Augustine's argument contains a very basic metaphysical flaw: to exist is to exist as something, ergo, if he holds that 'evil exists', then evil must have an ontological status. Therefore the argument that 'evil is merely a lack of something' falls to pieces: a negative definition, devoid of any universe of discourse, is meaningless. To make 'evil' meaningful and coherent, we must describe it precisely as the christians describe evil: as a set of intentions and/or actions.

As for atheism being " privation of the recognition of Theos". this commits the fallacy of circular reasoning - to define atheism this way assumes that there is a 'god' going unrecognized.

 Finaly, you write "The best approach to protesting theism is to subscribe to anti-theism, but even that gives credence to the substantial claims of theism."

You seem to hold to the notion that to entertain an argument requires acceptance of said argument. However, an argument may make reference to an entity as a hypothetical in order to refute it.