Opinion on this Creed

[Mudhammam]

If you do not believe what atheists believe then don’t call yourself an atheist; that seems pretty simple.  All I can go by is what the definition of atheism is. 
 
Agnosticism is still a belief system (i.e. the belief that it is impossible to know whether gods exist or not).    

Since when does atheism entail a set of beliefs, excluding the possibility that one may formulate their atheism as the positive belief that the natural world as studied by the legitimate sciences (which excludes such dubious practices as alchemy, and sorry, theology) encompasses all that can be meaningfully or likely said to exist (though more appropriately termed metaphysical naturalism)? 

If someone says, "I don't know if any gods exist," or "I don't see sufficient evidence for any gods," or "God is not meaningfully defined," they're not describing a belief. They're stating the lack thereof. What is so difficult for you to understand about that?

Do you also claim that anyone who, in a hypothetical but parallel situation, doubts the existence of fire-breathing dragons or horses with wings and has to distinguish themselves as a-dragonists and a-pegasi due to the popularity of dragon and pegasus cults amongst the public, that if they disagree with other a-dragonists or a-pegasi about other propositions unrelated to these in particular, then they should stop identifying themselves as such because "they don't believe what a-dragonists and a-pegasi believe"? Obviously, no, they do not. They are correct to refer to themselves by this term, regardless of their other beliefs about the world.

Atheism is not a philosophy according to whom?  You?  I’ll stick to the actual experts on such matters. 

The "experts." Lol. Who are the experts? What are they experts at? Atheism? (That would be an odd claim). Theology? (An even stranger one). Did they write the rules of the English language and the usage of its terms?

Well the self-described atheist who edits the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy says you’re wrong.  Now what? 

Now I refer to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and discover that you're full of shit. The author there says no such thing, but rather "Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God," and "As the Romans used the word, ‘atheist’ could be used to refer to theists of another religion, notably the Christians, and so merely to signify disbelief in their own mythical heroes." Furthermore, the Oxford English Dictionary agrees and states atheism as "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God." It's funny that when those whom you presumably consider to be the "experts" speak of "disbelief," you only come back to report that, according to them, atheism is a "belief." Dishonest or misinformed? Since, I don't believe in a god, I'll let you be the judge.

 
Wikipedia is a user-generated website.  Secondly, if you check the three sources it references after defining atheism as “an absence of belief” you’ll see that none of them actually define it that way.

Or rather, none of them define it as a belief, as you would desperately have it, probably thinking that it shifts the burden of proof onto us while in turn lightening yours, which understandably must be impossibly difficult to bear in discussions where I'm sure you'd love to maintain even the slightest appearance of competence.

So I can start up my own website and redefine terms however I wish?  You need to stick to the actual authoritative literature on such matters.

  "The authoritative literature." What could you, a Christian, be referring to? Genesis? Exodus? Revelation?
 

You seem to be moving the goalposts.  You simply stated that, “At no time has anyone ever perceived any god.”  This claim runs completely contrary to the testimony of millions of people; so I have to ask how you could possibly know they are all wrong since you claim to know this somehow.

 
Millions of people have also claimed to have seen UFOs. Do you believe that the burden lies on skeptics, after analyzing the most "credible" reports and determining the evidence to be suspect, insufficient, and better explained by natural phenomena --- such as the abundant presence of human aircraft, moving celestial objects, the commonality of perception to be faulty and deceptive, our psychology and memory known to make incorrect inferences or distort past events, people's knack for being dishonest when they stand to benefit, etc. --- that after all of these far more probable and parsimonious explanations have been considered, which are based on observation and experiment, the skeptic must still add further evidence that UFOs have not and do not regularly visit earth? Why would she be obliged to do so? You do realize that the "testimony" you cite is actually less probable than UFOs, since we at least know life exists on one planet, has developed technologies for (limited) space exploration, and has discovered a Universe in which exists, by some estimations, a trillion trillion planets? Whereas with god, you must simply appeal to some person who experienced something of which we have nothing to gauge it by, but said it was "god" (always construed to fit the context of their cultural background, of course), and then ask others to glibly accept it, as you have done. But why "god"? Maybe they actually experienced your fellow dupes' extraterrestrials who are using advanced technologies to project themselves into the minds of the pious and devoted? That's at least equally as unsubstantiated.
 

A blind person could just say that heat is not the same thing as light and until you prove otherwise you have not met the burden of proof.  The Bible does say that the unbeliever is dead in sin, having scales over his eyes and a heart of stone.  Perhaps you are merely the blind person in this case?  You might have simply misspoken, but you did say that any person has to be able to perceive the entity in question.  This also makes the assumption that all minds perceive reality in the same way, and this is simply an unfounded assumption.  Far more people have claimed to have perceived the existence of god than have claimed to have perceived a neutrino, and yet I am sure you have no problem believing in the existence of the latter intriguingly enough.  Maybe this will work better, how about you propose a method for proving the existence of god, fair?

Contrarily, maybe its as the Hindus related Krishna in the Bhagavad gita, some 200-500 years prior to Christ: "He who in this oneness of love, loves me in whatever he sees, wherever this man may live, in truth this man lives in me … I am from everlasting the seed of eternal life … in its delusion the world knows me not … all beings have their rest in me … I am the way … he who loves me shall not perish … only by love can men see me, and know me, and come unto me …malignant men hate me … they come not to me, but they go down the path of hell."

Maybe you're a victim of the delusion and cannot see the truth of Hinduism because you do not love Krishna?

It's not any more intriguing that the common layperson accepts the claims of scientists when there is widespread consensus and data published through journals and research-papers, without personally verifying the object of their study, anymore than it is for you to go to the doctor's when you're sick (unless you simply pray for healing like James 5:14 instructs you to do, and like many Christian do to the detriment of their health, because God promises that "the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick"), or to take your car to a reliable mechanic when it needs repair; the scientific community has earned the reputation of being part of a successful enterprise built on honest and open inquiry... unlike the church, or their codified texts. And when error prevails amongst scientists --- an impossibility with theology since it literally has nothing to study except the claims of other theologians --- it is usually quickly (but sometimes slowly) corrected by other ambitious scientists who want to make a name for themselves... which is why you trust in science everyday, but not in any of the 99.9% of religions (and probably to a large extent, your own) you were not indoctrinated into by other adults.