It s interesting to start off the thought exercise knowing that there’s an imbalance in the equations. I felt as I read this that the lsit of the “aceptance of evolution” was the straw man of it that religionists believe that we believe - not what we really believe.
To wit:
Anything negative that happens to you is primarily random and indifferent
Your well-being is entirely up to you, and if you fail it's because you failed / aren't skilled enough
These are incompatible. First they say it’s randome then they say we blame ourselfs. But I don’t agree that atheists think that. It’s what religionists feel, not what atheists feel. When random things happen to us, WE know they are random. We get that. We don’t immediately launch self blame. Sometimes random bad obstacles happen. We don’t move to guilt and self doubt. Fixing random bad things is up to us if we can or want to. But they are not our fault.
I think it's more of a question of the religious ideology in opposition to the lack of one. God belief provides a type of psychological cover that's not available to the atheist. We have our own hacks too, but religion is a pretty available, and immediately obvious solution to hardship. Where the lack of religion just looks like a competitive, lonely struggle to a lot of people.
That doesn't mean you're wrong about the Atheist position, but I think that's largely how it appears to believers. Which explains why religion is such a comfort, why so many turn to it when they face problems, and why it appeals.
For example, I have a younger cousin whose life is an absolute mess. Both of his parents are alcoholics, he has fetal alcohol syndrome, and his employability has been borderline his whole life. At one point a few years ago he turned to, and found a lot of comfort in, Christianity. Somehow this made his life acceptable. Right or wrong, I can't envision trying to convince him that he
shouldn't hold on to those beliefs. There is no other real comfort in his life.