FSM always seemed more of a mockery of organized religion; God is never given a physical description so it's entirely possible he appears like a flying spaghetti monster. If you follow the belief that there is a God and no religion has gotten it right, it's entirely possible to continue to believe there is a God who created the universe and decided to stop intervening.
If you ask me, it's far easier to just acknowledge the possibility of atheism, but I couldn't say the FSM is the perfect argument against there being a God;
The point of Russell's teapot is that god doesn't need to be disproven. Either you can directly and scientifically prove his existence, or you must acknowledge that he is a logical fallacy.
The reasoning is that anyone can make any claim regarding non-provable things. You can say there is a god whose existence can not be proven or disproven. I can say there is a flying spaghetti monster out there. Bertrand Russell can say there is a teapot in space, and dank can say that someone at some point has levitated. The point is that either all such non-provable claims are true or they are all false. There is absolutely no logical reason to assume that the existence of god is in some way more likely than the existence of a flying spaghetti monster. And since there can be an infinite number of such claims, we must assume that either all these infinite imaginary things (like gods and monsters and leprechauns and teapots in space) actually exist, or they are all absolutely false.
We obviously can't assume that everything anyone can possibly imagine actually exists. That would probably break the laws of physics, as well as common sense. Therefore we must regard the existence of god (as well as anything else that has been imagined but never proven) as false on logical grounds. There is no need to try to disprove the existence of the infinite number of unproven things. That wouldn't be possible anyway. Rather, the burden is on the person who comes up with these things to prove their existence.
Atheism is not a possibility. It is a logical necessity.
it's all on you to decide whether or not God is useful in your life; those who do not see use are atheists, those who do--and I've noticed this among many followers of faith--simply abandon religion and decide to go their own path, i.e. deism.
The usefulness of god is irrelevant. Imaginary things don't pop into existence because they are useful. I could sure use about 100,000 BTC in my wallet right now, and yet, the blockchain disagrees...
I am not an atheist because I see no use for god, but because I assume god doesn't exist until proven otherwise.