I don't think you can make such a statement. Atheism is too diverse to make ANY broad generalization other than "we don't believe in deities". I've met atheists that are extremely racist.Merton said:
Not really. The name they chose implies, at least to outsiders, that this IS atheism, or at least that the group speaks for all of atheism. It may be wrong, but that's how it will be read. Remember, many of us live in environments where atheism is considered justification for everything from legal discrimination to outright attacks--we're not dealing with honest or even moral opponents much of the time, and some of us are going to want to distance ourselves from this group (it's inevitable in a group as diverse as atheism).
Well, let's be clear: individual religions exert great influence on politics, but theism as such doesn't really do much. The problem is that the focus on atheism as a definitive trait is in part what's limiting us. Catholics can exert political influence because they have a broad agreement on issues they consider important, and therefore can bring a lot of political pressure to bear. Theism as such can't do that, and neither can atheism--we're too diverse. In that sense, yeah, I see the point in making groups of atheists focused on spreading particular social norms. It allows us to concentrate our efforts, and to build a solid political block that can actually DO something. Hearding atheists as a whole is like hearding cats, but hearding groups of atheists isn't all that hard.
Syntactically incorrect.
The next level of atheism is "atheism++"
Douchebag, irrational scum, GTFO... He sounds like a Rush Limbaugh / Ayn Rand hate child.
