If I were an Atheist

[Hatshepsut]

Apparently, the idea atheists are so angry is the result of mass projection.
[Meier et al 2015] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.10...013.866929

Thanks for the quality link. There is undoubtedly a projection effect as there's little reason to suppose the personalities of atheists are any more dominated by anger than is the case with other people. A bit of semantics is involved here: We speak of "the angry white male" in connection with conservative politics, not because we think white men are all habitually angry. The "angry atheist" term is used in a similar vein because in general, organized atheist groups and the organized religious are frequently opponents at law and in political process. Oddly, in Study 3 even atheists appeared to think atheists were angry.

Science hasn't found a creator, nor looked for one either...

I am sure if you came up with a way we could possibly search for one, they would test it.  Plus, I doubt you can think of any method that hasn't already been thought up or tried...

Indeed. I'm not going to be of help here, and doubt science should go looking for creators just yet. We have no real idea what the observable properties of a creator might be. Still, we should hesitate to stamp it "impossible." 

...but atheism is not a philosophy (nor is it the sort of noun that ought to be capitalized, but I reckon that's your business), it's a position on one topic.

Oh, Horrors! Did I capitalize it? I could swear I didn't, but a slip of the shift key could have occurred. Which tells me that many atheists have conventions for orthography, i.e. "god" vs. "God." 

I love that argument that theists use that atheism is basically just a religion...I fail to see how atheists can even be thrown into the same category.  We have no religious text, leaders, gathering areas, or anything like that....

Many religions lack a text, leader, or designated meeting place as well, yet are called religions. Some atheists are happy to lump all the religious into a bloc based on the single common denominator of belief in a god; that's a common human habit known as "stereotypy." I'm well aware of the minimum definition for atheism as lack of theistic belief, yet I'm also aware that it's often brought up as a dodge by persons who don't wish their beliefs to come under the microscope. All the better for a secure position from which to snipe at the beliefs of others, I might say. A number of organizations associated with atheism are quite vocal and politically active in the United States and, while we no doubt aren't hearing from many folks who privately have atheist leanings, a coherent public front for atheism has developed in this country. Madalyn Murray O'Hair's American Atheist Association, for instance. And media spokes like Bill Maher, Sam Harris, and the late Christopher Hitchens. 

Default atheism cannot be wrong, as it makes no claims.

"We make no claims" is another of my favorite dodges. If no claims, why a media? Why a forum? Why all the arguments? At minimum atheists must make the claim that belief in deity is unsupported by available evidence. I see nothing wrong with making a claim anyway. Ideally, the claim then stands or falls on its own merits. Where I will differ from most atheists is that I don't think the evaluation of merits for a deity claim should be restricted solely to scientific criteria. Conceptions of god involve more than just what we know about the natural world.

Of course the agenda the Evangelicals advance is so ridiculous I'm not surprised to see atheists ridiculing it. Nor do creationism or Noah's Ark have any place in public schools except as literature. So, I'd rather see atheists making a few claims than none. And while the big bang and neo-Darwinian evolution aren't necessary for atheism, I'd be willing to bet that about 98% of atheists subscribe to both these theories, going as far as to draw existential inspiration from them. Call it a deep human need for love.