You were doing fine there, Little Hawk, agreeing with my explanation of different types of 'atheism'...and even enlarging on my description of you as a Pantheist-- but then you had to end it with the same type of linguistic fuzziness as *daylia* used:

"
Atheists also believe in life. Therefore, atheists believe in my God, they just don't realize it!"

The first part of that, if it means anything, is either trivially true or a rank overgeneralization....or so ambiguous as to be silly.

The 2nd part is both incorrect and a logical fallacy based on unsubstantiated premises.

My God = life,
Atheists believe in Life
Therefore atheists believe in my God.

'life' does not fit the usual definition of a God...1st premise is an equivocation on the term.

Atheists are unlikely to USE the word 'believe' in that way, so 2nd premise commits the 'fallacy of ambiguity' as well as not being accurate.

The conclusion therefore, although it sort of follows logically from the premises, fails because of the status of the premises.

...and no, it ISN'T a matter of opinon how the logic can be applied. The rules of logic are as close to an absolute as anything we can discuss.