There is no evidence that the world is other than just "is" and using the term, "God," injects an element not evident in a proveable way. However unconsciously intended, it's still anthropomorphism.
Actually I agree with you with respect to this statement.
However, have you considered how the world came to be? Science cannot answer that question at all. The conventional physicist's answer to the question of from what did the world or cosmos come, or in respect to a conventional model. 'what preceeded the big bang?' is to deny the validity of the question - i.e. there is, by definition, no "before" because there was no matter or space ... or time. The common metaphor here is to say asking that question is like asking what is north of the North pole.
While this may well be a satisfactory or even necessary answer with respect to the basic postulates of standard physics, it is an entirely unsatisfactory evasion in the perspective of philosophy in which no object event or thing can be its own cause.
The conundrum is that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of god or a creator with human reason and science. But if one restricts himself to physics he must then accept that the question of the origin of the world is not even allowed, much less answered.
Despite this even the self proclaimed atheists here are fairly uniform in affirming a certain ethical view of life and certain transcendental principles that should govern it. These are often openly based on materialistic values - as Thomas has articulated on several occasions. Why do they do so? One can indeed make a good case for the proposition advocated by writers and philosophers from Nietzsche to Dostoevsky that "without god, everything is permitted" (Dostoevsky) or "Morality is merely the herd instinct of the individual" (Nietzsche). The truth is such materialistic foundations for ethics can (and have) rationalized terrible deeds for some distant collective benefit or good - the starvation of three million Ukranian pesants to hasten the collectivization of farms and the assumed virtues of the socialist state; the slaughter of 10-20 million landowners for similar reasons in post WWII China; etc. At least the many examples of religious intolerance, persecution, and war were accompanied by clear hypocrisy on the part of the evil doers. While they were able to rationalize their deeds by selective interpretation of their doctrines, they were usually clearly violating other fundamental principles.
What gives the nice atheists of A2k their appetite for ethics or morality? In their worldviews, on what transcendental principles can it possibly be based? What is the logical foundation for Msolga's insistent defense of whales? I'm not trying to belittle their motives or intent - only to ask on what it is based.
I believe the answer is that it reflects some enduring human appetitites affecting us all equally that themselves suggest (but don't prove) something beyond the material world - or at least something in human nature that seeks it. This, of course could be rationalized as ther product of fairly common social conditioning, however, its persistence suggests otherwise.
In any event such certainty about 'no god' is not any more possible than certainty about 'yes god", and, in addition, it involves both the denial of fairly obvious questions ("where did the universe come from") and disconnects with common elements of human nature. All together a somewhat greater leap of faith - that is unless you simply decline to think about it at all.