I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but that's basically my point. People attribute things to atheism like hating god or believing there is no god, which do not apply to me. So calling myself an atheist simply causes confusion and I have to then correct those misconceptions when I could have simply described myself in a way more easily understood (not religious works well).
While I can understand the exasperation that can come along with having to correct/fight against misconceptions, it's been shown time and time again that being "out" and yes, even "angry" is a huge part of what actually pushes things forward, and makes society more accepting, as opposed to trying to hide from it. Pretty much any other "minority" movement throughout history has had a strong "angry" side. Of course, that doesn't mean every single person has to be as "angry" as others, but there's a way to express that in a way that doesn't involve completely avoiding the issue, especially since the "angry" ones and the "apathetic" ones ultimately share similar goals.
I suppose you can see it as sort of the good cop/bad cop metaphor, except the "good cop" is pretending like the "bad cop" is no longer a worthy part of the team, which is part of why some are bothered by NDT's comments. If he said something like "atheism is the correct term for my specific stance on god, but I identify myself as a scientist first and foremost" that would be accurate and straightforward, and would avoid coming off as being "ashamed" of those who actually support the same goals he has.
Feeding into the misconception that atheism requires you to be a angry raging political activist who hates religious people doesn't help, just like feeding into the misconception that being gay requires you to be an effeminate hairdresser who just didn't meet the right woman didn't help the world become more accepting of gays.
edit: this discussion is very reminiscent of discussions about Obama and the "Left". It's pretty much the same exact concept. It's like how Obama doesn't need to be a raging leftist himself, but he also shouldn't pretend like having leftist political beliefs always means you're some sort of dirty hippie who should never be taken seriously.
Socreges said:
This is the argument that atheists have made to me in the past. That you can replace 'God' with any other fantastical creature, rendering the agnostic argument meaningless.
I think there's something fundamentally different about the concept of 'God' (ie, creator of everything). It's a concept without duplicate. You can call it something else, but it remains the same concept.
what's "fundamentally" different about God is the
social pressure surrounding it (and the current stigma in some societies against those who don't believe in it, hence the whole point of this thread), as opposed to anything unique in the concept itself. Never mind the fact that most proposed gods throughout history are in fact closer to flying spaghetti monsters, than they are to vague, unexplainable forces.