Surely, and I don’t think I am nitpicking, as an atheist you simply reject theism. Western atheism is in any case pretty much the rejection of the various personal god concepts of the Abrahamic religions. (Buddha isn’t a god and the Jains have a cosmology rather than a theism, which runs on karma but with strong elements of predestination. In neither case does “atheism” make sense as a position.)
A serious problem in discussing this sort of thing in the West is that many Westerners have a concept of how religions work that is actually extremely exclusive. Although early Western scholars did a great deal of good work on the recovery and understanding of Hindu and Buddhist scriptures, they were seeing them from an essentially Christian perspective - so Buddha is seen through a Jesus-prism which is quite inappropriate, and there were many attempts to try to identify a trinity in the Hindu pantheon.
If you take the population of the Earth as a whole and want to use a blanket term “religion” you pretty much have to deBiblicise your thinking. I’m reminded of the story about a university debate in Scotland on Protestant/Catholic relations. At one point an indignant academic shouts “There’ll be nae bishops in Scotland!” “Sit down,” says his friend, “You’re an atheist”. “Aye, but I’m a Calvinist atheist!”
I hope this is a joke because I am unaware of any language of which I know more than a few words (about 5) which doesn’t have homophones.
At least English doesn’t have many nontechnical words which have the same spelling but different meanings and pronunciations (e.g. Russian zamok, castle and zamok, lock - the stress is different and the o is pronounced differently.) There is unionised and unionised, as well as periodic and periodic, but un ion ised and per iodic are not lilely to turn up outside chemical textbooks.
