My take (at the moment) is that Atheism addresses the question of whether there's evidence for a supernatural deity that demands our worship and will punish us if we don't give it. Atheism at a minimum comes down on the side that there is no evidence for such a deity. It doesn't address the question of whether our present understanding of physics and cosmology is sufficient to explain everything.Now that I'll pretty much agree with. The concept of "a supernatural deity that demands our worship" is nothing but a tool of authoritarianism and there is no evidence whatever for such a deity.
Those who worship such a deity fare no better than those who don't - in fact they seem to fare rather worse - though that is partially attributable to those doing worse trying to find an easy way out. In some cases I think such worship is a major contributing factor to being worse off, and I point my finger at Islam.
That a God would have any use for worship seems rather unlikely - unless that God is a consensus construct of human minds and requires that worship for sustenance - or even existence - but would such an entity be a true god? I think not.
On the other hand such a God could serve well as a mascot and guide for the cohesion of the culture that created Him. In that way He could be useful, but to consider him all-powerful and unchangeable would be wrong. This is how I tend to view the God of the Christians, and other God focused religions.
Is there a higher form of God, one (or more) to whom human worship is irrelevant? Some say there is, others say there isn't - it depends on what kind of evidence you want to accept. Certainly science cannot prove there is, nor can it prove there isn't.
So with the vengeful God theory statistically eliminated, and any higher form unproven, what is a reasonable person to do?
I say to to operate within the structure of the larger human society, but keep your mind open and an eye peeled for evidence. Human knowledge is constantly expanding and ascribing limits to it (or to reality) is counterproductive.
Many atheists simply deny the possibility of anything beyond what is known to science today and think themselves superior to others for that denial - and do not shrink from saying so. Those atheists are annoying.
And Silverlock's signature is wrong. One must operate within some cosmology, some conception of reality, and given the limited range of our knowledge and lack of anything resembling a proof, any such concept counts as a religion.