Wait, the majority of people think it's false? I think you need to do some research into the actual number of atheists in the world.  Here's a hint, it's far from a majority.

@ OP

I've never understood some atheists need to turn atheism into an actual religion, something they say they despise.  Yet, we see so many on here intent on preaching the"good word" to believers and trying to convince them religion is evil.  I have great respect for those that are atheist and just leave it at that.  There are even some who don't believe, but still acknowledge the benefit religion has had on society.

What makes it worse is when those that do despise religion use poorly done studies, such as this one, to prove their point. Not only is the methodology poor and the participant pool far too low for something like this, I would bet the people in charge already had the result they wanted in mind before even starting.  It something some of you would be criticizing if a religious group did the study and found the opposite result to be true.

Good job with the conflation.

And practically every aspect of life has a community, from judaism to oreos. The concept of a community doesn't constitute to a belief/religion.

And atheism is a lack of said belief.

The sheer literal meaning of the word is no to theism. A-theism.

Does any of this make any sense to you?

Well, DNA and RNA are perfect examples of constructs created without having a creator behind them, so what is your point? Just because we created a programming language, you cannot conclude that it is impossible for something as complex as DNA to not be created by a creator. Why is it impossible? And why is an almighty, invisible being more probable than spontaneous chemical reactions? :)

The literal translation is no gods.  In order to make that assumption scientifically you need proof. To take something as fact without proof is belief or faith both objects of religion.      Why is the word religion so offensive to an an atheist?            

No, why would you need scientific proof for something that you can assume does not exist? If a scientist make a claim for the existence of anything, the burden of proof lies upon that scientist. Otherwise anyone could claim anything in this world and the burden of proof would be on those that do not make any such claims. By that reasoning, no one can say that Zeus does not exist, since it is up to us who don't believe in him, to prove he does not exist.

So it took only ONE COMMENT for this thread to turn into "I'm atheist and all religious people are dumb because of their opinions!!!" mumbo jumbo.

New record I guess? Then again, the OP was very likely started to start such an argument and promote that rhetoric.

Isn't life grand?

Assumption : The act of taking for granted, or supposing a thing without proof; a supposition; an unwarrantable claim.     This is why science works on facts not assumptions.    

You said in an earlier post that atheists need proof to believe in god, and they believe that god doesn't exist and therefore that's a belief akin to religious belief. I think you're thinking about this all wrong. Say I decide to make up (or am "enlightened") by a new previously unknown god, the cardboard pig god lets say. I then go around telling people about the god and suggesting others pray to the god. You don't believe what I'm saying is true, but you have no proof against my claim, so you believe not to believe it and because of that stance, you're religion becomes the anti cardboard box pig religion? The religion of non belief? 

Why is acceptable not to believe that fairies and unicorns don't exist and not label you as being in a religion of non belief against those things, but if you accept this incredibly elaborate, powerful novel called the bible as truth but others don't, they should question why they don't believe it and if they choose not to you will tell them that they are actively choosing to not believe in something without evidence but as there is no evidence to disprove it that is also a belief similar to religious belief?

One final point. Why is believing in your story book acceptable and even given lawful validity in some places, but my religious book (say game of thrones) if I tell people I believe in that as religious telling, I would be labelled as disturbed or crazy. What makes your fantasy and nice novel more valid and given more credence than my fantasy and novel?

It is a fact, seriously? So, how did this "God" start to exist than, when it is, according to you, improbable that the Big Bang took place? And how did he "manipulate physics" if, according to you, there is no physical matter? How can he "manipulate" (let's just call ir create) nothing into something, when you actually say that this is not possible?

He just appeared one day I assume? Yeah, definitely sounds more probable. But keep throwing in your scientific and philosophical phrasing.