Yes, but what sort of atheist? As a science maven and empiricist, it seems foolhardy to claim epistemologically that we KNOW God doesn't exist. Agnostic atheism seems like the sensible choice.
"and what comprises the rest? — the rest is a mystery.
"I cannot see the relevance — My reply did not address your points about [agnostic] atheism. I wanted to point out that [i]you[/i] and me and user "[i]RevolutionaryDoctor[/i]" exist on different levels, and only one of these levels is explained by science. (Not that I would believe scientific results are wrong!) "Either something can be accounted for by using laboratory equipment, or it does not exist" is [i]not[/i] a result of scientific research, but part of a narrow belief system.
@helenS and so we have subjective experience, and no compelling necessity to make postulations beyond that
We should not bounce back and forth between Epistemology and Ontology here. While terms such as 'belief system' may have relevance in Epistemology (I assume), science is inherently ontological, and comprises a set of methods (those methods being the best way we have to keep from fooling others and, more importantly, to keep from fooling ourselves... the easiest to fool).
As someone said to me, you're entitled to your own beliefs, but you're not entitled to your own facts... and that is the distinction we perhaps need to maintain here.