street epistemology

[Delicate]

Your atheism can only be based on blind incompetence, as you admit.

Here's the definition for bland atheism: The lack of belief in god(s).

To the uninitiated and sorely brainwashed, which I'm sure you are (do you see how that passive-aggressive bullshit plays out?), then it becomes quite clear that atheism is merely a single statement. It is not an ideology. It is not a belief. It's not even a defining factor; since "god(s)" isn't even defined properly. But of course, I might as well be talking to a wall.

Atheism is at most a default position. If you examine the above definition it should be apparent that having a lack of some undefined entity is entirely empty saying. It's like saying I lack any conviction that X is true, where X is undefined. It's dividing with zero. It's splitting infinities.

Now, about burden of proof; atheists claim nothing, present no argument or entity, the word "atheism" is the intelligible sound people say when there's no position to be had, like being a non-stamp collector or a bald man having a hair color. The only reason we even have the word "atheism" is because there are theists. If there at some point in histories past there was a movement or belief about elves with all the same grandeur of supremacy as theism has influenced through the ages in all its flavors, there would be also people who simply never heard of elves or simply didn't believe in them, in which case they'd be a-elvefists. How difficult is this to grasp?

I reject this whole redefinition of atheism.

If you believe God exists you're a theist. If you believe God does not exist you're an atheist. If you don't know either way you're an agnostic.

Your asserted redefinitions are not persuasive. Lack of belief does not constitute a worldview or a philosophical position or a stance on the existence of God.

It's empty rhetoric designed to dodge the burden of proof. And it's dishonest.