Is making a decision to not believe something, belief in itself? Perhaps it is, but then everyone believes one way or another about pretty much everything they've ever encountered. Indeed, it is possible to make a case that everything I know is a belief and the only thing that can be demonstrated is that I exist (and then only to myself, ala Descartes).
Is it practical to define belief in such a way? Perhaps sometimes it is, we are all believers. Sometimes, however, a word which applies to everyone becomes useless. If we are all believers, what is the use in the label? It becomes redundant.
Let us imagine a world with no concept of God. Everybody was an atheist as per your definition:
The only way you could be a true atheist*, is if you have never heard the word God, and you have no inner feeling that there is one. The thought has never crossed your mind.
One day a man walks up to you and says "There is an invisible pink unicorn living in my beard. She's shy but her way leads to salvation and eternal life". A word is invented to describe this man - his belief makes him a theist. You think 'this guy is a lunatic, how can something that is invisible have a colour, and its general intangibleness means it leaves no evidece. We have this guys word that she exists. I choose not to take his word for it - he is either deluded or a liar.'. You can't prove there isn't an IPU, so (technically) you have now developed a belief one way or another. Does this mean you cannot be a true atheist?
If you do not believe what the theists believe, but you have a concept of a god...does that mean you aren't a true atheist? What word shall we have to describe them? untheist? Anti-theist, counter-theist? Contratheist? We are just needlessly complicating what is a perfectly functioning word.
'True atheists' as you describe them are so rare, that it would be easier to create a word to describe them, and leave atheist for those who are already thus labelled.
Personally, I don't think it is useful to consider the lack of belief in a concept you have been exposed to as a belief in its own right. In certain circumstances it might be, but it should not automatically be the case. Certainly, the lack of belief in a concept which requires faith in the unevidenced to believe, should not be considered a belief - since it confuses the matter pointlessly. If you want you could coin a new word for the lack of belief in a concept which is unfalsifiable (perhaps abelief), but why bother? We'd all end up being abelievers of a near infinite
σ number of unfalsifiable propositions (limited only by our imaginations and time to think them up).
In short - your argument is one merely of pedantic semantics. It would be much more practical if we stop looking at the literal meaning of the words (and their implications) and focus on the
Pragmatics - the meaning intended by the speaker/user of the words.
*no true atheist puts sugar on his lack of belief in a god
σYes - I appreciate the term 'near infinite' is an oxymoronic nonsense phrase, and I appreciate the irony of it being used in a discussion about practical language.
Edited by Modulous, : Formatting/and indefinite article error corrected.
™ Version 4.2
