With regards to your "leanings", we get a lot of theists posing as researchers or authors who are basically looking for a way to evangelize, or even simply troll. Your use-name could mean "atheist-who-researches" or "one-who-researches-atheists". The latter is ambiguous.
This. Although it appears to be the former.
I am curious about your research though... Wouldn't one simply research decision making? Does studying religion's influence on decision making not supply a bias right from the start?
Ah, ok. Well, I've just always identified as an atheist (once I realized there was such a thing). It's never been super important to me, but I've always been fascinated by religion, religious history, and the bible. I grew up Christian (Church of Christ) with strong interests in the sciences and realized my questions would never be answered by a preacher.
I admit: atheist_researcher is kind of a dumb name. My WoW characters have cooler names.
Decision making is more interesting when you find a group of people that reason very differently about problems and I think that, for religious people, the reasoning performance we see on simple logic problems bleeds out into other areas.
Some theorists have posited that there are these 'cognitive mechanisms' that are necessary to believe in gods (see Baumard & Boyer, below). Everyone has them (atheists included) but religious people are more likely to rely on them (or non-religious people are more likely to override them). Considering the fundamental nature of these mechanisms, we're really looking at how a certain range of cognitive abilities, endemic to religious belief, influences reasoning rather than just 'reasoning in an of itself' in the Kahneman-esque sense.
It's easy to think that, because I have an opinion (a hypothesis, really) that my research will be biased. It may also sound like the questions I ask are biased because I'm interested in, for example, how religion (or the cognitive mechanisms responsible for religion) interferes with proper reasoning. The bias really comes down to how I design my studies, not the questions I ask. What one usually means by "biased research" is "fake research" or "drawing incorrect conclusions" or something like that. I can't very well wish really hard that something were true- the data has to actually show it, and to get it published I have to have a reasonable study with reasonable conclusions, and it has to be replicable.
The fact of the matter is that we find consistent relationships between religion and reasoning ability (IQ) preference (intuitions) and the types of information that people seek out (religious people are less scientifically inclined). These types of findings are really consistent so it's not like it can really be biased.
Here's some experimental evidence you might find interesting:
Shenhav, A., Rand, D. G., & Greene, J. D. (2012). Divine intuition: cognitive style influences belief in God. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(3), 423.
Gervais, W. M., & Norenzayan, A. (2012). Analytic thinking promotes religious disbelief. Science, 336(6080), 493-496.
Zuckerman, M., Silberman, J., & Hall, J. A. (2013). The relation between intelligence and religiosity a meta-analysis and some proposed explanations. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1088868313497266.
And a theoretical paper:
Baumard, N., & Boyer, P. (2013). Explaining moral religions. Trends in cognitive sciences, 17(6), 272-280.
There's more, but just look on google scholar to see who's cited those papers. Or better yet, read them and see some of the older research they cite!