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?

You are claiming its true, you have to explain why.

No, you are the one making a claim, its up to you to demonstrate why your claim is true or why we should accept that its true.

The moral reasons they have is not “immigration policy”. Immigration policy is political, its not a strictly moral consideration. I think “they” would consider it a strictly moral issue, ergo when you judge them for not having the same practical mix that you do, you do so with a different standard...the point ive been trying to make is that you need to parse out that distinction for your judgement to be valid. Are you judging them by a strictly moral standard, which is how they are thinking about it, or do you want to measure their strictly moral position by the metric of Whats good for the country? (Whats good for the country may not be moral at all)
Once you parse that then your question answers itself, they obviously pass a moral standard with the former, and obviously fail at the practical consideration needed for an immigration policy.

Im finding it difficult to parse your point here...
It seems like you want to know if the justification they use is valid or not, weighing it against a practical consideration about immigration and border controls. You are mixing metrics though, this is an example of morality vs practicality (including finding a balance between the two) and if you want to say that ignoring the practical consideration is immoral that is different than saying the practical outweighs the moral.
I think you need to make a strong distinction there to focus on what youre after. Thats my take in it so far.

What do you mean by contrasting “moral” and “right” in your question? Is “right” meant to mean “moral”? Or do you intend it to mean something more like practical towards a goal?
In other words, Id like to know if you are asking about competing morals or are you asking about how a moral should be weighed against a non-moral (or immoral) consideration?

You must have meant to respond to someone else.

I don’t know why that was addressed to me. What do you think any of that has to do with anything I’ve said?

Well math isnt something that has always existed. “”Always existed” is problematic, but even without that math is a man made description and/or a modelling structure. I think you might be confusing our description (math for example), with the reality we use something like math to describe or interact with. So that might be a useful distinction to make in your journey.
Im missing the connection between man-made things being problematic and the above, but none the less Im curious. What is it about man made things that is problematic? By what standard could you possibly measure it differently that the horror show that is the natural world doesnt also qualify?

Really, I’m just going on a journey — Brett

Ok. It sounds to me like its taken you towards deterministic ideas, that ideas and actions are already laid out somehow and they are just waiting for you “discover” them (become aware of the casual chains to some degree).

What sort of things? — Brett

Things that are created, like ideas or an iphone. It depends on what catagory of things you are getting at.

It depends on what you mean by “everything”. Some things by their nature cannot exist prior to our Ability to “see” it.
Are you taking a roundabout route to talking about determinism?

Ok. What about it exactly?

Knowledge isnt something that can be discovered, it is something you have as the result discovering something. Knowledge results from discovery, but the thing you are discovering isnt knowledge itself. You find a coin on the ground, and that results in knowledge of the coin. The coin existed before your discovery, but the knowledge only exists once you, the discoverer of the coin, becomes aware (gain knowledge) of the coin.