Accepting/Rejecting "Atheism" as a label.

[Ben Davis]

It rejects religious dogma.

Not necessarily. Consider the Buddhists. Most Buddhists are atheist but they have religious dogma. Many paganisms are also atheist but have dogma. Think of the Raellians!

Therefore it values the absence of religious dogma. Which, I guess technically it's an implication, but the lack of appreciation of religious dogma suggests an appreciation for something more substantial, usually evidence and science.

And this is my point; you have to use supposition, assumption & inferrence to try and assertain someone's values. Why not try asking them what they do value, instead of guessing from what they don't/may not?

Although inferred, that implication has real value for me. I don't want to be lumped in with the mindless zombies that are some 80% of the rest of America. I'm happy to have a label that says "not part of the indoctrinated 80%."

Then why not find a label that also dissassociates you from the irrational atheists? Wouldn't that be more useful?

Technically, the label says no more. But I haven't met an atheist that didn't have a strong appreciation for science, or at least a strong sense of ridicule for the complete lack of solid evidence to suggest there is a supernatural creator.

I've met plenty. Irrationality is not a uniquely theistic trait.

I also like the idea of reappropriation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation#Religion

Indeed but disassociation is more powerful. For example, in the UK afro-carribean community, those who are most strident in their opposition to racism reject use of the n-word entirely and criticise those who use it for perpetuating negative stereotypes. In a 'community' as diverse as 'atheists', the group power of associative reappropriation is drastically diluted.