Therein lay my problem with you as a moderator. Atheists are labeled trolls with little, if any, provocation on their parts, whereas theists have to reach EE_EE levels before you were willing to admit that maybe the hateful bile they were spewing was perhaps a bit overboard.

I'm not aware of any theists, apart from EE_EE, who were spewing hateful bile back then.

And I have not labeled lu61f3r a troll based on his religious beliefs or lack thereof.

I have labeled him a troll because all he does is ask endless streams of questions, NEVER answers a direct question on any substantive issue (while pretending he will if you just "answer one more question"), and quibbles over the definitions of words.

He'll 3, 4, even 5 posts in a row, sometimes comprised of nothing but quotes from others with no content from him.

He is a waste of time and space and a coward who is apparently afraid to take a position for fear, I must presume (because he doesn't answer questions), of exposing his ignorance or ideological bias.

And it was not "with little provocation" that I labeled him a troll, it's taken months of trying to drag a direct answer to ANY of the many questions that I have put to him. I just finally tired of this passive/aggressive bullshit he's been pulling and just stopped responding to his posts.

I'll let others play the sucker to his childish games.

I'm done with it.

Meanwhile, I've engaged you multiple times with several topics, but your last half-dozen plus posts in a row have been about lu61f3r's 'childish games'.
You are approaching your own label.

You may wish to reread this thread again.

I made one response to lu51f3r respecting his status as a troll and 2 posts to others questioning me about this. That's it.

In the meantime, you asked me a direct question, "Are you equating religion with virtue?" (or words to that effect), to which I gave a detailed, thoughtful and civil response. Something it would seem you're dismissing here.

Why is that?

I said your last half dozen posts, not necessarily in this thread alone.
I did indeed ask you a direct question, and you did indeed give your response.
But you miss or dismiss my statement-by-statement retort.
I could ask why that is as well.
I could also say you may want to re-read the thread again.

Well I did re-read this thread before making my response, so I fail to see the point of you asking me to do so unless it is to see that I've not yet responded to your point-by-point retort.

As to that, I'll need access to a real computer and internet connection to do that as I am currently limited to using my phone, and it has a character limit for posts and your retort includes all of my copy plus yours which exceeds my phones limit.

I'll try to get that access this weekend as I really do want to respond to your post.

My take?

An atheist is one who believes there is no god or denies the existence of diety or dieties.

Therefore by that definition I define atheism as a religion..the faith/belief that there is no god.

Because what they claim as fact is no more provable than what I can prove to them that God does exist.

I think you're confusing gnostic versus agnostic atheism.
Agnostic Atheism is not, by definition, a religion as it is a lack of belief and certainty - and for something to be a religion would require a subscription to set of beliefs - which needs some level of certainty.

This may help you:

It's really all about certainty. If someone says they KNOW there isn't a god or they KNOW there IS a god, they're both gnostics.