What Blessings of Atheism?

On January 5, 2012 in the NY Times there was an opinion piece called "The Blessings of Atheism." In a nutshell, the writer explains the origin of his atheism and calls for atheists to be more active in representing themselves.

Among the problems I have with his position is the idea that, since we can't explain why God would "do that [bad thing]," there must not be a God. First, I'm not willing to blame God for polio, the Newtown shootings, or my bout with cancer. Biblical teaching gives alternate explanations that make sense to me. Second, even if I did lay the blame with God and His reasons, I don't understand why I should think that God should be fully understood and comprehended by me. God, even by the definition of most non-Christian religions, is infinite. His wisdom is as well. Why should I think that I, as a finite person, should be able to comprehend His reasons in every case?

I appreciate that the writer does not want "to deny religious believers the comfort of their faith" but wants his "fellow citizens to respect our deeply held conviction that the absence of an afterlife lends a greater, not a lesser, moral importance to our actions on earth." But without the standard of an infinitely good/moral/holy God, what is there to base moral good on? It reminds me of the old C. S. Lewis quip from Mere Christianity about the woman who doesn't care if there's a shortage of bread because she only eats toast.

While the article may not be useful as an illustration, it does reflect where many people are in their thinking when it comes to tragedy.