An ideology that asserts itself without knowledge is, by definition, a belief.Tbis is why, in science, we talk of theory and not belief. It acknowledges that gaps of knowledge are filled by assumption based on likelihood, but fact is never asserted until a bridge of knowledge is completely constructed.
Dawkins refers to the theism of our species. However he knows as much of our reality as anyone else. Very, very little. But take comfort in knowing that science, at least philosophically, would pursue what is beyond a deity should one ever be known. Or none of this is real. You don't actually know.
Atheism is an ism attached to the idea of atheos.
All isms are idealogies attached to their leading premise. Atheism is no exception to any other word in this regard.
It is the people's poor understanding of language but allure to social labels that has caused the word, which is otherwise very clear, to now be seen on a spectrum. Like how people now refer to LLMs as AI, for lack of understanding the fundamentals of the terminology first.
There are those that misunderstand it to mean a-theism instead of atheos-ism. Which is madd
No. We have preexisting terms for this and atheism is, at best, a distant association for its crossover similarities of that statement. You are simply describing the state of being nontheistic, no isms necessarily attached.
There are many isms that fit into your statement by being nontheistic positions. Atheism is just one of many. However a person can be nontheistic and not adhere to any of them, since every individual is capable of rejecting any ideology. Those that don't even know about the idea of deities aren't even capable of aligning to theism or atheism, for example.