There is value, for atheists, in considering "the corpse of God":
- What has replaced God in our thinking, and what is the range of options?
- How could we have gotten there without thinking about God/gods?
- If we really couldn't or wouldn't, what does that say about important structures in our thought?
- To what degree is our attachment to those things based upon the same needs/characteristics of our thought that were dependent upon God
- To what degree is our objection to other thoughts/practices based upon our rejection of God. (Anything nonexistent should be irrelevant, not decisive.)
Neitsche gives us a start, but strangely, the people I think do this best, are people who are trying to put together another religion or reform their own. Starhawk's analysis of God the King is moving and seems useful. The crazier work of Crowley can make one think. Even modernist Rosicrucianism or "Magick", which is twice as crazy, has content, in helping on delineate 'faith' from 'magic' and see how much of what we really expect from religions is the latter. Then there are liberation theologians ranging from George Pixley to Matthew Fox in their level of 'real belief'. And Jungianism (particularly as done by those who are not atheists, like Jung himself) has a tradition of looking at religious practices and motifs via psychological or sociological angles that seek purpose and value in them, but do not bear on faith.
I think this kind of thing, which is really still theology of a sort, in that it is done by believers, but those suspicious due to their own abuse of/by religions, could serve a more intelligent atheism well, if one can put up with the implicit 'hokum'.
As a side note: Richard Dawkins recently attempted to start a more pedestrian conversation on these topics via a television series. But it was horrible. He came across as a shallow, biased, finicky, bitter, old man with whom no one would ever wish to have such a conversation to begin with.