One of my professors holds down several (by which I mean at least three) teaching jobs. All at private universities in the metro-Detroit area. He holds a Master’s degree in Economics, and he successfully completed seminary school – I’m not sure if that’s a BA or an MA. He also has a degree in philosophy or something. He also has St. Thomas Aquinas’ proof of the existence of God pretty much committed to memory. Needless to say, he’s probably not the guy with whom you’d choose to debate the existence of God.
He mentioned in passing that he loves the topic, however, because he can usually reduce the atheist to a non-factual argument. … which brings me to a point that I’m certain others have likely made in the past: the difference between the atheist and the theist is one merely of degree, and they are more similar to one another than they at first appear. The theist is a veritable atheist when it comes to the existence of any god except his own. The atheist just takes this one small step further.
For instance, the theist relies on faith in divine revelation, and the absolute denial that evidence to the contrary is a possibility, as the foundation of his beliefs. The atheist, on the other hand, relies on the present absence of incontrovertible evidence, and the faith that no such evidence will ever exist, as the foundation of his beliefs.
In fact, a true atheist would be a non-believer even in the presence of incontrovertible evidence; just as a true believer would not deny his faith, even upon presentation of overwhelming proof to the contrary. Atheism, then, is an argument from faith, not from evidence – it rests entirely upon the house of cards which is the absence of evidence. But I suspect a certain subset of atheists are not necessarily atheists, or they would not be upon true revelation. They are “atheists” probably for lack of a better term. They are religious libertines who reject servitude and bondage by any name, even piety. Even in the presence of a god or gods, these atheists would deny the authority thereof, even while bearing witness to their omnipotence.
The very concept of atheist thought requires one to excercise a degree of faith in the unknown that rivals or exceeds that of even the most brainwashed religious fundamentalists.
I don’t think this is what people mean when they use the term “atheist” is everyday language. I know many self-identified atheists (including myself) who would happily and instantly become true believers in the face of evidence.
So maybe we are not technically athiests. But I don’t know any people who would describe themselves as you have described an athiest. I don’t know many people, however.