Well, a-theists labeled themselves that.

Christians came up with the word athe(os) + ist = someone who believes no god exists. But, they used a flawed logic. Opponents of D'Holbach laid out that they considered, not believing a god exists = believing no god exists. So, while they used a narrow definition, they labeled all non-believers with it.

Then Huxley came along. He admitted he was someone who they'd label atheist, but argued he didn't actually have the belief attached to the label, and wasn't particularly fond of those who did. So, he came up with a label for no belief, either way. Being a scientist, he defined his ism as a form of demarcation. No objective testable evidence = a subjective unfalsifiable claim. Results: unscientific and inconclusive. No belief as to the truth, or falsehood, of the claim.

"Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." ~ Thomas Huxley, 1884

Do you believe a god exists?
Do you believe no gods exist?

YN: theist
NN: agnostic
NY: atheist

Then, atheists did the a-theist thing to themselves, and to agnostics, hijacking them into their broader definition, as well.

"In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels ‘positive atheist’ for the former and ‘negative atheist’ for the latter.

The introduction of this new interpretation of the word ‘atheism’ may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage. ‘Whyever’, it could be asked, ‘don’t you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?’" ~ Antony Flew, 1984

YN: theist
NN: weak or negative a-theist
NY: strong or positive a-theist

I'm not a fan of the redefinition. It also makes no sense to me, to label yourself what you're not, rather than what you are. I prefer just "agnostic". The way Huxley defined his ism describes me just right.

I use atheist comfortably. I rather enjoy the hair raising factor it seems to be for religious folk.

I'm comfortable with the use of the word, but there really isn't a reason for it to exist. That being said even if non-belief is the normal state of things unfortunately at this point it's still a fairly small minority, or at least it seems to be so. To be honest though I'm alright using the term to apply to myself, I actually prefer to call myself an "antitheist", particularly if I'm talking to someone who's particularly bothersome.

Well, it's just a word, isn't it? We humans have always sorted different people into different categories, so it's just a matter of our behaviour. I don't mind at all.

I say I’m Agnostic. I have no clue what happened to create the Universe. There are lots of great theories. I tend to latch on to the science ones. I also disbelieve the religious stuff I’ve been told. But do I truly know?... I don’t! So I say Agnostic, and I’m 99% sure that is where I will stay.

I'm totally comfortable with the word when other people are using it to describe themselves. I don't even mind if they use it to describe me, but I don't use it to describe myself. It seems more legitimate to me to redefine god than to redefine myself. I don't need a label, beyond 'human'. God, on the other hand, deserves some rethinking.

Depends on where I'm I in,a middle east or in a western country

Atheist needs to be replaced. It engenders a much too easy knee-jerk response from those who are willing to kill you, in the name of God, of course. Our English language is based on Christian Mythological assumption that continue to serve the cause of the Religious Right. It is an uphill battle that will not be easily won. No, I am not comfortable with it.

Perfectly comfortable.

I'm comfortable with the way to feel in my own mind but in a religious community setting, I find it a bit less likely to start an uncomfortable conversation to use another description that doesn't set them off trying to save me.

If anything I would describe myself as 'anti-faith'. The scientific method/reason/logic are the best tools we have to understand ourselves and the world around us and faith doesn't fit into that worldview at all. I haven't tried it out much but maybe 'anti-faith' could catch on. I guess to make a positive statement you could say you're 'pro-scientific method'? But then again if I just want to say something short and sweet I just say 'Atheist'. I don't always have the energy...

I prefer not to use it to describe myself because not only is it not really accurate, but also because most people assume I'm going to start ranting about science and try to make them feel stupid. I've come across some atheists myself who are just as rabidly atheist as some religious people are with their beliefs.

However, a lot of times, using one of my other words, like antitheist, is more likely to promote discussion, or at least an explanation.

Just a word to me, so....comfortable.

I’m pretty comfortable with it. I agree with you that it is the natural state of things. I think religion is just a bad coping mechanism. A way for one to deny or avoid actually facing and thinking about a problem. Also to deal with the fear of death.

To me, atheism does not really make sense - because it requires an absolute certainty that no God exists. I don't claim to know that with absolute certainty - we don't know where the Universe and everything in it came from, how it was created, etc.. so I think that "the jury is still out" on whether there is actually a "supreme being" of some sort who might have created everything. That's why I'm an agnostic- I don't claim to know.

I am a person, athiest refers to the relationship to religon.

when speaking with other non believers, the word used most often is “rationalist.” Theists use the word “atheist” because they really don’t know any better. When one speaks with a theist, one uses terms with which they are familiar, in the same way that one uses French when speaking with someone who only speaks French. I don’t believe I am conceding anything to them when they call me atheist. I’ve been called a lot worse. It’s just that use of logic and reason are foreign concepts to them...they simply know no other way.

Actually proud

Absolutely and completely comfortable since I can view myself as being an Individual and NOT one of mere herd of Sheeple.

I don't identity with the word "atheists" i like to identify with the term "non believer".

Very good point. Yet and still, the term doesn't bother me. I think, given your logic, that it should, but it doesn't. That's just me.

I am very comfortable with the word "Atheist". I have been one for most of my life and am almost 70 now. I have the right to think what I choose and don't intend to hide or shrink from my beliefs. If someone doesn't like it, they need to leave me alone. I have lost what I thought were friends over my beliefs but would rather that then continually giving away pieces of me to keep those people around. I tell people who harrass me about it that I intend to get cremated since I'll probably have to get used to the "heat"! It throws them off guard and shuts them up.

100%

I wouldn't have it any other way

I embrace the word atheist and see agnostic as the argument of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. But I gladly claim atheist as most people understand the world. Where agnostic is somewhat misunderstood and seen as a wiggle word by both religious and non-religious.

I'm 99.9999% sure there is no god. I don't have a dog in the contest and if there was proof, then I would go where the evidence leads. But I'm damn sure that what Christians think is their god is as far from the truth as Donald Trump has a good brain!