I’ll answer your question, but the fact that you asked it that way shows that you’re still not getting the extended sense of “atheism” that the article is talking about. Specifically, I’m talking about practical, operative atheism as the denial of theism, plus methodological naturalism. That’s what leads the atheist to some ridiculous nontheistic beliefs.
To address your question, the belief in that pink teapot is more ridiculous than not believing in it. To make your question relevant to my article, though, you’d have to ask whether the belief in that tea pot is more or less ridiculous than the denial of that tea pot, plus methodological naturalism which obligates the denier to replace the tea pot with something natural and thus with something that can’t count as an ultimate cause.