I see, personally, I can understand how being negatively impacted by religion or even just life can lead to agnosticism and atheism, but I typically don't categorize those people as atheists or agnostics. That's why I asked what lead you to atheism, because when I see people going from religious to atheist, and then back to religion, it strikes me as more of an internal conflict than anything else.
So when I say that, I mean to say:
Atheism ≠ Nihilism
Atheism ≠ Antitheism or Anti-religion
Atheism ≠ Misanthropy
Rather, atheism = negation of (p), with "p" being the proposition "x is real", and you can supplement "x" with whatever god, it could be Buddha, etc. But with that stance, which is a hard stance, you back the position with evidence or the lack of, which sways you towards the direction of affirming your position with modifications to the probability of your position being right.
That's what I would consider being atheist, but I can understand how the colloquial definition leads people to thinking that feeling alienated from religion or in life, can lead one to atheism. But there are inconsistencies in that kind of thinking so I push back against that idea of atheism because it does a disservice both ways. I would rather someone become atheist, through the steps above, than become atheist because they were wronged by religion or feel they were wronged by their creator. That's how I am across the board with things, I would rather someone agree with my political positions by establishing an ethical platform and build from there to reach positions on political matters, as opposed to feeling slighted by a party and blindly choosing the opposition. Moving in the other manner leads to a shaky foundation, thus the jumping from one stance on an important position to another.