[WS:] I think you are generalizing. There are at least two kinds of atheists: "theological" and "social". "Theological" atheists profess an ontological doctrine about a deity just like theists do, they only clam that a nullity is a deity. That is, they are cocksure about their ontological doctrine of "empty skies" that cannot be proved or disproved.
"Social" atheists, otoh, are concerned mainly with the role that beliefs in gods and institutions built on those beliefs play in society and consider that role to be largely negative from a certain normative pov.
If they deny the existence of a god, they do it mainly as form of critique of the social role a belief in a god plays rather than as making an ontological statement.
"Social" atheists can be more accurately described as agnostics. They do not give a flying fuck about ontological questions whether gods exist or not because they have no way of knowing one way or the other, but they know that beliefs in gods can lead to some really nasty things in social relations.
I have little patience for "theological" atheists - they are just another of group of people - mostly men, I may add - who are cocksure about their own beliefs and ready to attack anyone who does not know what they do.
They are not that much different than, say, islamists posting comments on Al Jazeera, However, "social" atheists are a very different story. First, their claims can be proved or disproved, as they pertain to observable social relations rather than to unobservable metaphysical abstractions.
Second, their normative critique of religion is based on values including critical thinking, social inclusion, humanism, egalitarianism, - and I may add, philosophical nominalism -which I believe most people on this list subscribe to (except perhaps nominalism ;)).
-- Wojtek
"An anarchist is a neoliberal without money."