zzzzzz

You're missing the point. What makes your view "religious" (or, as someone else pointed out, perhaps "faith-based" would be the better term) is your definite rejection of things (a la "my claim is what you say is bull shit"). You could respond with "That could be. I don't have any evidence to support or refute it". That would be a rational position, in the absence of evidence. You, however, go further. You say it's bullshit.

Am I religious if I say there isn't a marble at the table? Or a walnut?

Yes.

A rational person would say "I don't know if there is a ball, marble, or walnut". If you have experience with other tables with upside-down cups, you might go further and say something like "If this table with cups is like the other tables with cups that I've experienced... (fill in whatever your experience re:balls, marbles, walnuts, etc)". To say more requires a leap of faith.

And, unlike tables, cups, balls, and walnuts, the existence of the universe is apparently quite singular. Thus, if you haven't had direct experience with it, it is unlikely that you'll have had sufficient parallel experiences to make any meaningful statements like "If this universe is like the other universes I've characterized...". Therefore, lacking any direct experience, the reasonable position would be "I don't know".

But, you might, metaphorically speaking, encourage that baby to remain open-minded about the existence of an outside world as opposed to dismissing the possibility out-of-hand.

You feel superior because you asked yourself that question and you came to your logical conclusion.

I haven't even stated my conclusions. I am only trying to help y'all understand that it is not reasonable to jump from an absence of evidence to a conclusion of non-existence. It has nothing to do with me. It is a fact of formal logic.

OK, then I don't know my vocabulary. When I said "atheism" I was intending to refer to, for example, OP, who is making the definite claim that there is no God. But, a quick Google search shows that you are right about the definition. And, for those who have no personal experience of God, the absence of belief in God is reasonable.

I'm saying that we all have prior experience of transitioning from situations where we had no evidence for something into ones where we had definite evidence. The implication is that we should remain open rather than forcing conclusions of non-existence.

No, my claim is that you are religious for asserting that there definitely isn't a ball while at the table.

It turns out there is a world outside of the womb.

The belief "there is no God" is not implied by the absence of evidence for God. The absence of evidence for something implies the belief "I do not know if the thing exists". Atheism requires a logical mistep. It is unreasonable to jump from an absence of evidence to a claim on non-existence.

If you re-read what I wrote, you'll find that I did not claim to know what anyone believes inside the womb.

Sure. And, you're free to leave the table. You have the freedom to decide the question is uninteresting or contrived or whatever and never think about it again. Others, however, think the question is interesting enough to pursue. Some of those people go on to report discovering evidence for God through first-hand experience. Those people might all be morons or delusional. The only way you have any chance of knowing for sure is to keep an open mind and try to find the evidence yourself. But, again, no one's forcing you.

Indeed