They're not. I agree with what you said.

Then lets take it a step further:

The vast majority of people form their identity on the basis of belief-systems or cultural norms which are taught to them, or to which they are exposed, during certain crucial stages of their develpment, such as early childhood, late adolescence and early adulthood. Essentially, their sense of identity is based at some level on what others before them have believed or held to be 'true'.

That is also true, and I don't think it should be simply embraced without question.

So organization doesn't imply or entail intelligence. Some things just organize because that is the easiest path.Dieties are an invention of theists. They get to define them. Atheists making up their own gods in order to deny them would be a waste of time.Atheism isn't a personal identity. It is an answer to the question "do you believe in God?".
If you think it forms some sort of personal identity, then yes; you are misunderstanding. My own life is not in any way based on atheism. My views of religion are defined externally because I have no internal religious beliefs, but that is irrelevant because religious beliefs aren't in the car, let alone the driver's seat of my identity.

*nods*

In what way do you think people who have arrived at a position of atheism, have simply embraced it without question?

How can there be a list of "Celebrity Atheists" if it isn't a personal identity?

Who devised the list of 'celebrity atheists'? Who made the decision as to whether someone was included in the list? (the star or the compiler?)

If, as I'm trying to determine, Atheism simply consists of opposing something which is specifically defined by an outside source, then even by not believing in what they describe, you are still embracing their definition, apparently without question. It just validates their faulty definition.

tangent: the definition of intelligence
 

Do you believe that all things in the universe obey the laws of physics? And your nervous system is made of the same type of stuff as everything else? Therefore, what occurs to you as a thought or a feeling is really just the action of a mechanism which is obeying the laws of physics, right? Unless you have a "soul" or some other supernatural quality, you are a physical object, and "some things just organize because that is the easiest path" as you said. A level of organization above or below your own is not defined as intelligence, simply because you don't understand it. And, it probably feels the same way about you.

The star, if they said "I am an Athiest."

how do they know that they're atheists?

How does who know?

Easy. If someone asks them what their religious beliefs are, and they have none, they say "atheist". Now they're on the list.If there were no definition from an outside source, then there would be no reason for the question of belief to come up. If someone asks me, "do you believe in X", I will say, "What is X?". If they can't answer, I won't make up my own definition.

Do you know that's how the list was made? I've met plenty of people who are "hard-core" Athiests, and definitely do define themselves as such.

@HP: If I asked you "Do you believe in X?" and you asked "What does X mean?" and I said "X is the universe. Do you believe the universe exists?" what would you say? I'm not asking you to make up your own definition. I'm just wondering why the crappiest definition possible is being pushed as the only one available.