A collection of religions is no different than one religion. Even christianity has a collection of similar relgions like mormonism, but they are all classified as relgions. Because they share common parts.

And while there may be many definitions of god. If they pertain to a deity then they are indeed a relgion. It is easy to dissprove deities by experimental evidence.

You then go on to describe your definition of a relgion, and try to apply that to atheism. However this is not really a proper definion, as athiesm is based on scientific evidence, and not philosophy. But, i agree with you that there are a large number of bad practicing athiests that straw man, ad hominem and appeal to authority very often.

"Who gets to set the value of God, for the test anyway??"

Almost every time there are phonomona attributed to a god, which can be analyised. If they appear at any rate above that of chance, then their claim has some validity. However, i havent heard of this happening yet.

"theism is the only sane choice, with further knowledge and exploration avilable from there." Just because you say it is, doesnt make it true.

"Atheism would require refutation of creation, or of all forms of existance (even illusionary ones)."

No, athiesm requires proof of creation, in any form. It does not need to refute the idea of a creator which, without evidence is just a hypothesis.

"Consensus agreement on belief doesn't make it any truer (or falser)" True.

"and all tests must be done in context to the Information under examination."

The information in this case, is a hypothesis. In good science, there is allways a null hypothesis explaining the oppoiste. The experiment then answeres both of them.

"All atheist arguments re: god seem to rotate around a strawman assumption of God… And then they go on to build a Jengo of arguments and assumptions to prove their beliefs are correct”

Most often they use the claims made by the religious themselves, and their books.

A good atheist or scientist, has no beliefs, but only evidence. And lack of evidence in favour of a religion weakens the credibility of the person or the book.