Nothing wrong with giving up, thats someones personal choice.

No ones to blame. Thats just being dealt a bad hand, an unlucky toss of the dice.

Deja vu...

Your very first post to me was condescending...and damn near every post since has had tinges of condescension rippling through it. That is one of the reasons I am not showing as much respect to you that I normally do to people with whom I am in discussion. — Frank Apisa

I don’t care. Keep these little self important diatribes to yourself....like its my fault I have to talk to you like a child because your too dense to understand things at a higher level.

Here you start off with a pretense that I am saying it is not acceptable to continue making your point...despite my specific answer to your question on that issue being, "Yes, make any arguments you want...that is your right." — Frank Apisa

Holy shit. I explained I had to ask questions to make my point, then you said go ahead and make your point but im not answering any more questions. You are not paying attention, you are just waiting to continue soapboxing.

I suspect this "what is the meaning of need" crap is just an extension of that condescension. — Frank Apisa

A very dim witted suspicion. I was trying to clarify your use of “need”, so that I could answer your irrelevant question in an attempt at communicating with you despite the giant chip on your shoulder and obtuse, deaf and ranting disposition.

Anyway, to show you at least a modicum of respect so that we might get this discussion back on track, I am simply going to ignore that question...so it won't be counted. — Frank Apisa

The respect of a moron who cannot track more than one thing at a time is not required for discussion. The discussion is on track when both parties act in good faith (which you aren't) and when both parties are paying attention to what the other is trying to say. (Which you are also not doing, unless you are being dishonest and/or some kind of idiot).

Answer my question as written. You do not need any further explanation of the words I used. — Frank Apisa

No you goofy prick, YOU are not the one who decides if I need clarification. How can you not understand such simplicity?!
Clarification is for the person trying to understand, me in this case. The best person to determine if I understand your question is me, not you.

Now, you are an atheist whether you like it or not, you are just too stupid on too many levels and in too many ways to comprehend how utterly void of merit your protests that you are not an atheist really are.
Like your comprehension levels, your little tantrums are childish And are an obstacle to having any kind of meaningful discussion with you.
You need to get your head out of your ass, as you are not nearly the intellect you think you are, nor is your position anywhere near as strong as you think it is. Removing your head from your ass will help with that. Then, you need to clean the shit from your ears (a result of having your head up your ass, no doubt) and fucking listen to whats being said to you. Pay attention, some people are actually interested in discourse, back and forth, learning...instead of just blathering the same witless garbage and ignoring anything that stands in the way of repeating the same, defenceless, vacant drivel the way you do.

I suggest you shut the fuck up and save whatever pathetic response you cook up, because while Im tired of trying to use reason and logic to get through that thick fucking skull of yours but I feel positively invigorated to continue pointing out the ways in which you have completely, epically failed to make your case or even understand the simplest concept...you will get more of the same from me going forward. I mean, I know your inflated, toddler ego will not let you and it will be irresistible for you but try...just try, to shut your stupid mouth Long enough to notice or learn something.

Ok, so NOT acceptable to continue making my point.
I gotta say, getting more and more clear you arent paying attention.

Ok, so in order to answer your question I need to know what you mean by “need”, and why you put it in quotations. This is because Im not sure what the word “need” means in the context of a word definition. This is a clarifying question, so hopefully it doesnt qualify for this strange tit for tat you’ve adopted.

So are you actually interested in hearing other peoples points, or are you just interested in your turn to make yours? This is you, once again, trying to shift the burden to me, to dodge an argument made directly against yours.
I tried making my point all at once, and you failed to engage and/or understand it, so its necessary to go step by step (which will require a series of questions) to see where either you are misunderstanding or where I am. By refusing to go through it step by step, you are just doubling down on exactly what I said you were doing.
In fact, I am going to address your question in the process of making my point because my point (chosen at your request) is about what the most sensible definition of atheism is.
If thats still not acceptable after that further explanation, then I will answer your question but not without noticing this is merely another attempt to dodge on your part, and my patience is wearing thin. Not a threat, just a fair warning that this discussion may not survive you forcing us into the weeds.
Is it acceptable for me to continue making my point?

Im not finished making my point, I just asked the one question so we can do it step by step, and not get lost in the weeds.
So I would like to finish what I started...we might find your question moot after Ive made my point and/or you have refuted my point.
Acceptable?

Ok, so you arent following the discussion. What you just posted was what you posted initially. We arent talking about that right now, but lets walk you through it step by step. Before you go off about being condescended to, thats not what Im doing. From my perspective, you are not getting what Im saying. Going through it step by step will help one of us to understand where they have gone wrong, could be me or it could be you and by going over it we will determine which it is. We do not determine who is correct by who asserts the loudest and hardest, so just stop doing that.
Ok, so you have posited a definition of atheist above. Your definition does not include people who lack a belief in god, correct?

You have just done exactly what I said you are doing, making assertions with no arguments....and you did that while saying thats not what you are doing.
I do not need to hear your position again. I understand what your position is. At your request, I chose one of the two arguments I made against you. It was to determine which definition (lack of belief, or yours) is the most sensible. I offered reasoning as to why mine was stronger, and yours the weaker. I used an analogy to illustrate further the error you make in your definition. You have not addressed any of it. You just keep repeating (and adding new) assertions, and restating your original reasoning (which doesnt have much to it to start with, but Im trying to be charitable). I have addressed these, and if there is some reason why my arguments are wrong, you need to demonstrate it. Unlike you, who claims its impossible to show your position the weaker of the two because it isn’t (which is an assertion and a circular line of reasoning), I am open to being wrong. I just want to be shown how.
So, once again: address my argument, address my refutation of your argument...and now since you’ve made yet another assertion I would like you to tell me in what way I have failed to address your argument since I do not see how.

Dingo...you sound like Trump. Everything everyone else is doing is substandard...and what you are doing is laudable. — Frank Apisa

No, Its just you that Im talking about and Im not saying what you are doing is substandard. I think that you are wrong, thats all. I could be the one thats wrong, and the way to determine that is for us to state our positions and defend them. Thats not what you are doing. You are making assertions, failing to defend them and then restating your assertion.
Once again, I have already provided an argument as to why your definition is the weaker one. Address that. I have offered a position and reasoning why my definition is better, stronger. Address that.
You simply are not engaging with whats being said to you, instead you are attempting to dodge...trying to shift the burden, comparing me to Trump, making it about my attitude, my spelling and punctuation, personal problems in your life, changing the subject, complaining about me not going along with your dodge/shift, restating again in caps...anything but what you are actually supposed to be doing.
YOU asked me to pick one thing, which I did. I laid out my position (again, this was at YOUR request), defended it and offered an argument against your position. I did what you asked, and it is not unreasonable for me to expect you to address it.
Now, you have laid down the groundwork to throw your hands up and walk away so you can do that. You can address my points, thats another option. What isnt an option is for you to drag me into the weeds, I am not going to play this game with you.
The choice of course is yours, but Im still interested in the discussion if you want to actually have it.

Why would I do that? Were we having a disagreement over something? If so, lets start with that instead of whatever this is...

Your response has no counter-points, and still no demonstration that your way of defining atheism is better. All you did was try and ad hoc your own definition.
I stated a position, then offered reasoning/defense of that position, then offered reasoning as to why your position is wrong. You have not addressed any of it. Instead you are making a largely irrelevant update on your definition and using that to attempt a pivot, a shifting of the discussion, a dodge. These are the weeds I mentioned, lets try and stat out of them.

An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." — Frank Apisa

I think the definition of atheism “lacking belief in god” is the most sensible. This is accurate because all atheists lack a belief in god, it is the common denominator of the atheist category, and that makes it definitive of what an atheist is.
Contrasted to your own definition
“An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
That Describes two kinds of atheists, two examples of people who lack a belief in god (one because they feel like they have some reason to believe no god exists, the other who lacks belief in god because they find that the more likely). It doesnt cover the ground it needs to in order to be definitive.
Your definition is the worse of the two, it confuses category and sub category. An analogy would be “berries”....you are defining “berry” as strawberrys and blue berries. Atheism is like “berry”, the guy that believes there are no gods is the “strawberry” and the guy thinking it more likely that there is no god the “blueberry”. An Agnostic could be a “raspberry”, just another berry (another type of person who lacks belief in god).
Aside from your aversion to the label, what makes your definition the better one? You havent demonstrated it at all.

1 - well, according to your way of defining atheism you are not an atheist but according to the proper usage of the term you are. I know that irritates you, and you want to dodge the label by redefining the word, and thats fine. We can talk about what the most sensible definition is, and see if maybe you have improved the definition but you are incorrect to act as though your way of defining atheism is standard, proper, or accepted by actual atheists.

I've seen your writing...and you are either careless or don't give a damn about how your posts look. If you actually are intelligent...have more respect for what you write. Otherwise people will make unwarranted judgments about your abilities. — Frank Apisa

Its the latter. Unwarranted judgements are strong indicators of stupidity, thats my litmus test. If someone has a problem with it it tells me everything I need to know about whose smart and whose not.

Anyway, your responses were about being offended so you have yet to address my actual points, if you care to do so.

Thats not what Im doing, thats your own sensitivity. I think you are lost in the semantics, and explaining/showing you how is walking you through it, its not meant to be condescending. Its just that I think you are confused, and im just being honest and straightforward.
Besides, you don’t know anything about me, so you really have no idea how I compare to your “more credentialed and informed” conversations. Im not impressed by your appeal to other conversations you’ve had and I dont have time for some chip on your shoulder about being treated as an equal. Maybe once you’ve cooled off you will see you’ve overreacted here and the discussion can continue but maybe not...it seems like you have more pressing matters to tend to anyway.

1 - well, according to your way of defining atheism you are not an atheist but according to the proper usage of the term you are. I know that irritates you, and you want to dodge the label by redefining the word, and thats fine. We can talk about what the most sensible definition is, and see if maybe you have improved the definition but you are incorrect to act as though your way of defining atheism is standard, proper, or accepted by actual atheists.

2 im asking you that because you are lost in semantics, so I was walking you through the semantics. We can just focus on what the most sensible definition of atheism if you want instead if you like, these are two separate counter-points to your current position.

What are ego ideals?

Now I feel like your having fun with me here, being intentionally difficult on this point... you seriously do not know what self reflection is?

An internal, mental mirror, yes. Self reflection.

I feel like you aren’t connecting with what Im saying. Knowing yourself is what self reflection is all about. How are you trying to know yourself?

...and how does your misery factor into that? I thought philosophy was causing you anguish?

I dont know what you mean.

I already said, by self reflecting and trying to track the two.
Have you ever practiced mindfulness, or meditation? Id recommend first researching how your mental illness or whatever you want to call it, interacts with meditation or mindfulness as there may be dangers, but if its safe then it can really help to parse whats happening in your mind.

...ok.

Well Im not trained in psychology, but I would say that you depsycholigise philosophy by making the distinction between your psychology and your philosophy. Self reflect, And try to figure out where one begins and the other starts, and when/where your psychology is informing ( I almost want to say “corrupting”) your philosophy. Then you will at least know which enemy you are facing, and if philosophy is actually an enemy at all.

Ya, thats just theistic semantics, calling a lack of belief a belief to draw a false equivalence so they can shift the burden of proof. You aren’t doing that, but you are making the same error.
What I think you have a problem with is people who are atheists for bad reasons, and/or who are anti-theists and atheists but fail to make the correct distinction between the two. Those people are just one kind of atheist, and there are all kinds of different atheists...what they have in common is a lack of belief in god/gods, thats it. Thats what defines atheism. You want to change the definition because you do not want to be in the same category as people I imagine you find obnoxious about thier atheism.
Anyway, if I lack a belief in god then the answer to the question “do you believe in god?” Is “no”, correct?

No, I dont think people are naturally ethical on the whole, but Im not sure why thats relevant. What Im trying to get at is how you may be conflating philosophy with those other things, and that not recognising this distinction is at least partially why you feel burdened by philosophy.

Ok, well how do you distinguish between all that and the philosophy? How do you know where the specific sufferings come from? Why do you lay it at philosophies feet?

You suffer from mental illness right? How do you make the distinction between suffering from mental illness, and the suffering from philosophy?
It seems to me that the former informs the latter.

I asked what YOU think atheism means, not anything about atheists you know and how they may or may not describe themselves...or about how you choose to describe them using theistic semantics
I would like a clear, concise definition for atheism from you. Im asking you that because I want to know if I agree with your definition and to keep this from going into the weeds. Please, just give me a short, concise definition without reiterating your problem with some peoples use of the term.
My second question may have been a bit clumsy, so lets just start with my first one. It will be easier to communicate if we keep things short and to the point, dealing with one thing at a time.

You havent demonstrated a very deep understanding of the word, certainly your use of “CLEARLY” Is erroneous here. If it was clear from the epistemology alone you wouldnt need to bring it up. You also fail to justify claims you make, such as that defining atheism as lacking belief in god is an insult to reason and logic. How? Even if you think thats the wrong definition, that doesnt mean its an insult to logic and reason. Anyway, I have some questions if your actually interested in a discussion.
First, you didnt provide a definition of what you think atheism is, so lets hear that.
Also, What is the difference, in your mind, between “being without a god” and “being without a belief in god?”. Im curious to know what being without god would even mean if not being about belief.

He means all the things you necessarily “agree” to by being alive. I think he might even include All the things you might experience aa well, if pressed.

Indeed, you need to shop around for the right person. And try a range of meds and see what works best. My aunt is schizophrenic, and was pretty hopeless about getting better until she found the right meds, but when she did it was a huge increase in well being.

Were you addressing me with that last comment, cuz I didnt mean to say we have “keep going” in our DNA, even though we probably do. I was making a different point altogether though.

Are you getting professional help?

I don’t buy that at all. There are plenty of people “we” don’t need, and plenty of people that are not interdependent on plenty of other people. Also, plenty of people in plenty of different boats.

I suspect there are 2 main reasons people do not want other people to “give up” ( a bit unclear how expansively you mean that).
The first is social conformity. Social creatures like humans have instincts that identify social outliers as weak and therefore a threat to social stability or the tribe. Its the same reason why a pack of wolves will gang up and kill the weak link. Im not saying that someone (you in this case) who chooses to “give up” are weak (You may be, but could also have other reasons for choosing the “give up” method). I just think that the “give up” attitude is triggering the response from others described above, whether that triggered response is accurate or not I do not know.
Second, I think that people naturally see themselves in others, our peers are like mirrors. Since everybody feels like giving up sometimes, they do not like to be reminded of those times of hopelessness or weak moments by someone who hasnt moved on in the same way, or who doesnt seem bothered by such a state the way they were when they felt like giving up.
To sum it up, your decision makes people uncomfortable.

Alright, well you’ve successfully wasted my time so kudos if that was your goal but we are done here.

Thats not an explanation, nor in any way demonstrative of your claim.
I suspect you know this...you bored or something I guess?