It's ironic because the very organization that's supposed to represent atheism said quite clearly that atheism is NOT a belief system.

Real mature. 

for most humanity the entire debate is out of question, it's in fact intellectually inaccessible, because only handful are intellectually capable understand what is near the truth (who is capable understand evolution or complex theology), in fact most of those new atheist are nothing but evangelist of some kind.

The entire debate is reduced to sympathy or antipathy to religion or atheism build on their personal experiences, but nothing can be further from truth than this horrible nonsense (one become atheist because he was humiliated by priest, other became christian because he spend most of his life in communist county which forced their citizens to atheism or at least expected from their citizens atheism) this kind of reasoning is common.

Who is capable to understand this certainly not many and absolutely not 30% of any even highly educated western society, so the entire New Atheism is nonsense, moreover they create new idol -Darwin.

It's not atheism its truly Darwinism

I would say I'm more of a Deist, than an atheist. In that I do not believe there is any day to day, or moment to moment involvement. No God saying, "Yes, I really want THAT soccer team to win" or "This person should have the award" or, "I think that boy should be molested by this priest."

I am profoundly offended when people for onto me 'everything happens for a reason!' Really? Tell that to my friend's family who was stalked(for over a year), tortured and slowly murdered because he was gay. Or the parents of a child that was accidentally run over by a car, or a group of people slowly dieing in a collapsed mine running out of food and air in complete darkness. Things happen, and to blame a deity as someone who enjoys hurting people or their is some greater good to those in pain sacrifices is just downright evil in my opinion.

But the biggest thing, or freedom, if you will, is not having to justify bad things. There isn't always a silver lining, things happen and you deal with them. Plenty of good things happen too, enjoy and celebrate them when they do.

So for me, it's the freedom to deal with things that happen, and not search for meaning in something that in my opinion, isn't there.

Yes, there are differing definitions. You have sources that give those definitions and I have definitions that say otherwise. So which definitions do we follow? Well, instead of trying to argue about which dictionaries are the most valid, I say we have three options:

A.) Because you and I cannot come to an agreement on what atheism is, we should use the definition used by atheists themselves. Based on atheists like myself and that website atheists.org, the definition of atheists is someone who "lacks a belief in God"

or

B.)  We can get rid of the term atheists altogether. When people come to a difference in definitions on a term, the term should be discarded completely as it detracts from the matter at hand. Instead of using terms like "atheists", "agnostisc", "theists", we can get rid of them altogether and just talk about people who "lack a belief in God", "Believe God doesn't exist", and "Believe God does exist". Then we can quite clearly see which is the default position. It really doesn't matter what they are labelled as.

or

C.) We could just break down the word "atheism" to see what it really means. "theism" means "a belief in God." And "a" is a prefix meaning "not" or "without." So when combined, "atheism" means "without a belief in God" or "not a belief in God." It would NOT mean "a belief in no God."

Which option do you prefer?

Here's what you cannot do: You cannot force a group of people to label themselves as a definition that they themselves don't even agree with.

Oh wow, you're just clueless aren't you?

of course

Darwin/evolution is a tiny reason (if a reason at all) for my atheism in comparison to other reasons, mostly philosophical rather than scientific. Seems the same for most other atheists I've interacted with regarding Darwin. I mean, evolution is completely compatible with many forms of theism, and definitely deism.  

Ok, let's say that we are not born with a philosophy as in "a set of specific beliefs about phenomena", because at birth we dont see or care about the sun or the thunderstorms, but we might still be born with an ingrained philosophical scaffolding/method as in "in doubt, it's less dangerous to give intentional meaning to the observed world phenomena". At birth, we're already scared by the sudden loud noise of the thunder, because it's safer to assume that sudden loud noises are associated with dangers, and the most dangerous phenomena are conscious predators. Basically all children go through a magical thinking and animistic phase, and the same is true for many adults.

What I'm trying to say is that while logically it's true that the default position is that of non existence of unproven entia, and that we should apply Occam's razor, antropologically and biologically our default method of knowledge might not be logical at all, but intuitively - and of course deceptively - skewed toward animism. Which is, itself, a philosophical belief. Semantics aside, I'm sure you understand what I meant :)