My way of seeing is that I am agnostic just to be strictly logical.
I am a de-facto atheist, I make my decisions as there is no god.
If there is a god it makes itself undetectable by not interacting at all with reality or interact and cover its tracks by adjusting and compensating in a way to let a white noise behind its actions.
But you can't prove a negative so, a being out of objective reality that does not interfeer in a detectable way is a (useless) possibility, the same thing as the garage dragon.
So for me yes, Atheism is belief in the sole existance of the objective reality, agnosticism is "do not pretend to answer a question that cannot be answered" but until any evidence is shown, act as if a god is inexistent (because if you can't detect anything, even if it exists there is no way to know what it wants).

Events in history and in the world disprove the existence of a loving creator super being that needs everyones love can create asteroids and cosmic rays, but ignores babies being thrown into ovens back in Europe, allows perpetrators of same to escape with the help of his "servants" in Rome, or has individuals that try apply "free will" to things like pediatric bone cancer, or gigantic tsunamis, to explain why no miracles save us. Then youd also get a "oh ye of little faith" or something thrown at you, when you bring up yaweh's blind spot for starving african children. That he never helps.

IMO, depending on the individual, it would or could depend on how god is defined. In other words, in speaking to anyone, I would ask, what do they mean by a god? Where is their god? How does their god operate? Does their god enter into the lives of humans? If yes, Ask for the evidence that proves their assertion and so forth. Please define what it means to believe in god. If they give a definition, you can then ask questions like what experience of living or existence leads them to believe or accept their definition of god as an acceptable answer. The typical answer given by christians is that god is all knowing, all powerful and benevolent. Just the slightest observation and or knowledge of history renders this definition completely unjustified and absurd and I have heard it said also an insult to those lost in the bloodbath of history.

An atheist by definition merely rejects belief in gods until proven otherwise. There's no positive assertions and therefore no burden of proof.

People who definitively assert there are no "gods" make an assertion and set themselves up for people who demand proof for any assertion. I've found several "atheists" like this and they're generally toxic bc they're as rigid and assertive as many theists.

People who want solid proof of something before believing in it and condemn people and organizations that mess with our lives based on unsubstantiated fantasies don't have a belief system, we merely don't believe something unless it's been proven and are intolerant of whimsy screwing with out lives.

I'm not waiting around thinking Baal, unicorns or whores with a heart of gold exist but if given proof I'll believe in but not worship any of the above.

Don't make this to complicated .My mind examine the facts and stated religion is a business that preys on those who do not choose to accept facts over fiction. I am not an agnostic because I believe with all my heart there is no god the universe has existed forever and will continue to do so in many different ways forever. The conception of a god that could create the universe is beyond belief and out of nothing.

Even the word "atheist" has Theist in it, so the god people got ya coming and going. I don't give that much regard to weird stories about giants and talking snakes.

Look, just look at all the headspace this stuff takes up, and none of it is real. You can have a moral center without object lessons like "The Parable of the Harsh Master" and other heartwarming tales of Slavery.

No, atheism is not an ideology or a philosophy, but can be used as a building block in both.

You say potato I say patahto.

It takes no "faith" or any kind of mumbo jumbo to be an "atheist" , just a capacity to observe and reason and to be willing to do so.

Being uncertain in the face of group madness about wizards and genies is understandable. People in general lack a perspective on this. They can't see that things like evolution are facts, and are immediately observable. They become obsessed with stuff about "God", playing God, what sort of beard oil God uses, because they of course have enough "faith" that God is white man shaped.

Do you believe in gravity?

The two terms are not mutually exclusive. I am both, an agnostic atheist. The two terms answer two different questions. Agnostic answers the epistemological question: what can I claim to know? No one can claim to know absolutely so we are agnostic. Atheist answers the question: what has our knowledge led us to believe? Whether you focus on all the evidence that points to god as a human creation, or the conspicuous lack of evidence for anything supernatural so far, if there’s not a particular proposed god that you find more likely than the rest you’re probably also technically atheist. I find the people who are afraid to use the term atheist are just not comfortable defending this distinction and it’s easier to say I don’t know n be done with the argument. Whatever floats your boat, but most of us are technically both whether we use both terms or not.

There is absolutely no doubt that all the ideas about gods, angels, fairies, hell, paradise etc. all come from human imagination. This includes of course all the terminology that comes or goes with it. So the argument whether humans created gods etc. is somewhat lrrelavant. The narrative is a human invention.
Atoms existed well before the Greeks coined the term. Now we call these old buggers Atomists. We just like labels. Millennia later quarks were discovered. Strangely I have no yet heard the term Quarkist.
I am not satisfied with the term atheist because it still included the -theist part. For me the very question of the existence of gods and their little helpers is a nonsense.
Agnostics discribes those who don't know. We find all believers from all religions in this group.
It is really pussyfooting around. As if there was a sort of primitive fear lingering, the fear that some divine authority might be watching.
Perhaps the term atheism could be replaced by universalist but Catholicism means exactly that. Perhaps I should try Rationalist and the opposition as "Irrationalists.
Though I am not totally satisfied with the term atheist* it describes best my position in regard to the opposition.

I don't know why some people make it so difficult to explain Atheism. It's very simple. You say there is a god. I say I don't believe you. The end.

Yes, atheism is a belief system. I have no evidence of your supposed deity. Neither you nor I can produce any evidence. That's it. End of the belief system. No meetings to attend either.

NO! We can think for ourselves.

Surely, atheism is based upon empirical observation and requires no faith. For example, observing the close resemblance between related species and diverse species sharing a common environment, or the wide range of dog breeds that can be produced by selective breeding, is evidence of a process of gradual change or evolution. Faith requires explaining causation by forming theoretical and imagined connections that cannot be proved - such as the belief that all forms of life were shaped by the hand of the Almighty - in defiance of accumulated evidence that offers a conflicting and more rational explanation.

I suppose you could call it a "non-belief system," if you really wanted to. But I'd just not bother with the word "system" at all. That's misleading.