Some people I have watched who refer to themselves as "atheists," seem to be part of a subculture, call it G, having properties similar to some shared by all "religions."
First, let me be clear about God.
The word "god," in any meaning similar to its current popular usages, is not a word of any proper scientific theory. And, I am trying here, in this website, to be true to real science.
The following utterance, for example, is NOT part of any theory in science: "God does not exist." Neither is "God exists." Nor "Some god exists." In fact, so far as I know, within each theoretical science S, the utterance "No god exists or some god exists" is false because it is not a statement.
One could invent a meaning of "god" (e.g. god is the number 7) under which utterances such a "god exists" are within science, but that would be a silly game and miss the point.
Perhaps a statement such as "John says that the people of his village believe in 'gods' " can be true and a datum in some science. But it is unlikely that "believe in gods" can be made objectively meaningful within a science.
Without using "god" can "religion" be made meaningful in a science, a true science, of Man? This could be done by relating usages of "religion" to observable behaviors of people.
For now, let us assume that "religion" has been given some meaning based upon observable behaviors of people. And, that meaning is close-enough, for us here, to its ordinary usages. In what ways is the subculture G similar to a religion?
G has a creation story. It is called "Evolution" and is both a pale shaddow of, and a slight embellishment of, evolution as a science.
G has what appear to be saints, among them is Richard Dawkins and, of course, Charles Darwin.
G is evangelical.
G has trigger-words and pheromonic phrases to which its members, particularly when in a discussion group respond with emotion, including for example, righteous anger.
G has devilry to hate and identifiable disciples of that devilry.
Most importantly here, G has some beliefs that are repellent to most non-member of G. "God does not exist" is one example. I find it repellent for what might be an unusual reason: the speaker is assuming that heshe knows "the" correct meaning of a word that heshe ascribes to some other people (ofter to all "religious" people) whom heshe has, it seems, not even consulted about the intended meaning. That is both rude (to me) and possibly dishonest. Most other people are repelled for other reasons, I suspect. "Religions are responsible for most killings in wars" is repellent to people of "religions", for their reasons, and to me for this reason: because it seems to be an outright lie. If one can ascribe responsibility for wars on the basis of religious beliefs, then during the Twentieth Century the ardent atheists-as-atheists killed 100 times as many people as did, say Christians-as-Christians. That seems to be an objective fact - once one sets up objective rules for ascribing such guilt.
How Atheism is Harming Science By tying Science to their beliefs, Ardent Atheists cause non-scientists who are not hostile to religion to suspect that scientists are rude, bile-filled, not objective, hypocritical and possibly false.
Aposyndesis -- the theory to which this note is an appendage
A computer model that is an example of really bad science of our times.
By contrast, some pretty good science: dolphin inspired sonar.