I know atheist is used because there are fewer worldwide, and it has a pejorative tinge, but I would prefer to call people who believe in the supernatural ‘theists’.

'Theist' and 'deist' already describe different kinds of belief. If you believe that the universe couldn't have come from nothing by natural causes, and in fact had a divine spark, you're a deist. If you think that the divine spark has a name and personality and meddles around in human affairs, you're a theist.

I know discussing downvotes is out of fashion, but damn, I just wrote out the definitions. https://www.dictionary.com/compare-words/deism-vs-theism

I have all the ‘meaning and purpose’ in my life without arguing with an LLM spewing early 2000s Snide Internet Atheism.

There’s no insight, and there’s no consistency.

If atheism is simply the lack of religious belief, then the supposed superiority of non-believers or the benefits of moral freedom are merely tangential. I personally couldn’t will myself into believing a religion just because it would have good benefits.

I don't think the generated quotes are very good. To me, atheism is not a way of life. I don't go around "not believing in God", in the same way I don't go around "not believing there is a chocolate teapot orbiting the sun.". Neither is atheism being free. You can be atheist and very unfree.

The quotes read like how a religious person who came to atheism might feel, I guess. They are certainly not how any atheists I know would describe it. Mostly it's not there at all.

The more philosophy and physics i've read, the more "atheism" as a movement or world-view, has revealed itself as this weird mixture of scientism and close minded western arrogance.

It's the pendul swinging to hard after the equally rigid organised religious world order most people lived under a hundred years ago, and still do in many places.

Atheism as opposed to some form of agnosticism is to me incompatible with the humbleness actual science and philosophy requires.

Newer historiographies in religious studies also points towards this. There was no clear boundary when "the enlightenment" came and there still is no boundaries when classifying science as something "extremely distinct" from everything else, it's all a big soup linked to the mysteries of myths, dreams, consciousness, symbols, and weird emergent properties - a fact that is mirrored in the absurdities and paradoxes of modern math and physics.

Point is, we just don't know what the hell "we are inside" or "are actually experiencing" to posit a world view with so ridiculous conviction that atheists do - and outside of the very loud minority, most academics i've met have been much more humble about the nature of reality, free will and the big questions because the hard problems are still very much hard, and even increasing in perplexity as you learn more.