Depends on your definition of 'atheism.' If by atheism you refer to militant atheism, where the possibility that any sort of deity might exist is denied in priciple, then you are correct. But that definition of atheism is a strawman lacking any utility, since few 'atheits' are actually that dogmatic and closed-minded.
The preferred definition of atheism refers to the belief that the evidence for the existence of deity is so weak that it's safe to assume in practice that it doesn't exist, even though in principle (in theory) deity may in fact exist.
The article is essentially about a split between militant and moderate atheists.
The preferred definition of atheism
Preferred by whom?
Definitions can be deceiving. Atheists that I grew up with were a variety of "not believing" or "unsure" of the existence of God, the latter of which you and I may identify as "agnostics". They were sincere and genuine.
When I say that they were "unsure" I mean that they were for the most part untroubled by their uncertainty, or at least as troubled as the person of faith is by their own path.
I think I understand these "atheists".
What we have today - parading as atheists and agnostics - are in reality "secular humanists". It's good to see that they are at least using the name "humanist, as they are in this article. Usually, they deliberately enjoy muddying up the waters by claiming to be atheists. I separate atheists from secular humanists based on their opposition to the concept of a deity. By the way, there are also secular humanists who put themselves forth as being Christians and Jews, as well. I have known a couple of these types - they use the pre-tense of being a person of faith to more strongly refute the position of a spiritual person.
I once got into it with a secular humanist pretending to be an agnostic when I referred to Buddhism as a world view or philosophy. She had a fit and told me that I could not classify a religion to suit my own purpose. She went on and on about it, while I pointed out that a true Buddhist would not be the least bit annoyed by how I referred to their philosophy,...or religion, nor would they expend an iota of energy refuting my position.
I get along fine with old school atheists. They challenge my faith and encourage me to look deeper. They make me slightly more conscious of the fact that I need to "walk the walk" as a reflection of my faith in Christ. Many of my Christian friends already know that I can not do this. We usually chuckle about this and urge and encourage each other on anyway.
Secular humanist, are easily identifiable by a profound bitterness. I have not met a single one that doesn't have a mean or spiteful streak in them. They are marked by their opposition to the concept of a God. I think this disposition stems from the fact that someone else has either laid claim or gotten credit for a position which they have chosen for themselves - "master of the Universe."
Depends on your definition of 'atheism.' If by atheism you refer to militant atheism, where the possibility that any sort of deity might exist is denied in principle, then you are correct. But that definition of atheism is a strawman lacking any utility, since few 'atheists' are actually that dogmatic and closed-minded.
If a self described "atheist" is not 100% certain that there is no God then, by definition, he is an agnostic.
Being a true atheist requires more blind faith than was shown by St. Thomas.
"The preferred definition of atheism refers to the belief that the evidence for the existence of deity is so weak that it's safe to assume in practice that it doesn't exist, even though in principle (in theory) deity may in fact exist."
Where did this come from? Somebody forgot to inform Webster of this definition!