How about non-indoctrinated or non-delusional?

Hate it!

Totally in latin it just means without a god -just descriptive nothing else to be said -

Atheist beliefs are still a spiritual statement even if they involve a non-belief in spirits. People tend to like pigeon holing to keep things simple and more organized. If the term helps them to understand me and they show respect for my position, then I am comfortable using the term.

No our A word is 2700 years old most comforting sound ...a prefix negating the negative theos yielding the positive freedom from theism. ...it is the haunting gutteral gawd gott gods which makes me feel threatened by xians jews even the Dalai Lama has hundreds of minor gods in his words tolerated like tolerating rapist priests and 2 living felony popes covering up evidence of rapist priests crimes. ...yes I am a very happy American Atheist born that way staying that way no matter how McCarthyistic TrumpOLINI gets

its just a word and I hate being pigeonholed but its close enough I guess.

I'm ok with it, but it also should be said that the term comes with negative connotations. While most people who have adapted the term know that it is simply a statement of non-belief in a god or gods, many who still believe find it to be an act of rebellion, and find the atheists claiming the term to be acting in direct opposition to their deeply held religious beliefs. We have to work to prove to these people that positive atheism exists, and it's good for all of us.

For reasons explained below, I reject the term Atheist. Note the scale is based on Richard Dawkins books. I consider said books to be a thought experiment. If Dawkins actually takes what he said seriously I no longer consider him to be a serious scientist.

2 scales. 1) What is knowable - gnostic to agnostic. 2) What do you believe - theist to atheist.

I am an extreme agnostic. Evidence is the only form of knowledge that exists. As such I don't consider the 2nd scale valid*. We have no evidence to support the existence or nonexistence of god(s), supernatural, et cetera. Therefore, the 2nd scale is invalid.

• For science to consider a question, it must be quantifiable or verifiable. God is neither.

Point is, if you are theist or atheist, I consider you insane for the exact same reason. You believe something without evidence.

"Atheism is a Religion," they tell us... Off is a tv channel is the appropriate retort that they don't seem to understand.

But to your point --- We should label ourselves. I am not "undecided," I reject Christianity / Religion as myth and superstition. I think about Religion often, how messed up the world is because of it and "Atheism" is my stand against them. (sorry about the sloppy nature of this comment)

I personally like and support labels; they help me self-actualize my identities and feel a little more secure in them but, more importantly, they help people identify with others who share the same beliefs and values. Labels help make you visible to people who need you in their lives.

We all know that atheist, as a word, means without theism. Since theism is so rampant in our culture(s), I don't have a problem applying that label to myself. I feel it accurately describes me and I like words that accurately describe me.

That said, all of this comes from me as a new atheist. I may be so comfortable with the word, as it applies to me, because I'm used to labels like "Christian" and "Jew." Those labels were very important to me for a long time. I shall have to wait and see if I feel differently about it after I've been doing this longer.

I feel entirely comfortable with my position that I am somewhere between and agnostic and a atheist

I feel entirely comfortable with my position that I am somewhere between and agnostic and a atheist

I'm ok with Atheist. Also think we'll of Thinker, and Naturalist.

I'm comfortable with Athiest, free thinker,
Non-believer, simple.

Or, A-religion.

You could say A-santa, or A-fairies, but that includes theias. How about A-fantasy creatures of any kind? It's the handiest "without" word we have.

I am as comfortable with the word atheist as I am with any other reasonably descriptive word.

I really think a lack of knowledge is the default, until you experience or are taught something. There are some primitive things that are inborn, I think, in the brain stem used for survival like sucking to eat, flight or fight response. My info comes from a basic psych class way back in the 70s. I probably should review it.

I prefer "reasonable".

Well, when atheist is the name for someone that believes there is no god (there is no proof of a god, just as there is no proof of the fact that there isn't, that's why the term "agnostic" is preferable to me), someone that doesn't believe in Santa Claus should be called an asanta and for the tooth fairy it's also simple athoothfairy. The thin is that there are only a few adults that still believe that Santa and the Tooth Fairy are real. So, if 99.9% of a population is not believing in either, you can't call it a group that should be separated. In that case you better point it out as now happens, "my children still believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy". Way easier.

I like it in the same way I like bald as a description of hair.

As an Agnostic, I would say I am not, however, I have no issue with anyone else who does identify as an Atheist.

Isaac Asimov observed the same thing. He said it was annoying being defined by what he didn't believe in. I usually say humanist or agnostic. Since that more accurately defines me.

I am always proud to say that I am an atheist

I don't like labels of any kind. They isolate a group of people and lump them all into one easily digested category to which attributes can be assigned. Also, atheist is an absolute term and if I've learned anything in this lifetime, it's keep your mind open and your beliefs flexible.