Babylon Candle, don't take this personally, but your arguments have become a complete farce. You're so stuck up on the notion of religion being 100% superstition, that you're ignoring the obviously more fair-minded viewpoints on the issue.
I already cited St. Thomas Aquinas' distinction between superstition and religion:
"Superstition sins by excess of religion, and this differs from the vice of irreligion, which sins by defect. The theological virtue of religion stands midway between the two."
Now what exactly is your problem is this kind of definition is anybody's guess; other than you have a pathological hatred for religion. Aquinas' definition certainly works for a study like the OP mentions to study the superstitious beliefs of atheists and religious. It doesn't slant the study in favor of either side.
Your definition of superstition by default gives the upper hand to the atheists, just like a study trying to show that evangelicals are more religious than atheists - duh!
In fact none of the sources I've cited have argued that religion and superstition are mutually exclusive. In fact Thomas Aquinas above just admitted there is a connection between the two, but they're not the same. One is a proper attitude towards God, another isn't.
By the same logic, GK Chesterton later noted that a heresy is not an untruth but an exaggerated truth. I also posted
Pope Benedict's remarks that a belief in mystery does not mean one can believe in any old nonsense. One has to keep their belief in the mysterious within reasonable bounds - or else you're actually misusing the concept of faith and the mysterious.
Your response to the Pope's remarks were largely just dismissive, which exposed your lack of knowledge of Catholic teaching and your understanding of what the Pope or anybody else was even arguing.
I can even cite noted skeptic commentator Joe Nickell, whose done much investigative work debunking claims of miracles and superstitions. Yet even he maintains there's a difference between these claims and religious belief itself.
You've more than once overtly admitted to not being open to hearing anyother viewpoints. To you, religion is superstition - end of story. You even selectively cite source like Wikipedia to achieve this end, even though wikipedia admits that the relationship between religion and superstions is more complex - and that only in the viewpoints of outsiders can religion in toto be considered superstition.
So even by your own source's arguments, you represent a rather narrow and extreme position on the issue. If you wish to go that way, so be it.
I'll let Pope John Paul II summ up my side's argument:
"Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes."
So yes, superstition is a erroneous belief in the divine and the mysterious, and must be purged to keep religion pure. And one major way one guards against such erroneous beliefs is the use of reason, which was given to us by God. So faith and reason are both good when used properly.
You can't even be fair-minded enough to admit that, or at least acknowledge its distinction from more superstitious beliefs? For goodness sakes, I don't take kindly to Joe Nickell's hatchet jobs on many aspects of the Catholic faith, yet I still admit the honesty of his position described above.
In contra to faith you insist upon reason, yet ironically you insist upon it in an irrational fashion.
If you're going to maintain that attitude, then frankly there's no point in further discussion. Whatever I present will just be dismissed without serious consideration.
I bid you good night!