Wrong. Atheism is nothing more then not believing in god. It is a Greek word that literally means "without god". It implies NO other beliefs or disbelief. You do not need to believe in the theory of evolution or the big bang theory to be an atheist. People who don't believe in the Loch Ness Monster don't automatically belong to some religion that denounces the Loch Ness Monster. Next person to say atheism is a religion gets a boot to the head!
Bit of a misrepresentation of what was said, really. In the abstract:
1) Person A believes X exists but there is concrete, irrefutable proof that X does not, in fact exist. To pick a contrary position to them is not a matter of belief, it's simply observing a fact and a logical conclusion.
2) Person A believes X exists, but there's no real evidence. However, there's also no real evidence to the contrary, either but it seems unlikely. To pick a contrary position to them is a matter of opinion (based on your interpretation of the evidence, or lack thereof). However, without conclusive proof, it ultimately boils down to belief.
I don't think the various ideas floating around as to what God is are so easy to pidgeon-hole. The general idea of an entity somehow responsible for the existence of the physical universe but not constrained by it's rules and thus not really "testable" leaves you with scenario 2. It's possible, but perhaps (to an atheist) very unlikely. However, without adopting a mantle of intellectual dishonesty, it can't be said that it's impossible. Therefore, "disbelief in X" is directly equivalent to "belief in ~X".
I think it's entirely fair and proper to regard disbelief in the existence of God as "belief in the non-existence of God", no different to it's counterpart other than on which side of the fence it's on.
Suppose X was your Loch Ness Monster. I'm sure we can agree that it's extremely unlikely (but not impossible) that it exists. Thus belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness Monster seems an entirely reasonable position and I would say doesn't cause you to belong to the "Loch Ness Denouncers".
However, suppose that belief in the non-existence of the Loch Ness Monster was something you believed very strongly, based your world view around, shaped the way you approached things, the circles you move in and was something you evangelised. It's harder to draw a line under now and say this is nothing like a religion, because frankly, by that point it's very much like a religion.
I've known a fair few Atheists who fall into that latter category. If it waddles like a duck and quacks like a duck...
