The main issue I, and it seems some others, have with this kind of article is that it perpetuates the idea that atheism means anything else other than lack of god belief, and that you can lack god belief but somehow avoid being an atheist.
You can't (that and the following are generic "you"'s not personally directed). You can call youself a skeptic or a freethinker all you want. You can use agnostic to answer questions about belief and maybe one person in ten at best will know you haven't answered the question at all. These are all perfectly valid and honorable labels to use personally. I don't "see myself" in the above definitions. I AM all of them. Just like I'm fat, and bearded, with a pale complexion and short hair and just like none of those speak to my gender (bearded women exist!).
When the question is gender, I am male. The fat and bearded yadda yadda just tells you what kind of male I am.
When the question is god belief, I am an atheist. The anti-theist, agnostic, skeptic, Humanist etc would just tell you what kind of atheist I am.
The believing majority have done such a good job, partly intentional but assisted by the ignorance caused by poor education in the US in both philosophy and religion, of boxing in the word atheist so that many atheists, and most non-atheists, have been persuaded that atheism is limited to strong atheism, also called positive or explicit atheism, and that agnosticism is a (not possible) middle and separate alternative to either believing or not believing. Furthermore they have demonized the term as one with meanings of amorality, communism, treachery and anti-Americanism so that few have the gumption to use it and remind people it means nothing at all in these areas. Articles like this grate because they are both the result of and ways to reinforce this intentional deceit about what atheism really is.
= new reply since forum marked as read