Haha, the whole question tries to be clever and hide the fact that any kind of philosophical basic perception, is in fact a "religion" or any sort of "fanaticism" no matter how you see it. So yes, if you extinct all religious fanaticism, whether is theistic, agnostic or atheistic, they would all come back, but the fact is that theism always arises first and without it, there would be no atheism or agnosticism. So would this suggest, that theism is the default natural perception in our nature and so the logical one? and the other just the twisted and unnatural versions of it?
Are you saying that if everyone lost their faith, or an even more extreme example; if every theist was killed, there would be no atheism? That makes no sense. If people don't believe in a single god then they are atheist. It's that simple.
And science has nothing to do with religion. One is based on belief, the other is based on facts and scientific theories.
You are making an assumption again that atheism is not a basic perceptionand in a way a religion again, but the fact is that it is. It is a belief based on the philoshopy of naturalism. It bases it dogmatic claims from science, but this is a self promoted authority, science in itself is based on universal logical and mathematical truths(not facts) so it does not have any kind of reasonable ground for any athiestic or naturalistic claim it to be true, you just have to believe. An example argument would be "if it's not proven in a laboratory it's not true" but this kind of claim is simply not true and is just a inductive reasoning therefore, there are a lot things you can not prove scientifically, but still are true, mainly logical and mathematical truths, the big bang theory has not been proven, so you have to believe in it, but still it's 99% to be true. I didn't quite understand your example, but what you have to understand is that faith is everything that we are, wheter it includes a God or not, it's still faith. All I said was that, if all beliefs including atheism would be wiped out, then naturally our first perception would be, that there is a God. Remember though you are mixing to subject with your question too. You are making the assumption that theistic religions = existence of God, these should be treated seperately, the logical reasoning for the existence of God is in our basic nature like I pointed out. But the religions we invent based on that deep natural question is totally different matter. Your question also is flawed in a way that is already has a dogmatic view that science and tested fact are the only base of true understanding, this is also not true, and the whole claim is not even scientific but rather philosophical, so how would you would have to prove that claim to be true scientifically for me to believe it in order for the claim to be true, but that is impossible of course, so I would just have to believe in what you say, or who ever told you that and so it becomes marely dogmatic again no matter how scientifically you dress it it is stll not logical.