I haven't finished reading this thread -- though from flipping through the pages I think I should -- so this post is more with the OP in mind.
The definition of atheism that works for me starts with what I think was its original definition. I believe atheism was a word Christians used for defining those who did not believe in the existence of Jesus or God or, well, basically the Trinity. Christianity's god is like a person -- he has a personality, feelings, thinks in a similar way (albeit on a much higher level), desires a personal relationship with people (through prayer, etc.), etc. As a result, I think these days, atheism means, in order of "technical accuracy" (first is most accurate), not believing in the Trinity, not believing in any human-like god, and finally, not believing in a prominent, all-pervasive, single, non-personified entity which created and operates everything. With the last one, a person essentially believes only in that which has been explained by science and does not use any sort of holistic belief to offer an explanation for that which science has not explained. He/She generates theories for each specific phenomenon, based on existing scientific explanations.
I created this definition based on my experiences with people of varying *religiousity* [quick question: why are *s often used instead of "s in people's posts?]. Most everyone seems to consider anyone who doesn't believe in a personified god to be an atheist, but opinions differ regarding a non-personified entity. Some have told me this "entity" I speak of still sounds godly enough (I sometimes describe it as an "intelligence") for me to be not really a total atheist, whereas for others, if I don't fully personify the entity, it loses its god status and I am therefore a full blown atheist.
Any thoughts/criticisms on this definition?
Regarding what I "believe", as I've indicated, I like the idea of all pervading, natural "intelligence" which is the reason why all of reality behaves the way it does. Currently, to fill the slot of the "what started it all" question, I use an uncannily Tao-like explanation. Basically, in Tao terms, matter is the Void's(absolute nothingness) compliment and essentially that all "things" (ie. matter) did come from nothing. I like this explanation because, it confounds and neutralizes logical analysis so elegantly. I could expand on all of this, but I'm pretty drained (I edit A LOT) and I don't even know anymore if this post is suitable for this thread. So for now, goodnight. I'm out.