I think a lot of people have defined it that way for a long time.

Your question seems to be how much is atheism simply a rejection of the top down, father figure lawgiver that is the more literal interpretation.

If that God of wisdom and judgement could be logically refuted and not just rejected, it would make both sides of the issue meaningless.

It seems to me there really hasn’t been much consideration of the actual logic of assuming the ideal as absolute and the ways it has deformed Western culture.

The Ancients were not ignorant of monotheism, but since there was no distinction between civics and culture, it equated with top down rule. One God, one ruler. Divine right of kings. Democracy and republicanism evolved in pantheistic cultures, which were their version of multiculturalism, as well as anthropomorphic projection. When the West went back to these more populist forms of government, it required a separation of church and state, culture and civics.

Consider the problem Europe has with Muslims is that they don’t recognize this distinction. Quite literally, a truly secular society is against their religion. The mullahs are the judiciary. Sharia law.

It seems the real failure is with philosophy.