A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the origin or nature of the universe

Let's go through this piece by piece.

A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the origin or nature of the universe,

Is it? So thinking "the nature of the universe includes that it's mostly matter instead of antimatter" suddenly thrusts me into a religion? 

... so if you think about it atheism is a religion due to the fact that they say there is no God/ god....

See, it almost looks like you might have copy/pasted from dictionary.com: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe," but you would then have left out the rest of that definition - "especially when considered as the creation of superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." - which atheism by itself doesn't apply.

I have thought about it. That's why I reject the assertion. You can't ignore 75% of the qualifiers to "cook the books" in your favor. Not with any credibility, anyway.

I noticed you didn't choose the "the life or state of a monk, nun, etc." definition to try to make your point, otherwise, it wouldn't have worked. It's convenient to be able to cherry pick what definitions you want to apply. Unless you allow me to devise and impose a definition of "Christianity" on self-described Christians, I'll ask you to respect atheists' usage of the term... you know, the people who are using and living it.

Dictionaries merely describe usage. If enough people use the word "atheist" to describe a cream-filled pastry, that'll appear alongside the other definitions soon enough. They don't dictate meanings. They record them.

The atheist usage is basically "theists assert that one or more gods exist. I don't believe the claim." Not believing in religion doesn't suddenly make you religious. Going further, even positively believing there are no gods, doesn't make you religious. It'd be literally impossible to not be religious, if that were the case. 

Not playing baseball doesn't make you a baseball player. That's not how it works. You don't get to suddenly redefine "baseball player" as "having a position on playing baseball", just to try to shoehorn your argument.

... therefore stating the beliefs concerning the origin or nature of the universe.

The only "belief" here is that the theist hasn't adequately supported their claims. That does not a religion make.

The Bible says that God’s existence can be seen through his creation.

This carries no weight with us. 

For example, if you have a car and I say it has no creator because I never saw or met the maker of the car therefore there must not be one is a stupid and irrelevant answer, considering the fact that the car is in plain view and was clearly made by a smart and creative person.

The problem with choosing a car as an example, is that we struggle to remember where our knowledge came from. We're too mired in a world where we're saturated with information about cars, how they're made, where they come from, etc. It's only "clear" or obvious because you're already extremely familiar with them. If we chose unnamed-item XYZ, and then could do a 20-questions-style analysis of its attributes, that obviousness would dissolve away. 

Someone who has no prior knowledge of Pyrite crystals (above), or beaver dams, may pass by a beaver dam, thinking it wasn't crafted by an intelligence, and then look at the precise geometric patterns of Pyrite, and thinking they are - being wrong on both counts.

Your description here misrepresents how we actually go about this. We don't start with the assertion that a car doesn't (or does) have a creator. We start, on all claims, with "I don't know", and when we come across evidence and data, we can then demonstrate that they do (or don't). We may come across unusual objects that we've never encountered before, and not initially know whether they're natural or artificial. That happens. 

It's not like we can look at a car, and just... tell that it's intelligently designed, as though it was some kind of 6th sense. We already know that they are, because we've seen the factories. We've seen the blueprints, and we're very familiar with human design patterns. We're introduced to this information from such an early age, that we're don't even remember when.

Have you ever heard the phrase "hindsight is 20/20 vision"? This happens very often... once we realize something, it suddenly seems obvious to us in retrospect. Has this never happened to you? "Obviousness" is often a bias to the familiar.

The instant that you correct for common psychological errors, this magical ability to "just tell", vanishes.

To date, we have no good evidence, let alone building a preponderance of evidence to make the case, that leads us to rationally accepting that the universe, or even humans, have a creator. 

Even then, according to you, we don't actually have any non-designed... anything... as an example to make any comparison. Even existence itself is crafted (if you want to consider the universe "existence" as we know it). So how would we even begin a process of compare-and-contrast of designed vs. non-designed things?

So why say that the earth and everything has no creator because we never saw Him make it.

Because we don't say that. Not exactly. It partially depends on whether the formation of XYZ was observed. If it was, and cause-ABC wasn't observed as being involved, it's rational to conclude that it wasn't. If I watch someone bake a cake, and no dragons manifest and become involved, I'm correct in concluding that no dragons were involved in making the cake. This is basic logic.

In Earth's case, obviously we weren't present to do that direct observation. Instead we have to follow the evidence - indirect observation. We take a more inclusionary approach, where we start with "I don't know", and include possibilities that are reasonably indicated by the available evidence, and further vet them in an iterative process of hypothesis-testing, falsification, and additional observations.

1. Hmm... we seem to have this "planet" thing we're living on. 
2. Currently, we don't know how it came to be.
3. *collects some data and observes some astronomy*
4. We're seeing other celestial bodies in different states of dust-disks balling up into planet-sized chunks. Could that have been Earth's past?
5. *includes accretion discs as a possible answer, due to available positively-supporting evidence*
6. Let's do some hypothesis-testing to see whether this holds up.
7. *does hypothesis-testing and falsification reviews*
8. Hey! It's holding up! Earth has these signatures for this type of formation. We're now reasonably confident that this is a good explanation for Earth.

The reason God didn't come up, is because - at no point - was there any good reason for it to. Nor did any data come up that suggested that the Earth formed from a collection of Wookies, planet-pooping mega-creatures, or even something more mundane, such as the Earth simply always having existed for an eternity. We didn't start with any of those excluded. They just never came up, because the supporting evidence never indicated them.

Or put more succinctly,

• We wouldn't say "We believe XYZ wasn't caused by A, because we didn't observe it".
• We would say "We believe XYZ was caused by B, because we observed it" (setting aside the nuances of indirect observations, hypothesis testing, falsification and peer review)

... because if we took the exclusionary approach of assuming XYZ doesn't explain a thing, that list of things we're excluding would be infinitely long. That's a bad approach. Your god assertion doesn't hold a special, privileged position in that list. It's just yet another alongside hundreds of thousands of others which also have no real evidentiary backing. The distinction between the two is subtle, but important, in terms of fundamentally how we're approaching investigating anything.

You cannot say that an atom and finger print of a person is not creative.

Why not? In fact, I'd say neither atoms nor finger prints are creative. Are you working off some another strange definition of "creative" that I'm not aware of? If you were finger-painting, I'd say that's creative, but just a finger print by itself? 

Clearly there was some thought put into the creation of man and woman along with everything else in this world.

And I think it's clear that they weren't.. that they are the products of an unintelligent, non-purposeful evolutionary phenomena, because that's where the evidence leads us.

Now, how do we resolve which one of us is right (if either)?

Hint: Evidence.

So you see, there is evidence of a creator. All that it takes for a person to see it is for them to take their hands off there eyes and look

What? Where? Did you mention any? All I got was "it's obvious". Are you seriously positing that "it's obvious" is evidence? Do you know what evidence is? Here, this article does a decent introduction.

Not everything counts as evidence. Evidence isn't merely "that which is consistent with my claim". It's not too dissimilar to court cases. Data has to meet certain minimum quality benchmarks before it can be admissible. If you went into court and said "The evidence that Mr. Smith is the murderer is that... clearly he is! Open your eyes man!" , you'd be laughed out of the room, or go out of business as a lawyer.

 

The next time an atheist groans when you start making arguments, consider that the above is the level of caliber we receive on a regular basis. There's... nothing here. It starts off with imposing some convenient-yet-pointless definition engineering trying to strong-arm atheism into being a religion, made strawman arguments as to how atheist and scientists approach epistemology, and ends with essentially "the evidence is that it's obvious".