SharThat's unfortunately fallacious... Sorry but it doesn't work in this instance. You see (and this applies to TNT as well), you start off by defining what the "celestial" being is. It just doesn't work, you're both attempting to use logic to reason out an area where you just don't have the data, even your conception of "laws" of quantum physics falls down because what we know of these things changes over the years, they're not as immutable as you'd tend to believe. Besides, why wouldn't a divine being function within the laws of the physical universe? It doesn't have to be a magical creator monster lol! that's simply your conception (off the top of your head) of what a "god" should be. Using what you both know of the world you already set the idea up to fail. Not too clever really.
Well although there is no scientific proof against the existence of divine or mystical beings overall there is within science certain laws of nature that theese beings would brake.
And since we use science to describe the world today they cannot exist within the parameter. One such example would be the law that energy cannot be created or destroyed which celestial powers would breake if they were to create something from nothing.
But that's irrelevant! I don't want to go over old sodden ground like this, you won't turn me into the defender of crazy religion against rational science. lol! No thanks. ^_^
What Shar said about a social dimension is interesting, but it's still defining yourself very strongly in relation to other things. Sure, you have to define yourself and beliefs that way to an extent, I understand that, but in the end it still seems like religion is mostly defining your Atheism. And it really sounds to me like what you're talking about isn't essentially Atheism but Humanism. Atheist Humanism to be sure, but mainly Humanism, which is a bit of a different subject...