Delusion In Most Atheists?

No no , but i once heard of one.
But 
But
There is john the atheist , Rebecca , Derek, Lequisha, and Kamal the atheist. 
Rebecca likes horses and rap music. 
Derek is all about motorbikes and chicks.
Johns a family man 3 kids.
Kamal , i don't know much about kamal 

The Atheists don't do weekly meet ups at the clubhouse. The atheists don't even group sing. 
As a qhrase i hate using , It is what it is. 
And and , what the hell does another person's opinion have to do with you being this or that. 

The theists would say now do what ya heart says. 

Anyway, a  big welcome to TEAM AGNOSTIC nice to have you aboard. 
Now i no you like a litte play with words , we here at team agnostics have to deal with.

God either exists orrrrrr he doesn't. Its one or the other. NOT BOTH. 
And you are Agnostics ?

Any luck on your heart telling you what to do yet?

Do what ya wanna do be what ya wanna be yeah.
I mean, I'm  a attack helicopter. 

And Remember this, if you decide to become a theist you will have to pick a group to join as you need one of them holy books to hook ya god you believe in up to. 

Maybe non religious group god can better explain this to you.  Lets ask him. 
Hey non religious group ?
Non religious group god are you there?
No?
No he ain't around but I'm sure non religious goup god would say .

I will not be seen as a delusional hypocrite by theists.

Good for you, but you will gain the disdain of the atheists here. Good luck with that.

i've never seen the difference between not believing in gods and believing there are no gods.  Is it possible to do one but not the other?

I've been an atheist most of my life. And until just recently, I thought the majority of us were very sane, logical and intelligent, as opposed to theists whom are obviously delusional(the belief in the existence of that which cannot be known to exist is denial of reality, which is the textbook definition of delusion).

How could atheists stoop to the considerably low intellectual level of theists? To claim that gods don't exist is just as delusional as the claim that they do, as that claim too is denial of reality. Humans cannot prove nonexistence. A lack of evidence/proof is not evidence/proof for. That is a very basic principal of debate and indeed reality that I was sure most atheists were intelligent enough to understand, but it seems I was wrong. I'm almost ashamed to be one now.

If this is the definition atheists insist upon taking, then I refuse to call myself one, as I will not be seen as a delusional hypocrite by theists. My goal is to enlighten people, not build a glass house and throw stones.

My goal is to enlighten people

I don't see the OP as enlightening at all, when will you get around to that? And if you're not calling yourself an atheist anymore, what will you call yourself?

The truth of the matter is that most atheists don't really understand what their position means because they don't really understand what God means.

i've never seen the difference between not believing in gods and believing there are no gods.  Is it possible to do one but not the other?

Actually I am in a debate. Most of your claims have been refuted by my opening argument there, and so I invite you to follow the debate:

As for the only claim I haven't refuted yet(your claim that people may have reason to believe): They're free to present that reasoning to me in the form of an argument for the claim that the Christian god exists.

This is a debate site, yet you prefer to debate on the forums? Interesting, though I'm afraid I don't share the same preference. I will clarify myself, but I will not debate you here.

Theists believe in the existence of an entity/entities that has/have yet to be shown to be empirically perceivable. That makes them delusional. Why? Observe an excerpt from my argument in the debate I linked you:

"Why Merely Making Claims Isn't Enough

I think my opponent, and the reader, can agree that we are all human. There are only two forms of knowledge available to humans:

Knowledge a priori

Knowledge a posteriori

What Is Knowledge A Priori And A Posteriori?

Both of these terms refer to the method by which knowledge can be justifiably believed as true. To be justified in believing something is to have an epistemic reason to support it, or, more plainly stated: a reason for thinking it is true.

Knowldge a priori is knowledge that is justifiably believed to be true without the need of empirical experience. An example of knowledge a priori: All bachelors are unmarried. The term "bachelor" is defined as an unmarried male human by the English language. Therefore, a male human can only be classified as a bachelor if he is unmarried. Thus, if a male human is classified as a bachelor, then the male human is unmarried.

Knowledge a posteriori is knowledge that cannot be justifiably believed as true without empirical experience. An example of knowledge a posteriori: It is currently raining outside. One cannot know that it is currently raining outside without either seeing it, hearing it, smelling it, tasting it, or touching it. If one of these empirical senses have not experienced rain in the current time, then knowledge that it is currently raining is not justifiably believed as true.

The Christian God Is Claimed To Be An Entity

Unfortunately, the Christian god, being an actual entity, does not meet the criteria of something that can be known a priori. Entities are things that can only be known a posteriori. In other words: Only through empirical experience. If a human has not seen, heard, smelled, tasted, or touched this Christian god, then said human cannot justifiably believe that the Christian god exists.

In Conclusion

My conclusion is very simple: The Christian god is an entity, and an entity can only be known through empirical experience. Therefore, unless my opponent wants to prove that they have empirically experienced this Christian god, then they cannot justifiably believe that the Christian god exists, nor can they prove it exists."

Now, as I said, I will not be debating this issue with you here. If you wish to debate me, I'll happily challenge you to a formal debate. Otherwise, take my answer or leave it.

I recently lost a boat load of respect for an atheist...She states that "atheists" who claim that atheism is defined as a "lack" of belief in gods or deities are morons, and that true atheism is the affirmative claim that gods indeed do not exist.

How could atheists stoop to the considerably low intellectual level of theists?

If this is the definition atheists insist upon taking, then I refuse to call myself one,

Agnostic atheists do not claim to know affirmatively if god exists, yet they reject the claim that he does.

And since gods are nothing more than a man made claim, no gods exist is the natural conclusion once you reject the god claim.