Additionally, claiming X doesn't exist and not being able to prove it doesn't make you religious. Common counterexamples being X = invisible pink unicorns or spaghetti monsters.
It's a surprisingly simple concept, considering how few people get it. I wonder whether there's a more effective way to communicate it.
The issue though is that because a notion of god as existed as long as we have, writing it off as pink unicorns or spaghetti monsters belittle's it to a meaningless degree; it's a weak counter.
There is clearly something very human in a god belief. To suggest that this type of belief is simply a meaningless may in fact be correct, but it leaves a big part of the equation blank.
It's like answering math questions without showing your work. I think that's what reasonable people have issues with.
To be precise, I wasn't suggesting anything. I was arguing that those reasons for labeling atheism a belief are wrong.
To answer your post, I think the lack of evidence for all religions is a perfectly good counter. I think it shouldn't matter how long some idea has been around, or whether it appeals to our innate human instincts. But clearly both matter to a lot of people. As I'm not one of those people, I have no idea how to address this need.
Atheists can preach just as much as any other religion. Perhaps you are confusing the belief in NO god with simple indifference towards religion?