll automatically think of a begining, same as with infinity, you'll imagine a boundry...

Now there is scientific facts that say time is relative to various factors (gravity for one) and thus is not "expanded" everywhere at the same speed. This is probably the key to understanting the notion of timelessness, but it still doesn't prove it's possible to be timeless.

OF COURSE it is a belief

same goes for Science (and Evolution for exemple)

Personnally, I try to not really ask me the "God question" since I do consider it is REALLY underproductive : I have just no clue if God exists or not, neither I feel important to ask me this question.

So, I do not believe in God, I dont know if God exists and I dont ask me this question.
I m so a "default" non God believer. ...

Having say this, I strongly consider religion to be EXTREMELY underproductive considering how easy they can separate people based on "useless" belief ... 

Sorry, got to pick you up on this.  Science is not, absolutely not, I mean really, really NOT a belief.

Science is about facts and evidence.  With science, the principle is to have no belief whatsoever.  If you need to believe in science then you're either missunderstanding it or don't want - which is understandable - to take the time to check it yourself - I don't in many cases, but let's not confuse what that means.

For example, I believe E=MC2.  But only because I am comfortable that it has been well proven and tested.  But I don't have to believe in it and I don't in the same principle as religion.  If I want, I can work out that E=MC2 because it can be done and come to the same answer.  In short, anything in science can be repeatably and reliably re-tested by anyone who wants to do so.

Another example, I don't have to believe in astronomers findings regarding planets, moons, etc.  I can set up a telescope and check myself.  In this latter case, I have done so a few times, and it is quite something to actually test and prove yourself that yes, what you read in a book is indeed true and matches your own observations.

So no, no, no, no, no... Science is not a belief just like religion.  TBH Science is the opposite of religion and that, in large part, is the root of a lot of the friction between the two.

Religion is about belief without evidence, science more accurately can be said to be about disbelief without evidence. 

Sorry, got to add this looking at some comments.

Atheism by the nature of the word is associated with belief.  And by nature of our society with Science.

Science is not a belief, not at all in the same manner as religion.  Do not mix that up.  Science is about disbelief without accompanying evidence that will withstand multiple repeated efforts to disprove it.

Science is about working through evidence and theories to determine facts and understanding.

Also, don't confuse what Scientific Theory means either.  It does not mean, nor imply, that all theories are just waiting to be disproved.  So many people completely missunderstand this.  Many Scientific Theories are considered facts and treated as essentially true as 2 2=4.  There are areas of the Universe - lot's of course - we don't understand, and in this area we have theories that may or may not stand up to the test of time and research.  But don't confuse those with areas where the definitive Scientific Theory is treated as fact.

For example we may not fully understand gravity, but our theory of understanding how everything will fall on the Earth if dropped is pretty watertight.  If I know your weight and the height of a building you are (hypothetically of course) going to step off, I can tell you exactly how long it will take before you meet the ground, how fast you will be going when you do, and with what force you will strike the ground.  And I can do that every time and I will be right every time.  There is no theory waiting to be disproved.  I will never be wrong unless I make a mistake in my calculations, but the formula itself will never be wrong.

It's fun to consider semantics, "God" and atheism, etc. but don't go thinking Science and Scientific Theory and Scientific Process is something similar.

So my belief is blind but yours isn't? You're believing in theories and hypotheses about things that supposedly happened billions of years ago.

there is no phisical evidence of a human thought either...just sayin

OT, atheisam is, of course a belief.

God is IMO a supernatural creator and ruler and overseer of the universe. He has omniscience (infinite knowledge), omnipotence (unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity and he is eternal and his existance is necessary.

Sure there is.  You ever see a brain scan or wonder how they can make a device capable of identifying certain brain patterns and using that to operate something?

Thought can be traced back to activity in the brain.

Those theories don't come out of nowhere, they're well based on what we know about the universe. And while many believe them to be true, many are also willing to believe something else if it turned out those theories were wrong. It's more like "I believe it's true because it is likely to be true" rather than "I believe it's true because I feel like it", and there's a huge difference there.

Science tries to perfect itself, religion does not. In science, doubt is your friend, and if you don't believe a theory is correct, feel free to correct it. If you manage to do that, the old theory will be forgotten and a new one will take its place.

Believing a theory is right is definitely different compared to believing a god exists.

That's it exactly.  If something proves to be a more accurate description of the beginning of the universe, then it would be accepted by the Scientific community.  Just because it happened billions of year ago, doesn't mean there isn't information about it that can be discovered and analyzed.  The big bang is Science's best theory based on current evidence.  If more evidence is discovered and refutes the big bang, then the big bang would be thrown out (as have many other scientific theories throughout history).

Your belief, on the other hand, has never required proof of any kind, just "faith".  Archaeologists have been disproving the "historical" parts of the bible for years (for instance, the Exodus clearly never happened).  Yet I'm guessing you refuse to accept this evidence.  If so, then, yes, your belief is blind.