Reply #81

...I think is a convenience -- almost accidental artifact of the politicization of atheism as an antibody to bully fundamentalism. I say this because as an atheist, my path has (like most) been complicated by myriad highly subjective beliefs, which aren't shared by other atheists. It really is a retraction of gullibility for easy answers, one by one, with information and introspection the only known antidote for obsessive curiosity. Atheists will instantly diverge on the details of atheism, but agree with passion that reason, not faith, should inform and guide public discourse and policy. Science, being a universal language, gives us a way to communicate above the noise of the fray.

Whereas science is valueless (and so subject to abuse), atheism implies without encompassing the secular humanist ethos. It's political when expressed outwardly, and philosophical upon introspection. Science doesn't have the political in it's domain, even if it lands in a political range. Atheism does, and is merely informed by science. It isn't a science.