Atheism is self-delusional

I still do not see where my opponent is offering any argument against my assertion that atheism is self-delusional. He has clarified the definition of atheism somewhat, but then muddies his own clarification in a way which shows he is deluded. First he claims th have the correct definition of atheism, as if I don't know what the word means, by saying " atheism (in correct way), it is not the denial of god or gods, rather it is a lack of belief in deity (or deities) simply because a person in question doesn't see any (rational, empirical or etc. ) evidence for it. " My opponent attempts here to limit the definition of atheism to an irrationally narrow line of thinking, but then goes on to say it is an unlimited line of thinking by claiming " atheism (in correct way), it is not the denial of god or gods, rather it is a lack of belief in deity (or deities) simply because a person in question doesn't see any (rational, empirical or etc. ) evidence for it". He then states "Atheism is not belief system or way of life. Rather it is a statement (lack of belief in deity) which serves as a basis for worldview of people individually. Again, my opponent offers some kind of explanation of a definition which muddies the definition unexplainably. If atheism is not (a) belief system or way of life, how can it be the basis for a worldview without being a belief system or a way of life? My opponent is not helping to clarify anything with his non-clarifying definitions. This is not a debate about the definition of atheistic, which is a person who holds a worldview or way of life with a mannerism which denies God is there, or as my opponent would say "Atheism is not belief system or way of life. Rather it is a statement (lack of belief in deity) ". What's the difference in the semantics? You say there is no God, you say you have no belief in a deity, whatever. .. .. .. .it's nothing but expansions on the three roots of the word which acurately state the meaning of atheism. .. . "a" meaning "no" , "theos" meaning "God", and "ism" meaning a system of beliefs or philosophies. When my opponent asserts that atheism is "a statement (lack of belief in deity) which serves as a basis for worldview of people individually. " he is giving a pretty good description of an "ism" which is not limited to a simple statement which says "there is no God". My opponent and I are not disagreeing about the definition of Atheism or Atheist or atheistic or atheist (whaterver he says makes atheist different than Atheist when the captializaion of "A" makes the word a proper noun and somehow he expects googling atheist and Atheist to be an enlightening experience for me. .. seems like it would be a waste of time more than enlightening) This debate is not about semantice, though I have argued with semantics showing my atheism is self-delusional in that it makes a person think they have special wisdom that cannot be pinned down by simple definitions. Atheism is self-delusional in making a person believe they have the right to exist outside of the everlasting fire of Hell when in fact they have no right but to die. The only problem in that is that the atheist deludes themselves into thinking that living in the comforts of earth proves they have the right to not live in the fire of Hell which is nothing but the continuation of their dying after their time has been counted down to zero in the comforts of earth. This is the focus of the debate, the self-deluding aspect of atheism. The definitions of atheist, atheistic, atheism, Atheist, and similar words is not in dispute other than for my opponent's self-deluding insinutation that his varying and multi-faceted explanations of the word prove that atheism is not self-delusional. .. .. even though my opponent has offered absolutely no arguement against my assertion that atheism is self-delusional.