Not a term I ever use. I too identify as a Buddhist. Which for me is about trying to live in a particular way as outlined by a man who later came to be known as the Buddha or awakened. There may or may not be a God. I have no way of knowing so I don't give it very much thought. Prefering to put my effort into things I can effect.
Someone here pointed out that 'Buddhism' doesn't treat women equally. I think that's true (and very wrong) for some forms of organised religious Buddhism but there also forms of Buddhism where equality is actively perused.

I'm comfortable with the word and people who claim it. I don't consider myself one because I do believe there is something, I just have no fitting definition, working theology or proof of what it is. I'm ok with that, too.

There are many definitions of "atheism" and "agnosticism." Some are, perhaps, useful in detailed philosophical discussions; others are more useful in everyday conversations. Those are the ones I'm going to discuss here.

Most people, when they talk about "atheists," mean "people who don't believe in gods." Again, in a philosophical or theological discussion, it might be useful to make a distinction between people who think gods are theoretically possible but not likely to exist in reality and others who believe they can't possible exist. But the end result is the same: there are people who—for whatever reason—disbelieve in gods.

That is, their mental model of the universe doesn't include gods in it. To them, "Do gods exist?" is a closed question. It's either closed because they think it's impossible or closed because they have no more reason to believe in gods than they do to believe in elves. You may think they're wrong. Maybe you think gods are more likely than elves. But that is what they believe. In any case, the point is that these folks (and I'm one of them) don't actively ask the question "Do gods exist?" They already have an answer. (As do theists: in their case, the opposite answer.)

Most people, when they talk about "agnostics," mean either "people who are unsure whether or not gods exist" or "people who think it's pointless to claim that gods exist and equally pointless to claim that they don't, because the question can never be answered." In either case, these are people who, when asked whether or not they believe gods exist, say, "I don't know," whereas atheists say, "No." That's a clear difference.

There are people who really do believe in gods.

There are people who really don't believe in gods.

There are people who really have no belief either way.

All of those types of people actually exist, and it's useful to have labels for them. If we call the first type "theists", the second type "atheists," and the third type "agnostics," a member of the last group would simply be descriptive if he called himself "agnostic." He wouldn't be "without balls." He would be a person accurately describing his beliefs.

It's possibly easier to see this if we take gods out of the picture and use an analogy: ESP. There are people who really, truly believe ESP exists. There are people who really, truly don't believe it exists. And there are people who are really, truly unsure.

I'd like to end by dispelling two myths: The first is that belief is a choice. I suspect it is—or partly is—for some people, but it isn't for all people. I know, because it's not a choice for me. Yet some folks seem to have this idea that we're presented with three options—theism, agnosticism, and atheism—and that anyone who picks the middle one is weak willed.

But if I tell you I don't know who is going to win next year's Superbowl, I'm not weak willed: I'm simply telling you the truth. I don't know. I can't screw up my courage and make myself know. It's not a choice for me. If you offer me five thousand dollars to make myself believe some team is going to win, I'll have to either lie or let you keep your money. (Which sucks, because I could use it!)

A true agnostic could also lie. He could say he's a believer or non-believer. He could go to church and behave like a believer. Or he could ... I don't know ... read "The God Delusion" and tell everyone he doesn't believe in gods. But if the truth is that he doesn't know whether or not gods exist (or if he believes it's impossible to know), this would all be a sham. The truth is, he's agnostic.

(The middle-man always seems to have trouble. Bisexual people get pressured into calling themselves gay or straight. But the actual truth—regardless of what they call themselves—is that they're attracted to both men and women.

Sometimes the pressure is political. When people claim agnostics lack balls, I wonder if they mean, "Look, I don't care what you actually believe, but pick a side! There's a war on, and we need to know if you're for us or against us!" )

The second myth is that everyone has a belief. I've been surprised by this many times:

Someone: Do you believe we'll discover there was once life on Mars?

Me: I don't know.

Someone: No, you don't understand. I know you can't know for sure what's going to happen in the future. I'm asking what you believe?

Me: As I said, I don't know. I really don't.

Someone: Look, I'm not asking what you can prove. I just want to know what you believe!

Me: I don't have a belief! That's why I keep saying, "I don't know." I don't know means I don't know. And I really don't know.

Someone: Argh!

It seems that there's one sort of mind—the kind "Someone" has in the above dialogue—that pretty much always forms a belief. That doesn't mean the believer is sure. He may readily admit that his belief is just a hunch. Still, his belief exists. He's leaning towards a particular hypothesis. For him, it's impossible to not doing that. So he can't understand the way my mind works. I have trouble understanding his mindset, too, but I've encountered it often enough to be familiar with it.

If you want to know which type of mind you have, try the following thought experiment: Tomorrow, I'm going to flip a coin. Do you believe it will land as heads or tails? I realize you can't know, but what do you believe? (You can interpret "believe" any way you want: having a hunch, visualizing an outcome, knowing, feeling certain, giving it your best guess...)

As you might suspect, given how I described my mind, I have no belief about the coin's fate. None. Nada. Zilch. If agnosticism was about coin flips instead of gods, I would be an agnostic, and it wouldn't be because I don't have the balls to "chose" atheism or admit that I'm an atheist.

[cam.ac.uk]

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.
—Robert M. Pirsig

I am proud to use the word Athiest that is what I am I tell everyone I am an Athiest a non believer of supernatural gods/dieties and follow the scientic idea of evidence being able to test whether a theory is true or false even though I am no scientist I do not have the knowledge to be one.

Perhaps free-thinkers or rationalists might be better as far as labels go. But I don't personally mind referring to myself as an atheist, because it is accurate; I am without theistic belief ("a" plus "theist" ). This defines my position on religion and belief in God (gods) pretty well. On the other hand, it seems to me that many people of a religious persuasion might associate the term "atheist" with a hostility towards religion, which not all atheists have. I am willing to let people have their beliefs, although I am firmly opposed to religious fundamentalism.

Two things spring to mind.
Firstly, the reason that we don't have a word for non-belief in santa or fairies is because non-belief is the most popular position with regard to those things, and that only immature minds buy into them, when it's quite the opposite when it comes to gods.
Secondly, I think shying away from the word atheist is counter productive, if people have a bad reaction to learning you're an atheist, it's a good idea as an atheist to dispel the misconceptions, rather than retreating to another label that means exactly the same thing with regard to belief in gods.

Prefer anit-theist atheist sounds like we are one of them

The belief in Santa Claus disappears with age and you pay a significant social price if you continue to believe when you grow up. However, God belief is not only accepted but expected, you pay the social price for not believing. Hence the need for a way to be different from the "norm" and, for me, atheist says it in the most direct way

Very, I'm from the UK so it's not really an issue here

I admit that my heart skips a beat when I say the word. But, I decided a long time ago to be my authentic self no matter what. So, even with the super religious. I will say it.

My other motive in using the word clearly and matter of factly, is to show people that we are everywhere, we are normal feeling humans with cares, worries, trauma, triumphs and tragedies, and that we are not scary.

I always say agnostic. Most people won't ask a follow up. The ones that do I say that I can't prove or disprove if there is a god/s so agnostic means I'm neutral.

So my best guess is to call label myself an agnostic atheist. Atheist because I feel I know for sure there is no personal loving being blah blah blah, BUT, I had a whole lot of "paranormal" experiences a long time ago. I do need to say that I also know that I am unstable, in which ways, I haven't found out yet, still trying to get a correct diagnosis, so there's that! But that's where the agnostic part comes in. I feel like there's a possibility that I experienced things a certain way because of chemical imbalances, but since I was raised Christian, I thought it was all spiritual. Well it wasn't. Possibly just mental health issues/flair ups. On the other hand, I still believe my own experiences, I believe I had them, and I don't disbelieve people who have paranormal experiences, but now I don't discredit anything, including illness. I agree that it makes more sense to leave the label off of pure atheists because they are more like the control group-also then people may not be so confused about the definitions. The word also has a negative connotation that bothers me a lot, I take opportunities to clear up confusion when I can.

I agree completely that it is a word that should not need to exist. Sadly, should doesn't always align with what is. I'm fine using it, it has great utility and cuts to the chase.

I too have a problem with term, for all the reasons mentioned. However it does seem to be the handle we are stuck all with. Just as many of you would hate to be called "Yanks" especially if you come from the south. It`s just easier to type.

I give absolutely no notice to any labels or titles.

I'm not fond of the word from the standpoint that it comes from the premise that Theism is the normal thing. That said, we're probably stuck with it, and I definitely subscribe to what it means, until and unless presented with credible evidence to the contrary.

You know, I once told someone that God was Santa Claus for grown ups - I nice idea but just not real. As for the term "Atheist", I was uncomfortable at first - mostly due to the knee-jerk reaction I got from everyone around me. But, I'm comfortable with it now, at least in respect to how I feel about myself.

Atheist is a specific class of non-believer. Because theism is so widespread with quite a diverse number of variations belief in no god at all needed its own category. Atheist does not preclude spiritual practices. The term merely means that a person does not include a deity of any kind.Universal tenants such as the binding of humanity via a common soul is just one such belief.

Why are people so hung up on labels? I just don't believe in any magical 'beings' holding court on my affairs in a magical land. Does that make me an Atheist? I guess by definition, it does. But I'm not going to drag around some sign that says, 'I AM AN ATHEIST'. For one, the sign is too damn heavy and cumbersome to carry around. And, secondly, I don't give a flying fart what people think of my beliefs.

I am comfortable

They put the utility of the word "atheist" incorrectly and you become regarded as their fake straw man. This is a awful feeling because they are clueless at the same time and too ignorant not to believe that you just do not find any sympathy or attitude about seeing the evidence that is not there for the supernatural. They think your are not genuine. There facts are stack in their favor. Atheism is a wise utility, or neutral position through my lenses. Then its correct to say these people who use this method to be this way are just as beautiful human beings.

I can undress in front of it with no qualms.

A-theist is a term I wear proudly. It would likely not be as "needed" if so many religions & their followers didn't try to impose their beliefs & lifestyles on the rest of us. Since that is the case, here & in many areas of the Middle-East & Africa I proudly oppose that intrusive dogma.