This is a little late but atheism is somewhat of an unfair label. Since most people are theists, it is easier to define yourself in terms of what you are not.
I could go walking around saying I am an evidentist meaning I only believe in things there are evidence for, but then someone would say "oh you are an atheist." And I would have to agree since atheist means a person who does not believe there is god. That is different than saying "I believe to not believe there is god." I am not claiming to have evidence that there is no god. I am saying, no evidence therefore no god.
There is also a strict logical definition of who should be proving what. Logically, you always must prove a positive statement such as something existing or not. In some ways our courts are the same, the court must prove there was a crime committed else, there was no crime. Likewise, the logical burden of proof for god's existence is on the believers, not the naysayers. Thus, to the teapot example, atheists take LOGIC into account.
Furthermore, having god doesn't really predict anything testable so just on those grounds I find it mostly useless. It predicts a lot of stuff about things after you are dead, which doesn't really interest me because I am living now. As for it uniting large groups of people under a common banner, this is nice and certainly served a much greater purpose in the past than it does now. Currently, our global integration is so vast that communities don't need to be localized physically as they once needed to be. Larger global issues like global warming, poverty, genetic engineering, and over population (just to name some) can serve as a uniting principle for making a large group of individuals function more cohesively as a unit.
There are actually a lot more atheists than you would think Ironman. In fact, 1/4 of China's population is atheist, which is roughly 1/16 of the world and that is just China.
I also think most people who are agnostics, either have not taken much time to look at the evidence/lack of evidence OR they have the evidence but like being politically correct so they just say they haven't decided.
Also, believers tend to meddle in things which they should meddle in, but for all the wrong reasons. I think it is fundamentally bad for society, when we stop researching treatments because some group of people think we are tampering with god's work, when there are other groups who don't even think this god of theirs is real but nonetheless have to live without the best treatments available.
I personally, would not mind so much if the meaning of god shifted to something more reasonable, like collective human experience, or the idea that physical laws are a certain way for no reason.
For instance, it is very likely that we will never know why physics has the laws that it does, whatever those may ultimately be, so there is something we must accept as being "just the way it is". Unlike god however, this acceptance unveils all knowledge of the rest of the universe by predicting anything we apply the equations too.
If god took on a similar role in defining some underlying human tendency or conditions such as primal capacity for love/fear/greed/altruism and people were comfortable delving into the details when needed then that would be instructive.
Finally, I firmly believe that most religious canon is based on human needs in terms of survival. Christians know that in order for "them" to survive, they must reject others beliefts, same for Islam and many other religions out there. This is evolution folks, to not eliminate the competitors is to eliminate yourself. Other stories in such "sacred texts" are often testaments to what humanity is most afraid/proud of. Many of them would be good to understand better today. We knew long ago that we could impact the planet like no other species and that gave us the so often reflected sense of being special, and at the same time seeded terror in our minds of power gone wrong. I would infer that heaven and hell are what the human mind forecasts as the two extremes of human impact on Earth at some time in the future. Certainly it is advantageous to warn against one and support the other if we want to live a certain way.
Ultimately, if you would like to say god made the beginning of the universe, that might be ok unless we find something that says otherwise and then god could be the one who started some cyclical process. Personally, these seem like attempts to reconcile how we always see something start and finish or can infer a start and finish if we didn't see it. This may simply not apply and then the universe could "just be" but that would go against common experience.
For people who think the universe needs some such explanation, I then wonder why you need to explain that, when you don't need to explain the origin of your god. It seems like you could just call the universe god and then the atheists and the theists would think the same thing. It is almost as though we differ only in that the theists accept intelligence coming from nowhere, and we accept a set of predictive equations coming from nowhere.
Finally, to those who think god guided evolution to make humans, that would more or less make god equivalent to randomness and cumulative selection theory which are perfectly understood. So god could act perfectly random and in exact accordance with survival of the fittest or not at all. When given the choice, is it merely the need to feel a divine connection to affirm his action?
I think we should continue learning from past religious people who had great success but continually question whether those success stories were associated with god or just being connected some other way.