Consider the position you suggest here if atheism is a positive belief, as it has traditionally been defined.
Atheism - there is no God(s)
Theism - there is a God(s)
These are both positive assertions. If I lack both, then what am I? This position has been traditionally called agnostic.
If I lack a positive disbelief in God(s) and also lack a positive belief in God(s), then by these traditional definitions, I am neither.
This is why Antony Flew attempted to redefine the language and why there is confusion today.
If we accept Antony Flew's redefinitions, where atheism is the lack of theism, then your argument stands up. My point is that this was not the traditional definition of atheism.
Atheism - there is no God(s)
Theism - there is a God(s)
These are both positive assertions. If I lack both, then what am I? This position has been traditionally called agnostic.
If I lack a positive disbelief in God(s) and also lack a positive belief in God(s), then by these traditional definitions, I am neither.
This is why Antony Flew attempted to redefine the language and why there is confusion today.
If we accept Antony Flew's redefinitions, where atheism is the lack of theism, then your argument stands up. My point is that this was not the traditional definition of atheism.