Asserting “non-belief” in a deity is superficial; it indicates that an answer which is convenient to the Atheist has been chosen without thought, or possibly it has been chosen to cover for the Atheist inability to prove his belief, which is that there is no deity. But the cover story is false, and the Atheist, who fails this cover is forced to see that his belief is an unprovable statement of faith, not a rational, empirical, scientific finding.
This is it, Stan. All you've got is just fallacy after fallacy: straw men, equivocations, excluded middle, argument by etymology, poisoning the well, ad hominem arguments, etc., ad nauseam. You demand depth, but you fail to offer anything but error, and only the most superficial of errors. You do not deserve debate; you deserve only scorn and derision.