Exactly. It would be wrong to blame a scientist trying to feed the world just because the military used his discoveries to do great harm.

It would be, and I don't have anything against this billboard. I merely see the ways it could easily go wrong first (this is the part that will impact how the general populace would tend to perceive it), then focus on the ways it can go right afterward.

I wouldn't, no. But that's more to do with my view that religion is a personal, spiritual endeavor and shouldn't become involved in politics unless it's very existence is at stake, like when some communist regimes came to power. So, except in extreme conditions, I treat religion apolitically. On the other hand, the atheist movement is political because there's a sociopolitical goal involved. And, like any political movement people are generally more attracted to positive/pro movements and less attracted to negative/anti movements, especially so if they're inherently against positions held by the fringe element of that group. I think we see this with the big picture politics in this country between the Democrats and Republicans. There are the extreme liberals within the Democratic Party that repels those with a more moderate position and ditto with the ultra-conservatives involved with the Republican Party. Sometimes you just end up with people choosing not to choose.

The NAACP comparision was addressing a very specific section of your post that I quoted. I'm sorry you failed to understand that. I, in no way, claimed that atheists should have a group because black people have a group.

Please stop writing out my name ITT. If I wanted to continue arguing with you, I would have replied the first time you quoted me. There is nothing here I'm interested in arguing. I get it. You think atheists don't need an advocacy group because you think atheists as a group aren't marginalized/discriminated against/or whatever term you want to use here. Fine. You're entitled to that opinion and if you want to keep arguing it, please address the other posters ITT.

Sorry. What would you rather have me say? "That guy"? Oh well, take care.

Who said anything about the non aggressive Christians having to become political. All they would need to do to help change the incorrect stereotypical view of aggressive Christianity is to live their lives as an out in the opened non aggressive apolitical Christian instead of denying their Christianity.

Which is all i think the non religious would need to do. Claim the word atheism (because its not a movement) and show that its stereotypical image is off too.

Im not asking the non religious non believers in God to join the atheists movement, whatever you mean by that. Im asking them to call themselves what they are, non believers and atheists. That way the word atheism is not boxed into what its not. And please dont tell me they wont again, i know.