Right...the unwillingness to even think about ideas doesn't make you just like the 'religious' people you so despise.
Incorrect. I will quite happily think about any ideas, including any creation myth you like. I've studied many of them in the past as a former classics student. Your problem is an inability to spot that people might think about your ideas and draw a different conclusion about them - that they're bunk, and no more likely than the whole thing kicking off because a Titan's blood splashed down onto the ground.
Your system of beliefs says there is no god and belief in god is bad. You say you don't care what others believe but your very presence on this thread and your insistance at defining the beliefs of others in the most demeaning way possible says your insistance is untrue.
I don't care what you believe. You can worship a pebble for all I care. Unfortunately, you're exhibiting a fairly common problem, which is to mistake people not believing in your deity for not respecting your right to do so. I've said nothing to the contrary here. However, I'm afraid to point out that you not liking what I do or don't believe in no way prevents me from debating faith-related issues. And that's what we've got here - whether or not religious beliefs should be integrated into scientific teaching. I argue 'no', and I have every bit as much right to do that as you have.
Secondly, you clearly don't understand. Athiesm is not a state of not WANTING there to be a deity, it's not BELIEVING that one exists. I doubt I'd have a problem with the idea of a benevolent God who loves the whole world, offers infinite paradise after death and is working on our behalf throughout time - I just don't believe in one any more than I believe in Buddhist reincarnation, Valhalla or the Elysian Fields.
And before you start pulling the 'belief in God is bad' schtick, I throw you 'Thou shalt have no other gods before me'. Nothing in athiesm specifically orders you to condemn it, or gives the very specific punishment of stoning to death anyone you catch trying. You'll have to hit Exodus and Deuteronomy for that.
The science stickers don't say science is bad...they say science is a collection of theories and should be considered with an open mind.
Incorrect. Much like a lot of the whole Intelligent Design movement, the science stickers are very cleverly worded attacks and instruments of misdirection. What you get are things like "Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things" and "Evolution is a controversial theory". They're strictly accurate, but misleading.
What's wrong with this? The key one is knowing full well what the average person thinks when they hear the word 'theory', as opposed to its scientific meaning. It deliberatly denigrates it as a concept, making it seem that any theory is as good as each other - something that is blatantly not the case. Moreover, the people putting the stickers on there are not doing so in an attempt to make kids more open-minded - the suggestion that teachers might give equal time to Genesis as they would to, say, Pangu, or Uranus, would make its proponents have kittens. That's the last thing they want, because their ultimate goal is that everyone learn creationism as - pardon the expression - gospel truth.
The words may say 'keep an open mind', but the part you're there to spot is 'Evolution is a controversial theory'. And it's a controversial theory because it doesn't fit in with the Bible, not because of competing scientific theories. In the science classroom, those are the ONLY ones that matter. Period. When a religious one can be comprehensively proven, fair enough, the situation may change - but right now, it can't. So long as it all kicks off with 'God did it', and replace God for any ID term you choose, and the existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven, it's philosophy and religion, not science.
And actually, I'd be all in favour of all science textbooks including a disclaimer about keeping an open mind. It's important, and often forgotten, especially when kids are being taught by rote learning. But this isn't how it should be done. It's a political aim, from a group of people who can't stand the thought that anyone might not believe in their religion*, and will fight tooth and nail to ensure that every last child is indoctrinated into it as a kid.
(* Just to clarify - I don't mean everyone who believes in ID is a nut, even if I disagree with their view of the world - I reserve my scorn strictly for the ones feeling the need to force it on everyone under the sun through any means necessary)
You may dislike the religion-based example I gave above, but to a scientist, these stickers are every bit as demeaning, patronising and offensive. That's what you don't understand, and probably never will.