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?            

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?

Im not saying being atheist is unacceptable im saying it is just as illogical as being religious. Hence why i call it a religion.  The bible has one up on game of thrones because it was created and then marked fiction by its author.   Everyone should have the right to believe what they want regardless of others doubt.                                                                                                        

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                                                                           

I still don't like it. And no the majority of people on the planet are not atheist.

May have had. Almost all early earth models have no significant iron and carbonite. The reason is the following:
Silica and alumina are the primary compostion of the crust. Heavy materials such as iron move into earths core because of a law called gravity. Secondly if most of the iron was not in the core of earth the lack of a magnetic field would allow radiation to destroy any rna formed. Without all of the other material that earth is composed of earth would lack a atmosphere (also bad).  In a incoming meteor most already bury themselves. And the time that organisms magically arose on them before being covered with topsoil is a mere second in the age of the earth. This is why life arising on earth is unlikely.

If you want to choose a magical way for life to arise from nothing at least choose a meteorite from a different location which is more plausable then arising on earth or an Alien who taylored dna and seeded our planet. Most scientist agree these two theories are way more probable. The alien one though who created the alien?

And your burden of proof taken from Russel teapot is a illogical approach to science. Athiesm is a religion that requires proof not scientific at all. You would not get anywhere in science if you ruled out theories just because you don't have tangable evidence. But just because you don't have proof doesn't mean you can't use statistics to find out whats more probable and everything does better with a helping hand.