Perhaps natural atheists? There's really no great term that I can think of here but if you think of one then I'll use that. I really don't care about PC, I defined the term, the label itself is irrelevant.
Natural atheists sounds better, perhaps original atheists or something? Or atheists by upbringing? I think labels have some relevance, to the point where we want to avoid confusion and prevent misnomers.
I don't know about this. I think - but I don't know - that the theism->atheism conversions are more rational than the other way around. That's been my experience from talking to people, anyway. Bad stuff -> God. History, studying, debating -> atheism.
Beware of confirmation bias here. Also, the type of atheists that have a deconversion as described by you tend to be more vocal on the internet (publication bias, if you will). In my experience these atheists exist, but the majority of unbelievers around me either felt repulsed by the church, or didn't care anymore, or didn't like the idea of having to account for all their actions. Lastly, even those who do study background can't guarantee a purely rational (de)conversion because studying can be selective/biased. For example, I would not call basing a deconversion on reading 'The God Delusion' a rational and unbiased choice. This of course works both ways, for conversions and deconversions.
No atheist believes God exists because the definition of atheism is having lack of belief in God. That's like saying "[person who lacks a belief in God] believes in God".
Excuse me, it's a confusing use of language on my part. Read the whole sentence again. What I meant was: Atheists don't accept 1). Full stop. Some atheists do accept 2) and some atheists do not accept 2).
This is confusing. Why would any atheist find Christianity to be more true than any other religion. I mean, the typical progression is either atheism->deism->theism->[particular religion] unless they were already of a certain religion or were familiar with it if, for example, their family or spouse was. But this isn't an actual critical review and acceptance of a religion.
Perhaps shockingly, not every atheist is a Hitchens fanboy. A lot of people around me have a generally positive attitude towards Christianity, see that it does a lot of good, but just aren't convinced of God's existence. Christian atheists are one example. Also, a lot of these people would refer to themselves not as atheist but as agnostic, but they fall within our definition of an atheist.
Correct. However, to atheists, ancient Egyptian, Greek, Roman, (etc) religions, Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Scientology are the same religions as far as truth claims.
You seem to imply that you speak for the entire atheist community. Yet, remember that the term 'atheist' covers much more than just the strictly naturalist, negative-towards-religion, reddit frequenting type. I know atheists who would agree that Christianity is better/more rational than e.g. Scientology, that there is moral truth in some of their claims, etc.
You forgot [...] immersed in it.
Okay, I understand. See earlier.
Here is a [...] believe is true.
I believe I've sufficiently laid out my opinions regarding rationality of (de)conversion a few paragraphs before, so I refer to that.
Lastly, I saw I forgot to adress your question about what constitutes to western values. This is hard to define, but I would suggest seeing them as opposed to e.g. Islamic or East-Asian values. Were you born in a country formerly colonized by the west? This might explain a lack of difference in perceived values.