Your source isn't supporting your argument, you've simply foisted your own interpretation on it.

What it is actually saying is that the term 'athiest' was applied to those that didn't follow the 'mainstream' Gods, but who followed OTHER deities. This makes sense considering the literal meaning of 'without gods' as it simply means 'without OUR gods.' I hope you understand that this meaning is no longer in use today and 'Athiest' now is applied to those that do not believe in any deity. (Which, had you read the book, would have been blindingly obvious.)

What is also important to note is that Athiesm is not a belief in itself - a belief that something does not exist is simply a redundant statement.

Nope, still wrong. It's not about whats more 'right' its a matter of fundamental logic and concepts.

The belief is "There is a God." Which can be accepted, in which case you have the belief. Or rejected, in which case you do not have the belief. There is simply no need to expand and create a second belief "There is no God." because it has already been covered ergo to say "There is no God" is a belief is redundant.

This misunderstanding often goes hand in hand with, and exacerbates, the issue with the burden of proof which lies entirely on the side of the claimant - which is the claim that "God exists." NOT "God doesn't exist."

Sweet sweet victory.