I have to tell you, Gentle Reader, that I really really do not grok the dictionary atheist (because: Deep Rifts!!!!) argument. That is, the argument that we cannot say that disbelief in gods will have any consequences for the disbeliever other than not believing in gods. (Though it's true that we cannot say what those consequences will be for any particular person, notwithstanding my conviction that they should lead to a liberal worldview.)
Allow me to indulge in what might seem a digression…
The first time I ever came across this argument—or, rather, a refutation of it—was in a passage from Harry Harrison's The Stainless Steel Rat For President.
Oddly, I've remembered that passage as A Really Big Thing ever since reading it, back in the far-off days of my youth. Equally oddly—for what turned out to be, when I revisited it, not the several-hundred-word essay that I remembered—it was a really big thing for me.
Years (okay; decades) before I became a fully-fledged Militant Atheist™, this was one of the first—perhaps the first—times I consciously realised that not believing in gods and their handed-down moral strictures might mean more than just opposing restrictive Sunday trading laws and suchlike obvious effects of religion. That there was and is more to rejecting belief in gods than a mere rejection of religious law and commandment.
Here's the passage I'm talking about.
What else is there more important than one person's life? That is all he is ever going to have. All that any of us will ever have. One single shot at existence, with nothing before and nothing to come. What you see is what you get. That's all there is, there ain't no more.
Stated very simply, I face reality and admit that not only isn't there anyone at home upstairs—there isn't even any upstairs. I have one life and I intend to make the most of it. Therefore it follows naturally that if I firmly believe this, why then I cannot deprive another person of their turn at existence.
The subject being discussed is the taking of human life, but the extension to how we treat others short of killing them is obvious. As is the fact that, regardless of my statement to the contrary above, it wasn't truly the first time I'd met all of the concept. The second half is the Golden Rule. Which, thanks to Charles Kingsley, I will forever think of as "Do as you would be done by."
And it's a humanist rule. Regardless of the fact that versions of it have been attributed to various religious figures, there's no god required. It's atheistic in application, even if sometimes applied in an overarching theistic context. That is, even if there's an overseeing god, all that's required by the rule is reciprocation of human beings' behaviour by other human beings. No godly intervention needed.
What made Harrison's iteration stand out, for me, I think, was that it was the first time I encountered it as a discussion to be pondered, rather than as an instruction to be learned and childishly followed. It took something which had been absorbed as rote behaviour, and made it something I had to think about.
So, anyway, in the first part, we have the statement that if this life is all we have, we'd better make the most and the best of it. In the second, we apply the Golden Rule to that, and realise that if other people's lives are all they have, we'd better help, or at the very least allow, other people to make the best of theirs.
Taking an overview of the whole though, we get a third point. If there's no god telling us, as children to be instructed, how to help each other and ourselves to lead better lives and make a better society, then it's about damn time we started working it out for ourselves, like the adults we claim to be.
So yes, your dictionary might tell you that atheism is nothing more nor less than a lack of belief in gods. If your claim is that atheism doesn't have consequences of any sort on your worldview, though; that it hasn't made you think about anything other than the truth of religious claims—then I have to ask you, where do you get your morals from?
You may use these HTML tags in comments
<a href="" title=""></a> <abbr title=""></abbr>
<acronym title=""></acronym> <blockquote></blockquote> <del></del>* <strike></strike>† <em></em>* <i></i>† <strong></strong>* <b></b>†
* is generally preferred over †