Yeah, I always imagine it comes out of a desire to be conciliatory and seem like you’re being even handed and fair, like those news shows that will present opinions from doctors and homeopaths.
Yes, but if you have an “unpopular belief”, that’s not atheism. Atheism is not a particular belief, but rather the lack of a particular belief. Of course, an atheist may hold other beliefs, some of which may be unpopular, but if he finds the expression of those beliefs to be disadvantageous to him, that doesn’t mean he is disadvantaged by his atheism. Rather, he is disadvantaged by what he believes.
I’ve always found this viewpoint to be rather facetious. Once you remove the belief in a creator, you, by necessity, need to develop a whole set of contingent beliefs such as "How were we made? By what process do we derive our morality? What happens after we die? What is our purpose in life? and By what process can we regulate a society?
Each atheist may have a different answer to these questions but they all assert some form of positive belief over and above the negative belief that God does not exist.
True, but so what? Every atheist eats food, too. Does that mean that eating food is an integral part of atheism?
You said it yourself: each atheist may have a different answer. That removes any possibility of atheism being associated with those answers.
There may very well be a strong correlation between atheism and, say, liberal political values. But that, too, falls far short of saying that atheism is a “liberal” viewpoint.
Of course, but those beliefs don’t (generally) attract any kind of social exclusion. In the US it’s perfectly possible, and extremely common, to accept the scientific orthodoxy on the evolution of life, or to advocate a personal morality based upon the golden rule or derived ultimately from the classical Greek tradition, or to hold a political philosophy based on Enlightment principles of rationalism and liberty. Those are all non-theistic views, but they don’t not SFAIK lead to social exclusion, inevitable failure at the polls, victimisation at work, etc, etc. Many of them are in fact absolutely mainstream in the US, and people may indeed be disadvantaged for not holding them.
My two best friends have been atheists for more than half a century, their entire lives. They never had a belief in any creator, and they can see from the outside how debilitating the effects of such beliefs can be.
The point is that those replacements you describe are only issues that pertain to religious belief. I feel no need to know whence we came, it is unimportant. I give no thought to what happens when we die, probably nothingness, but if the is actually some “other side”, I have absolutely no reason to think that any aspect of it would pertain directly to this life. And the process by which we regulate a society is to figure out for each situation the individual solutions that piss everybody off equitably and implement those, which is fundamentally what we do much of the time anyway: we just interpret the word of law in the most practical way.
I used to be quite religious, several decades ago. I have not replaced any of my religious “needs” with anything, if I pay any attention to them, it is in the course of trying to heal my psyche from the damage they wrought. I used to be confrontational, now I just try to get along with people (IRL, anyway) unless they force me into a fight. I feel no particular need to “express” my atheism, so I do not feel much like I am hiding anything.
But just believing in a “creator” doesn’t give you answers to any of that either does it?
As I said before, just claiming to be a theist (or claiming that you believe in a creator) tells me nothing about you. I cannot make any leaps of imagination to know how you will chose to answer those questions above. If you submit to a particular dogma then that is more informative.
Similarly, you just knowing I’m an atheist doesn’t help you in knowing what sort of person I am or what I will do in any given situation.
Some of those questions above may not strike me as interesting or important. Some of them are only questions that a religious person feels it necessary to ask. Some of them are practical considerations regarding how we physically interact with the world. Those are of interest to me but my atheism informs them not one jot. My humanism does but that doesn’t depend on atheism.
Absolutely, lets use that old chestnut Stalin as an example. Was he an atheist? Yes. Had he only ever told you that fact could you have made an accurate stab at his worldview? No.
Similarly, Hitler. was he a theist? Yes. knowing only that could we have had any idea of how he would act? No.
In both cases the simple descriptions don’t help, more information is needed before we judge.
Why?
Why does it need to a creator to have a set of morals that says - treat others as you want to be treated?
What’s so special about such a concept that it needs a creator to drive it?
And then - if everything must be created, who created your creator?
Not in America. In America being an atheist is in itself a “liberal” position - “liberal” in American usage being essentially a synonym for “evil”. Most political, religious and philosophical positions are “liberal” by American standards, we have a very narrow range of politically acceptable positions, and atheism is well outside of them.
You should come to the Bay Area, where liberalism is alive and well, and nobody is conservative. You’d finally feel at home.
I’m pretty sure you’re hopeless, but just on the off chance you’re not, let me give you some advice:
You REALLY need to get out more.
And if a creator said “don’t treat others as you’d want to be treated,” shouldn’t we disregard it?
I don’t think you need to. Apart from “is there something after death?”, I’m pretty sure a lot of people spend their life without ever wondering about these issues.
You’re right, many people in the U.S. would immediately make that leap, from atheist to liberal. But this is the SDMB; what those people say is not important, and we do not hear their words.
It is an interesting fact that draftees could avoid induction on the basis of religious preference, during WWII and Vietnam, if they were of a certain faith. Quakers, Amish, and some others could legally refuse induction. But if you checked “atheist”, or “humanist”, forget about it. You were going. I think homosexuality could, likewise, excuse involuntary induction. I guess the ‘reasoning’ was you had to be crazy enough to believe in God in order to kill efficiently. Or something.
So, what you are saying here is that I’m a liberal? 
I’ll buy the evil thing, but are you really saying that I’m a liberal?? Just curious how that works out in your mind.
As an atheist, I’ve always regarded agnostics as atheists who didn’t like to argue about faith. Atheism is regarded by some as agnosticism without manners. Since nobody really knows if God exists, agnosticism seems less than certain about God’s non-existence than does atheism. I’m not even sure which camp I belong to; the difference between atheist and agnostic seems to be a matter of semantics. So, technically, I’m agnostic, as the definitive answer is unknown (and probably unknowable), but atheist is what I call myself. I was declared Catholic in my infancy.
I agree with R. Dawkins that it is a terrible act to declare children as members of any particular faith; if we are free to chose which faith to embrace, why are so very few children allowed to make their own choice ? It should be a crime to indoctrinate the innocent with mythical beliefs.
Don’t you have that backwards? You’re saying Quakers and the Amish weren’t pressed into kill-people-efficiently service, while folks who declared for “atheist” or “humanist” were told to get out there and, y’know, start killing people efficiently.
Do you really think the majority of people, let alone all, have answered the question “By what process can we regulate a society?”