Does Atheism = No beliefs?

What's the difference between an "irreligious passion" vs a "religious zeal"? I don't see a difference at all. Is an irreligious passion less persuasive? Less political? I think it has a very comparable connotation in society. When atheists are asked about themselves or when describing themselves, the subject of evolution will come up just as quickly as the subject of God will come up for a religious person. Prominent atheist people, whether a biologist like Richard Dawkins or a commedian like Bill Maher, always seem to have a politically liberal point of view. Is there a such thing as a radical right atheist?Here is the first paragraph from the Humanist Manifesto;

quote:

---

The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate.

---

Is there a single atheist who doesn't agree with this? Doesn't this unite them in a way comparable to religion?

Any well known ones, ones who broadcast their conservative opinions? I'm not taunting you - I'd honestly like to know. David Horowitz is an agnostic conservative, he's the only one I know of. But he's an agnostic in the true sense - not a lot of similarity between his agnosticism and atheism. They're not united by evolution?

I don't "need" to see it, I just see it! I don't think anyone in this thread is saying all atheists are compelled or required to be liberals or militantly oppose religion, I'm just saying that atheism tends to organize its people in certain ways, with beliefs about how the world works or how society should function. There are respected polls that clearly show a correlation between science and atheism. I agree that Christians are fragmented. Hence the many descriptive terms, like "mainstream Christians", "fundie Christians", "theistic evolutionists" that are often found on message boards such as these. If atheists are more fragmented, how come we don't see references to "mainstream atheists", "fundie atheists", etc.? Don't you think it would be a good thing for atheists to be grouped like Christians often are, just for identification purposes? Would you mind the term "fundie atheists", for followers of people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, who want to see all religion "eradicated"?

ooookay. Gotcha!! THAT'S what all atheists have in common, they ALL want to throw shoes at GW!!

VERY well stated. I don't think its completely fair for atheists to claim some kind of lofty, neutral position as they define and criticize politically with the same passion as religious people.

From the opening post;

quote:

---

So I ask again, what beliefs are unique to Atheism?

​

His next answer "We accept Evolution as fact"

---

There are exceptions to every rule of course, but most any atheist in today's society will make a beeline to evolution when asked about their view of the world. You're saying that a Christian could engage in a 5 or 10 minute conversation with you about human origins and you'd never say a word about evolution?

Non stamp collectors don't spend a sizable portion of their time criticizing and trying to eradicate stamp collecting, like Dawkins, Harris, and millions of atheists who buy their books spend time trying to eradicate religion.