Of course, we're all free to develop our personal philosophies. Vervaeke and I are similar in that respect. Indeed, as you say, we both critique Enlightenment naturalism, and we want to develop "spiritual" or existentially deep atheism, rather than being content with something like a consumer mindset.

But in explaining his terms, he made it sound like he wasn't just engaging in a rebranding exercise, or like his point about atheism vs nontheism wasn't just political or tactical. He was saying atheists are as confused as theists about metaphysical matters. And that's bullshit.

Your comment seems self-contradictory to me. The more Vervaeke countenances personification in his religious philosophy, the fewer grounds he'd have for considering himself technically an atheist. At any rate, he plainly doesn't want to call himself an atheist, but my suspicion is that his "nontheism" is incoherent since it would imply both atheism (philosophical naturalism) and theism (personification of metaphysical foundations).

Oh, what a tangled web we weave...