The few instances I can think of involve people who would rather levy the remarks behind my back because they know they can't make a persuasive argument to support their position. I'm always open to a civil discussion on the matter, though.

Hahaha! Oh boy is that the question of the century! Depending on the person, I try to discuss it. If they call me all sorts of names and started attacking, I ignore them and move on because I know they're most likely not going to change and they probably get off on bashing people.

I am always open and ready to talk about it. But I usually only do it if it is brought up by them. I feel no need to push my views onto other people....

I rarely get negative but I am always open to discussion.

I never ignore comments which are made directly to me. I find, though, that very few people are directly hostile or negative, they in fact usually show surprise that someone actually doesn’t believe what they do. I find that there is more curiosity about why I don’t believe than anything else, and that they think I am a bit odd. Few people here in Northern Ireland don’t belong to some religion or other....mostly of the Protestant/Catholic variety.

I hear them out. Then I say: "I thought that once a long time ago. Then I did some reading. Have you ever thought about questioning what you have been feed?"

I usually just sigh and move on.

You need a "depends on the situation"

My way-to-the-right brother gives me the most crap about being agnostic. He's actually very derogatory about it. I tell him my lack of faith should not have any impact on his faith. I tell him and all people of faith prove what you're saying is true.

I am morethan willing to engage in an actual exchange of ideas...but start throwing cant, and I am taking the gloves off!
On the other hand, I live in the Northeast, a very "mind your own business" area. Thank goodness!

It's usually not a battle I care to pick as there's very little willingness on the part of theists to have a rational and respectful conversation about it. To many of them, as an atheist I'm assumed by definition to be depraved, hateful, conniving, and a bunch of other awful things anyway.

I certainly am happy to discuss it on those rare occasions when meaningful discussion is possible, but in general, the best strategy for me has been to be kind, have integrity, and be known first for that, and then for people to be astonished to find out much later that I'm godless. That is the best "argument" I've found against atheist stereotypes. Even then, they tend to rationalize me as an exception that proves their imagined rule.

Of course that applies to Real Life ... online in a forum specifically designed for such interactions, it's a rather different story. Particularly here, in a place designed for and about freethinkers, for a theist to come in and do some kind of drive-by posting, should be resisted.

Depends on the context.

If it's a polite discussion, then I'll engage politely with whoever is being negative. If they show respect then so will I.

If they are rude or don't show respect, I'll laugh at them for needing an imaginary friend.

I either listen and pretend to care or politely exit the convo. I won't argue with idiots.

It really depends. Some people are just a waste of time to try & talk to, or they're very rude.

Agnostics and atheists are very misunderstood. Education is the cure.

I never get any negativity due to the fact I never discuss agnostic ideas with any individual unless I know them enough to gage their response,and my intuition is always correct about how they react.I am not interested in debating belief or non beliefs with people I know because this would be a useless endeavor.

I discuss it without hostility. My very first question is have you read the entire Bible cover to cover. The answer is No 99% of the time. My second question is, do you know how the Bible was constructed? The answer is No 99% of the time. I tell them if you want to remain a Christian avoid reading the entirety of the Bible and whatever you do don't look into how the Bible was constructed, especially the clash between James and Paul. Most Christians don't want to know too much.

Depends on the person and the situation I may do either.

Firstly I ask them WHY they are so negative about my stance on religion/s being so illogical, unfounded in reason and reality then I set about asking them to simply show me undeniable, empirically tried, tested and proven evidence that their beliefs are truths.
Usually, by that time, they have a look of total bewilderment on their faces, reach for the bible and begin to cite " But this IS the word of God, written in his own hand, how can you doubt that?"
My next step then is to begin to dissect their comment and their book piece by piece, ending with what may seem a rather trite question, "If it was written by Gods own hand, then WHERE is his signature claiming authorship?"

I tell them I'm an atheist....

I guess it depends on the person and situation. Most people don't really know my personal beliefs (or lack thereof) so I don't run into this situation much.. I usually just ignore. Arguing with a theist is a total waste of time. If a person is persistent or belligerent I will happily return the favor. I find most believers have no clue what their religious texts actually say. Not hard to make them tuck tail and run when you quote scripture better than they do.

I seldom get any real negative remarks, if I do I always am willing to discuss. No one ever has proof and always end it.

It really depends on who it's coming from, and what form it's taking.
If it's someone relatively close to me, I'll discuss it if they're open to the discussion.
Otherwise, I'll either ignore it, or give a hearty "fuck you".
Being an atheist means I do not apologize for not being delusional.
Nor am I required to respect anyone else's delusions.
I have to tolerate them, by law, but I do not have to respect them.

I am very rarely confronted with any opposition to my lack of beliefs. I don't invite it. Most of the people who know me are either accepting, non-confrontational, or unsure enough of their own beliefs to risk debating the issue.