Well as someone who understands Atheism, your definition is that of A RELIGIOUS PERSON. To deny something, is to accept that it exists. So atheism isn't a system of denial of a deity or deities, as atheists, we accept their are no deities, as no evidence to the contrary has been proposed. If I propose that I saw a ghost, a phenomena that cant be proven, the onus is on me to prove it, not for the listener to disprove it. A ghost disbeliever wouldn't say they deny the existence of ghosts, they would say that "There is no such thing, and as there is no such thing, there is nothing to deny". It would only be considered denial, if the Ghost believer proved the existence of a ghost, and then the ghost disbeliever refused to accept the proof.
Yours is an "argument" of semantics and definition, ergo it is subjective to personal interpretation. If that is too much for you, then know you this. I understand those that have faith but have none myself. Additionally I am most likely the last person on this board you would want to take up discussion, let alone "argue" with regarding this subject.
It is readily apparent that you think to make little of my being atheist by somehow aligning me with "religion" because of our differing definitions, if you will, of atheism. Believe me young man, there is no God. How's that statement? Fit your bill? Does it satisfy your narrow parameters? Does it make you happy? If not, allow me to indulge myself all the more...
I refute the existence of deities. I deny the existence of deities. I eschew that deities exist. I simultaneously refute and reject the existence of deities. There are a variety of ways to express this and many other things in life, in this instance you have chosen but one. The gift of speech is a tribute to evolutionary "grace", is it not?
I think well of you and understand your need to do this, but really now, outside arguing for the sake of ego, is this necessary?
