Earthquakes' links were unhelpful, and very funny
, in that order. Unhelpful because different definitions of belief and religion are used throughout the article. The original word "atheist" meant everyone that wasn't a roman catholic. Now (this is from the article) it can include agnosticism, "something"-ism, believers in a "prime mover", pastafaris, people who believe in a god but not in a god that interferes with our lives directly, and people who really believe there is no such thing as a higher power whatsoever. Personally I only regard that last group as a real atheist.
I'd also like to propose "the other viewpoint" to Nadaka's little story about poor little "science":
Religion's been around for a long time. New ones rise, old ones die, people pay lip service and don't really care or they believe zealously to the point of only breathing air and eating sunlight. Along comes the new guy, "science". Science claims not to have the truth, which is modest and humble. Yet it produces miracles on a regular basis that other faiths are left in the dark. They are the ones being attacked, not science! And then it gets worse. You get these radical atheists, who denounce EVERY religion (keep in mind most religions can actually co-exist. Judaism and Christendom are not amongst those), and attack the old guys on the block with their friggin toys. Religion can promise you bliss in the afterlife, but Science (as a faith) can give you heaven on earth, Here and Now! Come get some! Or stay with the losers from the middle ages! Poor religions.
Now for religious control of the masses: They need it. Read the ten commandments. Read beyond the BS. It states, that from above, these guys get a Full Day Off Per Week. A whole day! Even slaves, animals and foreigners! By divine command! God must be a union worker. And the rest of the thou shalt nots: Every group of people that is vaguely civilised has those either ingrained in their laws, or in their culture (note the US does murder people, but evades it by calling it a death sentence, and is therefore not even vaguely civilised). The rules are necessary for people to be able to coexist peacefully. Religion gives people something to hold onto, something to believe in. Hope, love, promise of a better life after this one. It's a shining beacon, a carrot that keeps them on the narrow, straight path.
Now if that faith is undermined, then all hell breaks loose. If there is no God, then there is no afterlife. If there is no afterlife, I can do what I want in this one. Ok, let's murder my neighbour and take his stuff, it's not like I'm going to get punished for it. This is why religion needed protection: to protect the community. Protecting the community, protected the people. Yes there's bad stuff, but don't let it dissuade you from the good parts. There's a lot of good in there that you don't seem to want to see...
For MrWiggles:
Please define reality. God is a subjective reality for someone who believes in it, although it cannot be seen. Protons are NOT a reality for someone who does not believe in it, because they cannot be seen.
You may build a proton cannon, and shoot someone with it, and he will die despite his disbelief ("HAH! NOW do you believe in protons!?!"), but God might strike you down at any moment, and you'll stand before him/her/it, and (s)he will say "Hah, NOW do you believe in me?". I still fail to see the difference between the two.
That was my longest post. Ever.