The list could have been made in any way. I suspect it's a combination of people who were asked and people who volunteered the info.

I'm not sure what defining oneself as atheist would entail, outside of considering oneself to fit the definition.

And the definition is what? Not agreeing with some other definition of something else, by someone else?

I would say yes. And then I would ask why you used "X" instead of "the universe", since we already had a perfectly servicable word, and I would suspect you consider the word "universe" to have some additional meaning that I don't.

Alot of things have alot of different meanings to alot of different people. The very concept of Athiesm, to me, seems to be to pick one word, and one definition, coming from one source, and make a symbolic gesture to indicate your disagreement with those people, with that definition, and with that word. If that's not what it is, please correct me. If it is, it just seems silly to me.

Not having a definition at all. And, once someone provides a definition, not thinking that anything in reality fits that definition.

I agree with this, but sometimes people choose to sacrifice inserting their own definitions in favor of successfully communicating. If someone asked you (as I have actually been asked before,) "What kind of Christian are you?", how do you answer without using the definition they are apparently assuming? You can get into a long explanation of what you believe and let them sort out how it is different from what they believe, which they probably won't take the time to do, or you can meet them halfway for the sake of communication and say, "I'm not a Christian, at least in the way you're thinking of it."

Is "I'm not a theist, at least in the way you're thinking of it" better than "I'm an atheist?"

So, which definition do you pick? Are there Athiests specific to each definition of God, from each person/persons who have one?

Being clear and specific is better than using pigeon-hole terminology.

I don't pick. I don't think any of them apply to reality.
Maybe:However, the term is usually reserved for just the ones who go one further. Suffice to say, I feel the same about Jehova, Thor, and Zeus. And I feel the same about Jesus and Hercules (with respect to parenthood). Likewise angels, demons, unicorns and faeries.

Someone asked me to explain my "green hair" comment... I think that it's a rebellious stance, by definition, if it consists of specifically opposing a word and a definition from an outside source. Atheism seems like it applies less to a description of reality, and more to a postition of semantics.

It's only rebellious (in and of itself; someone can certainly use it to be rebellious) in that there are a lot of theists. If there weren't any theists, it would be the default.

I think it's just letting "the other side" frame the debate. Although I do get your point about there not being a debate to begin with, if those external forces did not exist. But, the thing is, they do exist. And specifically opposing them is just validating their position, to me. I am an Atheist, if Atheism means disagreeing with the vast majority of monotheistic doctrine. But, I'm not feeling like letting their stupid asses define what I am. I'll call the shots, on me. Am I an Atheist? No, I just disagree with some specific things.

I only specifically oppose them when specific claims are made. I don't internalize any of the claims; none of the external definitions affect me any longer than the debate lasts, at which point they go back to the pile.