Yes, you have the Ian Mather centric idea of Atheism down pat. But wait!! There are millions of Atheists out there (As Little Hawk pointed out) Who are not Ian Mather and who may have different points of view.

Kant, in his atheism, (as Bill D, whose posts you "couldn't be arsed" to read apparently,posted on this thread) felt the need to come up with non-religious definitions and sources of morality.   

Ayn Rand rejected all ethics other than self interest.

Nietzsche was poetic about it, basically replacing the worship of a god? or gods with what? Self worship for those worthy of worshiping themselves?

Marx said religion was the "opiate of the masses." Obviously his views were along the lines of "improving" society by substituting another "opiate"

"By Frans de Waal" tries to explain ethics and altruism in terms of primate behavior rather than as a gift on a stone tablet.

All of these are philosophies, of Atheists used to explain or dismiss conventional religion and/or religious values. These people do not fit your idea of what and Atheist is. There are or were actively trying to frame the debate about what it means to be religious.

And all you can do is mock and taunt. I've said this before Musket. I don't care what you think about me I don't care what you and your little friends say in PMs. It is sad that you have nothing better to do than to talk about me. You are rude and you don't put much intelligent thought into what you say. Worst of all, you don't pay attention to what others say. There would be more satisfaction in talking with a parrot trained to say five or six Dawkins memes

"Arwak!!! religious education is child abuse." "Awrak! Its OK to teach your kids to lie if it means they get a "good" education. Arwak!!