Again, I don't see what Secular Humanism has to do with anything at hand here.
His definition of Atheism is closer to the philosophy held by Secularist at the very least. Secular Humanism being the most common form of Secular Philosophy.
Something that's very important to remember about atheism is that it isn't a religion or set of beliefs.
Of course. It's the absence of belief. It's the Zero of religion. The problem is that Atheists (Atheists who give a crap) also have a guiding moral philosophy as well. Which is, in effect, a set of "beliefs" usually ascribing to moral behavior or the meaning of existence.
And because of the nature of the article, the author is assuming that all Atheists are Secularists (Crowlian Satanists get no love, I tell ya!). Ergo, I'm clarifying on behalf of the author who is misinformed.
Finally Both Writer and Author clearly do not have an understanding of either skepticism, secularism or the Scientific Method. Otherwise, it would have been more heavily incorporated into their respective works.
As someone who's actually though about "How would science look at 'actual' dieties" long and hard, I do have an answer for that.