Ok, Jack... I see your point about the threads, even with obvious overlap.

Now.. I agree with MtheGM just above about that definition.

I approach it this way: it begins with an assertion (or many such) that there are metaphysical realms and entities.. the major one being a Supernatural Bing with powers to manipulate the 'natural' realm, and who cares about whether we know about it (I avoid the personal pronouns when discussing it this way).
Most of us hear about these claims in early childhood, often presented as facts to be learned and not debated, which is relatively easy for most children to absorb. Eventually, we hear discussions about those assertions NOT being facts, and we then have choices about how to proceed.
That is basically what happened in my case. I was raised as a Methodist, though with little serious indoctrination or daily reminders. Still, I didn't question much until I was in my mid teens.
What happened was: the IDEA of questioning 'facts' that weren't immediately obvious became an issue in itself. ("But Mom.. why would tornadoes all come from one direction?") At the same time, I became aware of the myriad of alternate (and often directly conflicting) versions of religious 'truth'. "Hmmmmm", says I, "something awkward here!" What to do? Ah-ha! Study! At about 17 and preparing to enter college (the first one I know of in my entire family to do so!), I learned that some college areas major concern is to facilitate study about truth, logic and decision making. Off I go!.... and soon switching to the Unitarian church where 'churchiness' was done in a manner similar to my Philosophy classes.

Once I had packed in a number of principles about 'thinking' in general, it sort of became apparent that I could NOT continue in an unswerving belief in a Supreme Being who made everything...etc...etc..

Ok..after that much condensed trip thru my development, the question arises, as it did to me at the time... what am I? Atheist was sort of an obvious answer, but during my college career, Madalyn Murray O'Hair was in the news as a REAL Atheist... a militant, anti-Christian troublemaker. I sure didn't like her attitude, and the word carried heavy baggage. Many of my friends, family and fellow students were still practicing Christians, and they were nice people... so why go out of my way to pick fights with them? (I'll admit, in Kansas in the 1960s, it was often hard to avoid the debate)
As I said in the other thread, I settled on the word 'skeptic', which is merely an overall approach that requires all information to be well supported by evidence. It does not require denial of anything. It is guided by rules of logic which identify bad reasoning, which are often an indication of dubious conclusions. It also recognizes that some assertions can not BE proven one way or another... thus making strident atheism flawed in its own right.


So...for those of you who have waded thru this long exposition...some atheists are clearly 'really atheists' and almost defined by being anti-religion (not merely anti-christian), while others have just not thought thru the process of worrying about names. Some folks just don't worry about it, and if pressed will just say they 'don't bother' and have allowed 'atheist' to be applied if others so wish. Others are like me and want our opinions to be clear and understood, if not agreed with.