Atheism Is Not The Null Hypothesis

I briefly covered my dismay at the phrase 'atheism is the null hypothesis' before, but I've decided to give it a brief revisit.

The null hypothesis is a term used in science to help weed out parts of theories that can be shaved by Ockam's Razor. When performing a scientific test, the null hypothesis refers to a specific variable that you can assume is not necessary to the success of the test. If it was removed, the test would work as well as it does when it is present. So when it comes to describing the test and its method, you needn't even mention the variable, because it has no effect whatsoever.

This is how atheists feel about the universe and God. They see atheism as the null hypothesis, with God as the useless variable, because they see that the universe runs just fine without him.

But isn't that quite clearly concluding atheism based on the presupposition of atheism? Yes. Yes it is.

"What's more damaging"? Science or Religion Meme

Stop! The stupid! It hurts! HAHAHA. Actually it's pretty funny...

Don't you love it when people try to make out there's a conflict between science and religion? Like only one can be true and the other can't? I'm gonna put science in quote marks because this clearly is not a representation of the real thing.

I kind of get where they're coming from with the religion side. We are fallen beings, we are flawed. None of us are perfect. We all have weaknesses. We all make mistakes and do silly things. To say otherwise is called arrogance or pride. Which is something the Bible is very much against.
Christianity teaches us to be humble - to recognise our limits and try to make ourselves better. Yes that means realising that we are broken, flawed, and sinful, but that's the first step to fixing and redeeming ourselves for a greater good. Someone explain to me what's wrong with that?