What do you have to be?

[Angrboda]

It's not clear, but you seem to be using Idealism in multiple ways. The popular Hollywood movie The Matrix represents an Idealism in which all of a person's perceptual experience is generated on a computer and fed directly into their brain for humans who are still connected to the Matrix. Their reality, if they were to postulate it as it actually is, constitutes a version of Idealism. Yet none of the machines that run the matrix are gods, nor is the Matrix itself a god, all they are is intelligent machines.

I think the second equivocation is that you're being very liberal in that to which you apply the term "god". To tighten your focus, it isn't necessary that an atheist lack belief in a god, only that they lack belief in those things that they understand as being postulated to be gods. An atheist makes no statement about gods who are either unknown to them, or whose properties can't be sufficiently described as to be knowable; such creatures are noumenon, and it makes no sense to believe in them and simultaneously hold to the utility of reason. There is certainly a question here as to what properties a god must have to qualify as a god, yet this is ultimately a question with pragmatic answers. One can certainly describes potential gods whose membership in the set of all gods is disputable (such as pantheist, panentheist and deist gods), but this demarcation problem is usually handled admirably by the advocates of such gods loudly proclaiming their status as gods, and even when not, it would be a fallacy of the beard to propose that under adequate consideration, a significantly large set of entities cannot be sorted into one or the other category reliably. The only real question is, are you struggling with the god status of a non-god, or the non-god status of a god? If not, I'd say your practical problems are basically solved.