This is your definition and it's valid from your worldview, but I will say that I disagree. Atheists typically don't view reality that way "in my opinion and experience." Theists make claims, Atheists reject those claims. When I'm told a God exists, I ask with what evidence do you assert this and the answers always lack a justification worthy of my belief in that claim. I think most Atheist hold this position and not this absurd disregard for the possibility. A teapot could be in orbit around Mars and Santa Claus could be real, but until you provide a valid reason for me to accept that, I will continue to lack belief that a teapot is in orbit around mars and that Santa Claus exists. The same can be said of a God, especially one man has interacted with and that this God inspired books describing his expectations of us and a description of himself.

Atheists do not say, "There is divinity whenever it satisfies scientific method," that is the literal definition of agnosticism. Atheists declare unilaterally, "There is no divinity," which is the literal definition of atheism and also breaks the falsifiable rule of scientific method exactly as much as theists do by declaring, "There is absolutely divinity."

If you think you're the atheist who's reasonable enough to accept divinity wherever it satisfies scientific method then you are not an atheist, you are agnostic. These are literal definitions rooted in etymology.