Originally Posted by Totenkopf
Or they're merely self-deluded/confused. Still your comment doesn't really address mine, which was that by definition, athiests believe in no god/gods. That, at least, isn't nuanced.
That is true, for a given value of what the term atheist means. But as Achilles also just pointed out, there are some people that point to what they define a god to be, and say they don't believe in one as classically defined by the world's religions and that proves they themselves are an atheist because they aren't willing to apply the term god to the most powerful being in the universe, creator of the universe (if they hold to some kind of entity without intelligence as we understand it), or even the sentient universe itself (if they happen to go with those that hold the Gaia hypothesis). Budhism doesn't really have any central dogmas as to the nature of the higher power, so you will find individuals with each of these points of view calling themselves athiests, as well as others calling themselves theists with very little else about their views of things.
Others look at their definitions, say they might as well be theists because they're merely hairsplitting in their criticism of established groups anyway, and lump them in with the theists. So yeah. I would say that it's nuanced when you starting looking at it beyond the individual level and how people get along together. Not so much if you take a person at face value of what they themselves claim to be.