It is akin to running a permanent negative campaign.

This is probably the main reason I have a reluctance to join any official ‘atheist’ groups.

If I ever have a desire/need to be part of a group, I think it would have to be Humanist or something that has a foundation of positive beliefs/ideals (by ‘positive’ i don’t mean ‘optimistic’, i mean something that isn’t built around an absence of something)

“Could we not promote science, reason, secular education, separation of church and state, atheist civil rights, and the like?”

No.

There are atheists who buy into astrology and other woo. There are atheists who are right-wing to the point that they don’t like public schools or universal health care. There are atheists who are left-wing to the point of supporting communism or even anarchy.

The two issues we could get behind to some extent (I might be wrong here, but I don’t think so) are separation of church and state and atheist civil rights, as you mentioned.

These prove the point, though. Separation-of-church-and-state activism is a response to sectarian incursions. It by definition cannot be proactive. Similarly atheist civil rights cannot be proactive, as there must be an infringement upon those before any action can conceivably be taken.

If only there were some “Minority Report” style method of knowing when these problems were going to rear up, then we’d be able to be proactive, but only retroactively based on our foreknowledge of the soon-to-be-past… I’m such a dork.

Anyway, forward momentum must be proactive. This is why the myth that the white, middle class christian man is the most persecuted person in the US (a claim I hear a lot here in OK and from pals in TX) is such a brilliantly useful myth. It conjures a need where one does not exist. Then it provides the solution to that need: evangelize, organize, vote for Palin/McCain, etc.

One common characteristic of Atheists (I hope) is that we are too honest to resort to this tactic.

With their trust in the power of reason, atheists might also be ill-equipped for the gritty work of retail politics — the phone banks, the door-knocking, the car pools to the polls.

In my household there are 2 atheist that have done the door-knocking this election season and 4 of us that will be driving people to the polls. It is not that we don’t do it but we don’t do it as atheist. We do it as citizens, patriots and community members who care about the fate of this country.

Furthermore, atheists vary in their attitudes towards religion. Some consider it foolishness but attend services anyway with their grandmother. Some hate all religion. Some have an axe to grind with the religion of their child-hood, but with no other. Some are benevolently disposed towards religion, or respect religious history/culture/artistic achievements.

In my experience, there is a distinction between those who do not believe in the existence of a deity (i.e. fit the soft definition of “atheist”) and those who do specifically identify with the term “atheist” regardless of their precise beliefs. The former group is much large than the latter, for a lot of reasons.

Atheists are like frightened cattle; it’s hard for many of us to band together as one.

I don’t think cattle is a good description. Herd animals (like sheep) are notoriously dumb. I’ve heard gathering atheists better described as “herding cats.” Gathering people by something we are not is problematic. It’s like not smoking. Telling you I am a non-smoker doesn’t say anything else about me or about non smokers in general. I agree with some of the above comments. If I want to be politically active as an atheist I’m better served by identifying also/instead as a humanist, liberal, science education supporter, musician, or whatever else I might call myself.

As atheists the only issue I can really think that we could all agree on and gather around is simply the right to be atheists and not be hassled or discriminated against.

It’s probably because that even though we share the same (non)religious beliefs, we see many issues differently/have various views on the same thing. For instance, I do not support the Secular Coalition of America, because I am against lobbyist groups. But, many atheists support the SCA. Of course, this also is true in religious circles, but less so.

The problem is that atheism alone provides no nucleus for a pearl to coalesce around. It’s only a lack of belief in deity.

Completely agree with this. I’d rather donate to the ACLU or Americans United for Separation of Church & State, which do have cohesive agendas.