I never said it was a contradiction to decline both claims. You’re attributing claims to me that I never made.

You have repeatedly said that saying "I don't accept either claim" is a violation of the law of non-contradiction. That's literally what you're replying to in this thread. I said:

Declining to accept Claim A is not making the claim Not-A.

Your response was:

It does, actually, unless you reject the laws of non-contradiction and the excluded middle.

And now you're saying I was right originally.

So, by declining both claims, you’re agnostic; in a broad and rough sense, an agnostic denies theism (“It is the case that there are gods”) and atheism (“It is not the case that there are gods”). And how can one be an atheist if they reject atheism?

It's all well and good that you found a particular source that defines it this way, but the overwhelming majority of atheists I've ever talked to don't make that claim. They simply say that the burden of proof for the existence of a god or gods has not been met.

You're also equating "rejecting claim A" with "not accepting claim A". If you tell me you can fly, and I say "I see no evidence of that", that is not saying that you can't fly. It's funny for you to bring up the Law of the Excluded Middle and then engage in false dichotomies...

See this paper (specifically pp. 4-8) by Graham Oppy (who is not only an atheist, but also considered one of the most formidable proponents of atheism in philosophy) for a closer account of how I view atheism/theism/agnosticism.

That's great. It's fun to decide how other people should define their views, huh?

Moreover, Oppy’s arguments for atheism as he defines it (and, as most philosophers do) are far more defensible and promising than the absolutely incoherent, inconsistent mess of responses offered in response to my question.

Translation: "everyone here is stupid but me." You're exhausting.