Yes… and probably for a reason.
Anyway, after a quick and superficial glance to the other posts, I guess you received no answer on what Heidegger means with Dasein. So… I give it a try.
No. That’s about Being, not Dasein (“being there”).
The starting point of Being and Time is “the question of Being”, or “the question of the meaning of Being” (which «must be formulated»).
Here Being is not a being, an entity, because «the Being of entities is not itself an entity». Hence:
Being, as that which is asked about, must be exhibited in a way of its own, essentially different from the way in which entities are discovered. Accordingly, what is to be found out by the asking - the meaning of Being - also demands that it be conceived in a way of its own, essentially contrasting with the concepts in which entities acquire their determinate signification.
Being and Time, Int. I, 2
Yet, if you want to know what Being means, you can hardly avoid looking at entities:
In so far as Being constitutes what is asked about, and “Being” means the Being of entities, then entities themselves turn out to be what is interrogated. These are, so to speak, questioned as regards their Being. […] Being lies in the fact that something is, and in its Being as it is; in Reality; in presence-at-hand; in subsistence; in validity; in being-there; in the ‘there is’. ln which entities is the meaning of Being to be discerned?
ibidem
So, after establishing that in order to know what the Being of beings means we have to interrogate a being, the problem is a bout picking a ‘good’ being.
If the question about Being is to be explicitly formulated and carried through in such a manner as to be completely transparent to itself, then any treatment of it in line with the elucidations we have given requires us to explain how Being is to be looked at, how its meaning is to be understood and conceptually grasped; it requires us to prepare the way for choosing the right entity for our example, and to work out the genuine way of access to it
ibidem
And this is how we (Heidegger) get to Dasein:
Looking at something, understanding and conceiving it, choosing, access to it - all these ways of behaving are constitutive for our inquiry, and therefore are modes of Being for those particular entities which we, the inquirers, are ourselves. […] The very asking of this question is an entity’s mode of Being; and as such it gets its essential character from what is inquired about - namely, Being. This entity which each of us is himself and which includes inquiring as one of the possibilities of its Being, we shall denote by the term “Dasein”.
ibidem
That’s clear, isn’t it? If it is possible to summarize this any further, one may say (maybe) that Heidegger uses the term to denote an entity, namely the entity that inquires and specifically the one which might inquire about its Being and ‘get its essential character’ from that. (Note that ‘essential character’ means ‘mode of being’).
And that it is very important, because:
If we are to formulate our question [the meaning of Being] explicitly and transparently, we must first give a proper explication of an entity (Dasein), with regard to its Being.
ibidem
And in case you feel you might use some clarification, fear not, the man is going to do that:
Dasein is an entity which does not just occur among other entities. Rather it is ontically distinguished by the fact that, in its very Being, that Being is an issue for it. But in that case, this is a constitutive state of Dasein’s Being, and this implies that Dasein, in its Being, has a relationship towards that Being - a relationship which itself is one of Being. And this means further that there is some way in which Dasein understands itself in its Being, and that to some degree it does so explicitly. It is peculiar to this entity that with and through its Being, this Being is disclosed to it. Understanding of Being is itself a definite characteristic of Dasein’s Being. Dasein is ontically distinctive in that it is ontological.
Being and Time, Int. I, 4
If you enjoyed this, you can have a lot more if you read Being and Time, which is available online (and where the quotes come from).
If Heidegger was a ‘confirmed atheist’ would depend hugely on your definition for that - and on your definition of God.
Finally, I guess you could be a young man, so allow me a word of advice: don’t do this to yourself.