tell that to the fanatics that keep strapping bombs to their azzes and blowing up public places...

Religious affiliation could be no greater descriptor of violence than eye colour.

What you require is a person in a position to willingly perform violence, secondarily comes their eye colour and affiliations.
Anthropologist Society of America statement of Ethical conduct (on their website): "Correlation does not infer causation."

Treat others as you would have them treat you. That's the religion. It need not go any further than that.

Problem is some people like to fight & that's the way they want to be treated. They want to live with a constant physical threat surrounding them at all times. Or, they want to look like the constant savior to others.

Neither is reality. There's always someone bigger & badder than you. And you can't save all the people all the time. We have to keep our ego in check & understand we are not everyone else's answers. Freewill dictates not all want our help & some get offended when it is offered as the "only" way. Free-will for you & me with respect to all.

Still, people believe what they need to in order to keep themselves civil. I'm not the guy who's going to take someone's rope to sanity away.

A web-friend from another site is a theoretical physicist at IBM and he's told me outright he's religious. He just interprets his belief through science and humanism and considers all the religious mythology to be allegorical, but perfectly reasonable if interpreted honourably.

Strictly speaking the Scientific Method itself is by definition agnostic. This begins and ends with the very first rule of scientific method: all hypotheses, extrapolation and theorum are falsifiable.
There's even math for the fact no fact is a fact, even though it is.

The statement "scientifically atheist" is non-sequiteur, it is meaningless and claimant presenting pseudoscientific opinion, rather.