You are clearly very, very young, i am an atheist too, but i am not on peoples faces about their believes, the question is why? simple, because i know better than that, and because i know the difference between religiosity and fanaticism, and because i know that the world religion goes beyond the notions of judeo-christianity, with that said i also known about the impediments of reality and limitations of reason, and it will help you a lot for you to start advancing in this path without becoming an obnoxious person.

Here have some interesting topics that will help you:

Baruch Spinoza, The Ethics, and his pantheism, which is essence the universe itself.

David Hume, the first part of ‎A Treatise of Human Nature, this book destroys everything you hold as true, including science, which is fundamental, if you want to understand science you have to deconstruct science, really i consider that just reading ‎A Treatise of Human Nature, can help you to skip most of this list, of course there is a huge problem of Hume, and is that he still believes on the liberal idea of individualism, but for that we have Karl Marx, well Hume was an aristocrat after all.

Immanuel Kant, this is the hard cookie of the lot, but an important one, Critique of Pure and practical reason.

Karl Popper, Falsifiability, Critical rationalism.

Karl Marx (and Engels by extension), this guy is actually easy to understand if you read his books directly from him, even if you don't believe on Marxism, his "Theses on Feuerbach" and "Capital: Critique of Political Economy" should be mandatory to understand how the world is, and while we are at that of course read "The Communist Manifesto".

Nietzsche, this guy is just like Kant, a hard read, and his also like Karl meaning that misinterpretations are easily encountered, plus his way of writing is a pain in the everything, but he has to be mentioned, from him "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", the rest of his work is a disorganized mess made of cards and posthumous fragments.

Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, The Religion of India: The Sociology of Hinduism and Buddhism, The Religion of China: Confucianism and Taoism.

Ludwig Wittgenstein, Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (funny thing with this guy, and is that despite all, he still keeps the concept of god, indeed he is deeply religious, even if it is clear that, god is one of those things that we should remain silent about, since after all, just as Hume showed us, there is no perception of god, thus there is no evidence for it, and thus we should not talk about it, an irony almost hypocritical that such a critical thinker of scientist, was not a critic of religion, however in principle despite all of this, his book still holds validity).

Michel Foucault, The Order of Things: An Archaeology of the Human Sciences, The Archaeology of Knowledge, Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, and in essence articles on the Genealogy of power.

Well if you do that you will be one step closer to being an atheist that goes beyond an attitude, and actually can hold an argument, and argument that goes beyond the really simple and miss-oriented notion of "bad" things done in the name of god. Being an atheist goes further than that, it is questioning the very notion of metaphysical existences! but it doesn't has to end there, if we are to start walking a path of conscious reasoning and thought, we shall question the foundations of reality (science/philosophy), of knowledge, conciseness, free will (epistemology, psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, etc), of culture, society and the mind and lives of others (sociology), of good an evil, and if such things even exist and why we consider them thus?(ethics/ aesthetics/ art).

By the moment you get midway on this road, don't be surprised if you find yourself with pure chaos, no free will, no consciousness, no knowledge, no morals, no creed, just an ever changing world, and a struggle between randomness and probability (which means no destiny), and thus no purposes just existence, i say existence because by the moment you get here there wont be identity, there wont be being, there wont be immutability, just a "becoming", which means of course a world without 100% certainty, and that is fine, that is what science is about, demonstrating things as they are, and maybe get to say how they will be, if things change, and they do, then science changes with them, and this is a necessity, if this didn't happen, we wouldn't have Newtonian laws of physics thanks to the Copernican Revolution, or Einsteinian physics, or quantum mechanics, or string theory, none of that, and more change will come we still don't know what is dark matter, or dark energy, or if gravitations even exist, and what if gravity wasn't the weakest of the 4 fundamental forces but was part of dark matter all along? what if constant was not really a constant? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141118072744.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily+%28Latest+Science+News+--+ScienceDaily%29 the answer is yes, but not.

The point is that there is no such thing as 100% true, there is only an approximation of what we can understand at the moment, and that is the nice thing of it, admitting that there are things that we don't know, but we plan on knowing, thinking otherwise is fanaticism and will make you as censurable as any other religious fanatic, but in this case science would be your dogma.

I don't blame you, humans need to hold onto something, weak beings, afraid and impotent will lie to themselves seeking security, into something that they can hold as ultimately true, and from this fear of uncertainty, things that blind us will appear, god, destiny, purpose, or a never changing science, all of them just mere constructs which only use is to distract you from the ever present question in the back of your mind, is this reality real? but that doesn't matter, even if is a dream, simulation or illusion, this is all you have, nothing more, so worry only about the things you have access to, even if there is a chance that they are all just fake, following Wittgenstein words, "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.".

TL:DR Read just these 2 things:

1st David Hume's A Treatise of Human Nature, it would be hard without a context of what it was going on at the time with empiricism (Locke and Berkeley), but he explains himself well enough (talking about empiricism give that word a search, well if you search about Popper it is even better).

2nd An Introduction to Contemporary Epistemology. by J. Dancy, why this? well because it does a pretty good job explaining skepticism (look that one up) which appears on the first chapter of the book.

Why you waste time hating religious people? How many % of your time did it take? What about future manufacturing instead?

If religion doesn't work, it's enough ignoring them. Religions still there? Rethink. Maybe science is not an alternative, maybe there is no mutual exclusion. You just can't convince people to stop believing, but you can convince most of them to stop fighting science no matter if they believe. The lights are good.

Anyways, about the drawing, I didn't really get why the ashes stay floating in the air. I would have put them in a row without break with the burning and the not yet burnt cross to make the storyline more visible.