obviously without theism there wouldn't be those of us who were atheists because it would be redundant. Because the definition of atheism is very very easy to comprehend. and there is no other way around it, you either believe in a higher being or not. That is the only thing we have in common. Everything else is just coincident.
As far as naturalism, we who call ourselves atheists would most likely be interested in the methodological side of naturalism, since we are skeptic by nature.
John you say "the definition of atheism is very very easy to comprehend" but I don't think that's true because theists don't comprehend it. They think there is something wrong with us for not believing when the fact is it's the other way around.
To be fair, Conservapedia was always going to be biased. Notice that the link goes on to say that Unlike Christianity, which is supported by a large body of sound evidence (see: Christian apologetics), atheism has no proof and evidence supporting its ideology.
Surely this kind of innately biased definition is the reason we are considering this question, though? If asked, or challenged, I would hope to be able to adequately define my atheism to another person, hopefully without bias in either direction (although, let's be honest, that's a lot to ask).
Atheism IS easy to understand. The problem is that it has been mischaracterized, vilified, and misrepresented so much that most people are simply confused about what it means. So, in a since, circumstances have made it harder for the general public to understand, but the concept itself is easy.
I get the misunderstanding a lot. There is a xian group at my school and me and my atheist friend occasionally crash it. We have a xian friend that encourages us to ask questions (providing of course that we do not insult for the sake of insulting). We just poke holes in their arguements. At one point, the woman who ran the group declared that jesus did not know about his divine nature during his childhood. Thusly, as a baby, he did not know about god nor religion. I then asked if this made jesus, as a baby, an atheist. His lacked belief in a god, therefore the was an atehist. The woman replied that because jesus was perfect (and perfect = sinless) and that atheism was a sin he was therefore not an atheist.
When she said this, we just laughed.
Well there would conceptually be atheism, because it passively means 'without a god', but we wouldn't know about it. There would be no such thing as atheism in society, because nobody would subscribe to a god and that would be normal; there would likely be different sects of view on life itself and those would be split between categories, and we would be arguing over particular aspects of evolution or scientific explanations for our origins. Unfortunately I don't think that it's possible for humans as a whole to wonder about our origins and not, at least some of us, come up with the idea that 'a world that looks designed must have been designed, therefore there is a creator'.