Sharing my perspective in a response to a bunch of arguing about Atheism. :)

Atheism (as it seems to me) isn't a religion (a belief system), but it is a belief in itself and one generally regarded as absolute. Similar claims of absolution of beliefs are sort of what defines a religions. One limits itself by that which is known, the other by that which is not(mostly a lot of guessing, lying and some misunderstandings).

But the argument above seem to be a matter of definition mismatches. 

Atheism can be commonly summed up with "there are no deities." 

This becomes held as a truth in what people use to guide their decisions, some call it their belief system, knowledge, "grand equation", hippies have a bunch of dumb words for it, and scientists call it unified theory. If that belief is to explain the entirety of the cosmos, of which we have only begun to explore, and Atheism is declaring: "there are absolutely zero deities in! or have any interaction with! these cosmos." 

Just to be clear as to how it seems.

It largely comes down to a definition of the word "deity". 

  

     "Deity is a being, natural, supernatural or preternatural, with superhuman powers or qualities, and who may be thought of as holy, divine, or sacred." *wiki*

Consider the word "being," for now lets keep it natural *wink*, within the definition of "deity, -

     "Being is an extremely broad concept encompassing objective and subjective features of reality and existence."

It can be seen now how calling oneself an Atheist has more than a single implication depending on the definer. 

Surly we can circumvent the entire argument you seem to be having above by just using less vague language of your belief? 

If you'd like to further understand why some of us see Atheism, as defined above, as being on the same boat as religion; my perspective continues:

Just using the most common definitions for "being," merriam-webster 1a-

     "the quality or state of having existence"

With that we could describe a deity as a force that which all things known, observable and natural, abide. And this would qualify the definition at least in a simple forms.

Then there are all the natural forces science can demonstrate empirically (anyone can do this, throw an apple in the air, it does the same thing every time).  There's no mysticism to it. Powers, being, bam.

But that's still too vague I think for most, merriam-webster 1c and 3-

     "conscious existence" and "a living thing" respectively, 

are what most people think of when they think deity it seems.

These are generally regarded as the same. But there is a good example we use for "conscious existence" and that's humans, we are for the most part the most livingest thing we know. 

And there's still Atheism, now in long hand- "there are no conscious super powers" -and again we're faced with a definition requirement. Which at this stage can get lost in subjectivity. Many believers have followed in the wake of false super powers. 

Interestingly, the super power of the human is growing so rapidly and powerful that even individuals from within the last 100 years, if observing us now, might think us "beings" with "super powers." 

It may be hard for some to get the relative amount of power we have gained over our environment with out an adequate education in things like history. But the expansion of more efficient ways to build what we want should be obvious to anyone who has lived for more than a year (because we're getting better at that expansion of efficacy, some would say exponentially so).

For the sake of space lets assume we're not the only "beings" in the cosmos, nor the most advanced. And it's not a matter of saying "there is" some super power, like religion. It's a matter of how one could say "there is absolutely not" considering our own existence is evidence of consciousness having the ability to gain super powers.

It seems simple to acknowledge this as a possible and, maybe as easily, highly probable considering the collected data we have about our cosmos.

But I think a more important question that Atheism may be intending to answer is whether our existence is in anyway involved with "super beings."

I can't pretend to know.

But it doesn't matter. Since there doesn't seem to be any evidence of any such interaction with the instruments of observation we currently posses. Those same instrument observe previous claims of observation of such "beings" as being improbable and faulty.

That is to say, in terms of their direct connection with the physical world. There is no argument that figures existed within the minds of men, figures that direct their actions, and usually for the worse of many. But this too could be explained as an extension of a humans actions, implying that maybe we've been "powerful beings" all along.

*wiki* (used commonly in our society as a valid place for a standard commonly voted upon definition of the word)

note to non-athiests: You may believe the tales of old and their recorded observations where true, that the men that have recorded them and passed them on where vigilant in their honesty. But then you would realize your deity has long since gone from this world, somewhere outside the reach of the currently observable. And I would hope it could now be obvious why most of us DON'T WANT the return of your deity. Consider their history of abuses of mankind and the list of their demands. I have to ask why would we want any of them back?