My problem with that article is that they akargely seem to be repackaging and re-presenting what we, as atheists, have done for ... well forever I suppose. IN that sense, although I see it as generally a good thing, it’s just a PR exercise.
For the record I don’t see the difference between Dawkins, Myers and whatever this positive atheism is ... I think they are all positive.
I agree with you…
public perception of atheism is really important; if we want to persuade people to consider skepticism-agnosticism-atheism, an important part of the equation is to make it socially acceptable by showing that people ‘just like you’ are atheists.
In addition, if there is an intermediate goal to increase tolerance for atheists, articles like this support the notion that atheists are not a threat—articles like these counteract stereotyping elsewhere.
The relevance of USAToday is that it has enormous circulation.