Accepting/Rejecting "Atheism" as a label.

[Golbez]

So in my ongoing youtube binge, I've heard Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens argue against having a collective label such as atheism for a variety of reasons, and certainly at the time, I believe they made a strong case for it. But the one reason that seems to stick out most in my mind is the analogous arguments that there is no name for a rejection of the belief in Santa, elves, fairies, unicorns, etc. For example, the term "asantist" is not one accepted by probably more than 10 people (although it was either asantist or asantism - or possibly both - that was taken as a youtube account when I recently tried to register them.)

But I think those examples are only somewhat analogous to the atheist position. And that's why I think the atheist label is still a practical one. Every serious thinker agrees there are no elves, fairies, etc. So there remains no need to distinguish yourself among a crowd of crazy people. Among religion, that's clearly not the same. Among whom I'd consider rational people, I think the label "atheist" can be worn as a badge of honor. It's useful in identifying yourself as not being irrational, amidst a sea of irrational beliefs. And I think that's a distinction that justifies the use and acceptance of the word. But in a world where everyone is an a-unicornist, who cares to coin the term and apply the non-distinction? It has no practical value.

What do you guys think? What are the other reasons for rejecting its use?