A Civil Religious Debate

Probably. The problem is that 'atheism' is defined by something it's not, and not by what it is. It's like having a name for something that's not a porpoise. That doesn't really tell you what it is. For example, I could call myself an evolutionist, because I believe in the theory of evolution, or even more accurately, as a "sciencist", someone who thinks that the scientific method is a good way to try to find the truth (as opposed to a "scientist", which is someone who actually uses the scientific method to find the truth).

By definition I think you may be right, shouldn't it be adeist if you don't believe in any God, and a-theist if you don't follow any religion.

ricedaragh brings up a good point about the origin of the word 'atheist', but I think most people today consider an atheist to be someone who doesn't believe in the existence of gods.

It's certainly not a trick to avoid them, although I think a lot of athiests may be left without a justification of first principles (I'm guessing at what "first principles" might be, since I haven't heard the term before). I would suspect that most atheists (like most people) will just adopt the first principles of their culture, or choose the first principles of their culture that they like best, if their culture has more than one set.

Personally, I like to find an evolutionary justification for what makes something right or wrong. A lot of people might interpret that as justifying hurting other people in order to get ahead, but I think that we evolved a conscience, evolved a set of rules for our societies, evolved religion, because it helped us survive. These things enable us to work together in groups, and groups can accomplish a lot more than individuals can. Certain systems of right and wrong may work better than others as well, and this results in a natural selection of societies as well as of individuals.

By balancing what works best for ourselves and what works best for our societies, we can derive a set of rules that works best for our society, yet still allow us to prosper within that society. For example, it would be good feed and house all of the poor, but if our society doesn't have enough resources to support that, then the society will be weakened and everyone will suffer.