I think there are a lot of non-religious who we could technically classify as atheists but nevertheless don't self-identify as atheist because they don't identify with the modern face of atheism as depicted in the o.p.'s quote or the more popular atheists like Dawkins. While peer or societal pressure is certainly a factor preventing some from coming out of the closet, so to speak, a lot of the non-religious treat their lack of belief in God the same as most of us treat our lack of belief in astrology or aliens. That is, even though I don't hold a belief in astrology or aliens, I'm not actively professing my lack of belief and/or actively challenging astrologists and ufologists to defend their beliefs. It's just one thing to (a) lack belief in God and quite another to (b) actively reject the supernatural and "believe in nothing beyond the provable scientific realm." With (a) it's more of a "I don't know what's going on but the religious explanation falls short." With (b) it's more like, "we do know what's going on and it's not supernatural." I think (b) is more commonly associated with atheism and why a lot of the non-religious don't identify as atheist.

We are just interpreting the statement differently. I understood the quoted statement to be making a claim about her ontological beliefs, not about her epistemic values.

Another reason is atheism has a long history of being demonized as evil by believers so its easier to just keep your non religiosity to yourself instead of seeing the judgmental jaws drop. Imo that marginalization is the bigger reason. Either way its important outspoken atheists dont stfu.

Well said. I personally think that those in the "don't know what's going on but religious explanations fall short" group are, in a way, consenting to being controlled by religious principles by not speaking out more.

I'd much prefer the outspoken atheists to be weak atheists as opposed to strong atheists, but at this point I'll take what I can get. (to a degree)

I agree.

The blog linked in the OP is just some random thoughts mused together on the nature of being an atheist...which as far as I am concerned is an extremely wrongful portrayal of what atheism is...to the extent that it comes of almost more as a parody than anything else (maybe it is, I don't know).

Now, suddenly midway in this thread people started using the term "non-religious" instead of atheist, and nobody has actually been commenting much on the specific blog linked in the OP...so from where I'm standing it is now very fussy what people are actually claiming.

Is there some general consensus that writing a theological doctrine on the nature of atheism (and its supposed nihilistic implications) is necessary in order to not have one's secular rights trampled?

Sorry, I shouldnt have even posted what i have itt because I didnt read the blog post and wasn't thinking about specifically wrt my comments. I'm on my phone but am pretty sure the first post I replied to from you was a more broad analysis of atheists speaking out. But, I could be wrong on that and if so i apologize for that as well.

The blog post was definitely a parody, not his true personal view at all. To verify check out his others posts in 'categories".

It was a bit more broadly, and I was probably a bit mean for effect - but I would never chide anybody for speaking up about "reasonable" (I can't be bothered to rehash the entire human rights thingy) political and legal rights not being received, just so that is clear.

Ah, that is good to know. Thank you.