Until you can give substantial evidence in favor of your god, a timeless, omnipotent, omniscience, and omni-benevolent being will continue to be a substantially extraordinary claim you pulled out of your ass. Heck, I don't see, or notice, any gods on my daily basis.
Second, something cannot come from nothing as the mere definition of philosophical nothing negates the possibility of any thing coming from it without me saying, "Hey, that wasn't nothing, it was something because something came from it, it just acted like it had no known properties." It is an illogical concept that has no baring on our own physical reality due to its contradictory and ill defined ways. Even talking about nothing implies it is something when it really isn't. How can this concept be in anyway meaningful in reality?
This is not true. If we took two waves that are 180 degrees out phase they will cancel. The result of this wave addition is no wave or nothing. Look up wave addition. If we placed a partition, in the stillness of no apparent waves, two waves will appear from the nothing. The partition has to be of a substance that is different from the medium of the waves.
We live in space-time, therefore the partition needed to make our modern universe, from nothing, would need to come from something, other than from space-time. Characteristics like eternal and omnipresent come to mind as partition solutions, since these attributes are not possible in space-time, and therefore would be a possible partition.
Beyond that, not all religions worship deities. Buddhism is a good example. Buddha found a path leading toward enlightenment. This is called a religion, even though it has no deities connected to his method. There something more fundamental, behind religion, which allows both options; deity and non deity based, to be both called religions. Both come from the same places in the brain.
Atheism is a religion, in the image of Buddhism. Atheism, like Buddhism is not centered on deities, but both have methods leading to enlightenment. Instead of deep medication to discover the inner self, the atheist is more shallow for the ego, with the method based on science and reason. The Age of Enlightenment, in science, was about science seeking logical and natural explanation for nature, apart from the older approaches of science, like alchemy and astrology.
These new rational explanations started out being worshipped like gods in their day; theory that was thought to be universal and infallible. But as time goes on, new data makes these pillars of the method, obsolete; fallible and limited. Then new gods or pillars are born, infallible; rational polytheism.
If I was to insult the big bang theory or evolution, this will be heresy to many of the atheists. I have been excommunicated, many times, for challenging these pillar of their methods for enlightenment. That is not being rational. Because of emotions, when in their churches; science forums, one needs to respect their customs and their gods/pillars, which are thought to be infallible and universal; omnipresent and omniscience laws of nature.
A true non-religious person, in the sense of not worshipping infallible theoretical deities, is someone who can challenge these gods/pillars. The nature of atheism are their gods, which are not called gods, but which assumed infallible like a god, wear out over time, since they are not real gods. They are also not real pillars that can even lead to enlightenment since they will change, while enlightenment is a final state.