Your drivel can be summed up in two words:
fucking bullshit.
Do you "not believe in purple elephants"? No. Purple elephants don't exist. If someone said, "You're just an unbeliever in the reality of purple elephants," you'd call them nuts.
Guess which one you are in that analogy? That's right, you're the nut who believes in non-existent things. Your mythical "god" is the purple elephant.
An atheist is a person without belief in gods, plural. You dishonestly speak, and display your bias, as if one specific mythical "god" actually existed and atheists denied that one.
In reality, atheists view ALL mythologies as equally false: the jew/christian/muslim "god" of the Old Testicles is as false as Zeus or Quetzalcoatl. Until you prove even one of them exists, not just yours it doesn't exist. Books of myths and allegations written by people are not proof. And thus far throughout history, religion has failed to prove itself. Feces Christ is a myth, no such person ever existed. There is no Roman record of such a person, nor in the writings of anyone else who existed at that time.
As for a well lived life, since your "god" does not exist, you are no more influenced by the supernatural than I am (i.e. not at all). Religion is nothing more than a form of political ideology with "god" at its centre instead of "the workers". Extremist religions are no different than communism, both falsely claiming an absolute "right" to impose their will on others, criminalizing, exiling, imprisoning and killing those who don't agree. There is no difference between the actions or views of human rights in christian extremism (the crusades, inquisition, Nazis and todays imperialist wars for oil), islamist extremism, or communist states like the USSR and PRC.
Most atheists are ethical, a few are unethical. Most cultists are ethical, a few are unethical. Bottom line: religion has nothing to do with morality. What cultists religion like yours does do, however, is make blind allegiance much easier and criminal behaviour in the name of "god" possible.
Or as Steven Weinberg put it:
"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil?that takes religion."

God is just another name for everything,
And nothing greater than that.
=
MJA

Studies show that believers are happier than atheists.
My guess is that there is a God and a belief in him is good for the soul.
My saying this will no doubt, along with many other things, make atheists very, very unhappy...

State a vague fact + state what you believe + state something inflamatory = Fox News loves this formula.
But, negativity aside, the concept of religion is a wonderful debate, especially when our emotions are tied to a concept, then that is wonderful subjective fodder.

Atheism is not a definition of anybody's life. Atheism is simply an answer to "Do you believe?" or "Are you saved?"
Atheists get their meaning, purpose, morals and ethics the same place God does. From the tribe they belong to. Modern tribes are more diffused and amorphous than traditional tribes, but we know who we are.
The afterlife is a con game that has no meaning for most atheists, even a theist like Forrest Church recognizes that the best we can do is live a life worth dying for. After that, who knows, and who cares. Any afterlife mediator that doesn't look at that life that was worth dying for isn't worth worrying about.

Where does God get his morals? From tribes?
This theory fails to account for the life of the most famous human of all - Jesus, whose morals and insight I can only assume were light years away from the 'tribal' beliefs he was exposed to in upbringing. (And no, I am not religious, but I am also not willing to toss out the history books because I find them 'inconvenient' or at odds with what I have pre-determined to be true).
Is life after death really just a 'con game'?
Is there evidence that supports life after death? There seems to be - and in an overwhelming manner as well. Even if one were to ignore the 'Godly' insight offered by Jesus, the seeminly extremely common accounts of Near Death experiences ought to be enough to make people shake their heads in disbelief and questions what is real and what is not. The atheist's blanket response of 'the mind playing tricks' is just not good enough and far from being a very believable or credible explanation for what actually happened.
Atheists contend to know more than the person who has had the experience of the NDe. Atheists seem to be ok with looking an NDE'r in the eye and assume a position of authority by telling them they know what their experience was and what their experience was not.
I take a different approach. I assume that the NDE'r is the best candidate to determine what their experience was, and whether it was real or not. My role is not to 'overule', but to respectfully listen and 'learn' from what they have to say, for what they have experienced by anyone's standard is absoulutely astonishing.
I would be doing the NDE'r and myself a grave injustice if I could not get past denail to the point where listening actually took priority. The NDE'r has had in my opinion and in the opinion of many, a 1st hand glimpse of a greater reality that awaits. It is up to us if we put that information to good use or not. I choose to do so.

"At first glance, it seems odd to find inspiration in the non-existence of something. "
It's not really inspiration form the non-existence of something. It's inspiration from things existing in the world. Having gone through two major life crises, one while Christian, the other while Atheist. I wouldn't say that I drew inspiration from atheism, instead I drew inspiration from other people overcoming the obstacles and from finding creative solutions to my problem. In fact, it was because I didn't have a theistic belief that I looked so ardently for creative solutions in the first place. Before, I accepted the idea that there was god's plan for me, but that wasn't inspiring, it was consoling.
And that's another distinction that I think one can find between the two. Christians find inspiration and consolation through their belief in God, while atheists find inspiration and consolation in solutions and other people (not their lack of belief); and christians also find consolation and inspiration in other people, so don't knock it down too hard.
As for the "revived" part. Some atheists (as well as myself) felt a different appreciation for the people around us after deconversion. Each moment and individual is very precious since this life is all they get. That can be depressing, but it can also be invigorating because you get to savor your experiences with other human beings. And I think that your post misses that. Theists draw a fair amount of inspiration from a god, while atheists reject that as a place to draw any inspiration, so they don't draw anything from their non belief. Your post assumes that the relation between atheists and their religious beliefs is the same relation as theists and their religious beliefs. This is a faulty analogy since atheism often entails that one rejects that relation along with their theistic beliefs.

If your looking for the truth of God
Study nature,
God is nature,
Truth is absolute,
The lion as is his tail,
Beautifully and simply,
Just or equitably One.
Be One too,
=
MJA

I believe purely that there is only science, there is evidence of it, and if there is a god then why make people suffer? I'm athiest and I'm only unhappy in life because my family is falling apart. Analysis I don't see hoe believing that there is someone out there watching me suffer should make me happier.

Humans also didn't believe in viruses or bacteria
or photons for a long time because they could not see them,
and thought they had no evidence of their existence.
Perhaps we lack the spiritual "technology" to "prove" God's.
And perhaps too, "The proof of God's omnipotence is that
He doesn't need to exist in order to save us."
Perhaps, finally, logic and empiricism are but two
of many many ways of knowing. Perhaps applied not
universally by the Almighty Whatever.

All the proof I personally require of the absence of proposed gods exists in the incoherence of their representative bibliographies and the shifting responsibilities of authorship (the innerant word of god, god inspired, the work of imperfect man). Then, of course, there is the aberrant/abhorrent behavior of the historical and contemporary accolytes.
The concept of god recedes where mankind succeeds, and has done so throughout our historical path out of the dark mists of superstition. It's only a matter of time.

Many atheists have a better understanding of religion than many theists, which would be why they are atheists.

The joy of athiesm is not unto the non existence of the lord. The joy is coming to your truth in the face on overwhelming social opposition and what you have been taught since birth.

If scientific theories and religious faiths were true,
They would be called truth.
I only know One truth,
Just me.
=

I enjoyed your program entitled "Atheism and the Well-Lived Life." But I was surprised that Pascal's Wager was never mentioned. Of course you know the basic formula of the wager: "The wise decision is to wager that God exists, since 'If you gain, you gain all [eternal life]. . .and if you lose, you lose nothing; but on the other hand, if you bet against God, win or lose, you either gain nothing or lose everything.'"
This seems commonsensible. I am now in the commonsensible camp on most issues, coming from a working class family. I think it started on a visit home from college. At the time I was a great freshman intellectual and I was explaining to my father how the world could have come about by ?a confluence of random interactions of molecules.? We were sitting on the porch of our modest home. We watched as the sun set. He said, "You mean the world came into being by accident." I nodded. He smiled. "Bill, look around you,? he said, paused for a moment, and then continued, ?What you see. . .well, it ain't no accident."
I must say I do believe in the Big Bang theory and evolution; and I do not believe in the wealth of nonsense and the outrageous bigotry found in sacred text. But that aside, religion and belief in God have their place and can do good.

I think the point being overlooked here is that atheism does not necessarily translate into a dearth of meaning in life; many atheists, like religious believers, find meaning in something, the only difference being that their belief, their faith, even, is placed in the physical, that is to say, the human, rather than the metaphysical. As a secular humanist, I believe in the power, and responsibility, of humanity to change things for the better- the fact that I do not believe in any god, whether that of the Judeo-Christian tradition or any other religious organization, does not impair my ability to derive meaning from my experiences.
No, the real gulf I feel exists between, on the one side, theists (and deists) and non-nihilistic atheists, and, on the other, nihilists. Thus the more constructive question might be asked of whether it is possible to lead a well-lived life as a nihilist, or whether belief in something, anything, supernatural or not, is necessary.

Praise to all Christians who oppose war. But the largest voting block in the world, American fundamentalist christians (30 million), consistently vote in favor of any war anywhere.

Atheists and deists both get their beliefs, including the joy of life, faith, and morality, from the world around them (and mostly the people). Atheists just do not need to rely on an invisible friend to justify what they believe. Rather, we accept responsibility for our own beliefs.

There is something Freudian about atheists. It is like saying "I don't hate my mother/father I just think she/he is a bitch/bastard. You're an atheist? Great, cool, that's nice. What's the big deal?

At my school, in the mock senate, we amended the flag salute to say "Under TRUTH". Because of the ambiguity, it allows for different interpretations of the truth. As a result one can imply God as truth, or they can have another interpretation.