The premise is that you don't need to accept a particular belief to qualify as an atheist, not that atheists don't have beliefs at all. Beliefs about what constitutes reliable evidence aren't uniquely atheist. Nothing. But atheism doesn't rely on these sayings. That is at least an attempt to show that the universe was designed for life, and I welcome that argument. However, it's easily refuted. Stenger shows that a wide variety of conditions would be suitable for life, that the constants aren't divinely set, but are an artifact of human mathematics, and that the fact of our existence presupposes conditions uniquely suited for life to arise. Basically, a puddle should never be surprised to find itself the exact shape of the cavity it's in. There could be an infinity of universes, and this just happens to be one where life is possible. Also, we can't be sure that conditions in our universe are truly universal. This could just be one region of space suitable for life. How can you be sure your experience was of something real? And by the way, when we say religion, that's shorthand for theism, Buddhists may indeed meditate themselves into an altered state, or rewire their brains or something, it doesn't presuppose a magic man.