I disagree with you on one point. You seem to be arguing that dismissing something is the same as opposing it. I don't believe in the Loch Ness monster. However I don't care enough about the Loch Ness monster issue to even argue about it (unless it is for fun with my nephew). There are other beliefs that I feel strongly enough against to actively oppose (e.g. the claim that vaccines cause autism).
The Loch Ness monster is a good example. You may not believe in it, but you don't actively deny it in resistance to all those who believe in it. Atheists are in conflict with theism and theists. They construe God and other spiritual entities to be silly imaginary material entities, like the Loch Ness monster, in order to use materialist/realist logic against spirituality.
In reality, spirituality is not like materialism. God, Satan, angels, demons, heaven, hell, purgatory, etc. don't exist in the same way that animals and mountains and buildings exist. They are not material entities with volume, etc. They are configurations of actions/experiences that connect to procure effects. They are not centrally controlled, though they can be experienced/perceived as such, which is why it is possible to personify/anthropomorphize them as entities with intentional agency, like people.
The rest of what you are saying is that your personal religious experience is real. And, of course it is. You seem to be implying that I can't understand your religious experience because I don't share it. I won't argue the point even though I myself have a religious experience in the context of biblical Christianity.
Somehow religious believers are sometimes able to understand what they mean using religious language. We can watch Christian TV or listen to sermons and understand what the talk means. Atheists don't seem to be able to understand it, because they don't allow themselves to spiritually experience the meaning of 'God,' because they are too busy questioning His existence.
I have a good friend who sees angels. She points them out to me. I don't experience them myself but they are real to her. I accept her angels as real. They are important to me because they are meaningful to her. She knows me pretty well, she knows I believe in science. We can understand each other even though we have different perspectives.
Have you considered the possibility that what she perceives as angels might not be angels? Or do you think that whatever someone wants to project onto a given religious concept, like God or angels, is their own prerogative and there's no such thing as BSing oneself and others using religious language?
You don't have to have the same religious dogma in order to share meaningful experiences with each other.
Of course not, but that's not what this thread is about. It's about atheists learning to understand theist/religious language well enough to be able to follow sermons and other Christian media/texts.
It's basically the same as asking whether someone who loves action movies, thrillers, comedies, sitcoms, etc. but can't stand soap operas can learn to watch and understand soap operas in the same way as devoted soap opera viewers.