Case in point is The Raving Atheist, who continues to assert that when we learn that a person is an atheist we are somehow able to make conclusions about their ideology:
Metaphysics, according to my dictionary, is “a division of philosophy that is concerned with ontology, cosmology, and often epistemology.” Plainly, then, atheism contains metaphysical convictions, having quite a bit to say about each of those subjects.
Ummmm..... no. Atheists often have something to say about those subjects and atheists have metaphysical convictions, but atheism - by itself - has nothing to say about those subjects. Atheism is not a philosophy, like materialism or idealism. Atheism is not connected with any particular view about the cosmos, it isn't connected with any particular view about reality, and so forth. Atheism is simply the absence of belief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less. There are no metaphysical, epistemological, moral, political, or other convictions that a part of atheism.
Sure, atheists have metaphysical, epistemological, moral, and political convictions - but not all the same convictions. Why don't they all have the same convictions? Because by itself, their atheism doesn't lead to any particular convictions in those matters. The absence of belief in gods implies no necessary conclusions about proofs of gods, about the nature of the universe, and so forth.
Some atheists are objectivists - so are all atheists objectivists? No. Some atheists are opposed to abortion - so are all atheists opposed to abortion? No. Some atheists believe in reincarnation and ghosts - so do all atheists believe in reincarnation or ghosts? No. Some atheists are materialists - does that mean that all atheists are materialists? No. If you are an atheist, you can't assume that any other self-professed atheist shares anything with you intellectually aside from the fact that they don't believe in any gods.
Cline’s argument only makes sense if we adopt an extraordinarily weak and virtually meaningless definition of atheism devoid of any analytical content. A person who is without a belief in God because merely because he has never encountered the concept may technically be an atheist, but only in the way that a cat or a baby or a sleeping person or a brick is an atheist.
This is indeed all that atheism means because the absence of belief in gods that's the only thing that all atheists have in common. This doesn't render the concept meaningless, but it does force us to realize that being an atheist is not, in and of itself, very significant. A person can be a rude, immoral, superstitious, ignorant, gullible, irrational atheist. Is that person's atheism very significant? No, I don't think so - and there was never any reason to assume that it had to be, either.
There are plenty of atheists who may want atheism to be significant or interesting, but by focusing on atheism they are barking up the wrong tree. There's just not enough to atheism alone which would allow that. If significance is to be achieved, a person's atheism must be combined with things like skepticism, a love of learning, a bit of humility (i.e., recognizing that one can err), critical thinking, and so forth - what George Smith calls a "habit of reasonableness". None of those qualities are shared by all atheists because none of them are necessitated by atheism. It's unfortunate, but it's true - and that's why I focus largely on promoting such qualities here. To quote Smith:
[A]theism is important only when viewed in this larger context which I will call the "habit of reasonableness." Atheism is significant only if and when it results from this habit of reasonableness. The American child who grows up to be a Baptist simply because his parents were Baptist and he never thought critically about those beliefs is not necessarily any more irrational than the Soviet child who grows up to be an atheist simply because his parents were atheist and because the state tells him to be an atheist. The fact that the Soviet child in this particular case may have the correct position is irrelevant. So it's no so much what one believes, or the content, as it is why one believes as one does. So the issue of reasonableness pertains to the concern for truth, concern for the correct methodology of reasoning. And just because a person espouses atheism is no guarantee -- believe me -- that person is necessarily reasonable.
This is basically why I never crusade for atheism per se outside of a wider framework. Atheism is significant, to be sure. But it's significance derives entirely from the fact that it represents the application of reason to a particular field, specifically the area of religious belief. Atheism, unless it is ingrained within this greater philosophical defense of reason, is practically useless. When, however, it is the consequence of the habit of reasonableness, then atheism stands in opposition to the wave of supernaturalism and mysticism we are currently experiencing. In other words, irrationalism in any form it may occur.
If atheism alone were enough, I could just promote that - but I have come to realize that Smith is correct and that atheism by itself just isn't enough. If a person is fortunate their atheism may be a product of a habit of reasonableness (being prior to atheism further reveals that those qualities are not a part of atheism), but there are still plenty of gullible and irrational atheists out there. That's why I promote things like skepticism or critical thinking first and foremost.
Plainly one’s lack of belief in God will not entail any metaphysical conclusions if the non-belief proceeds merely from failing to ever think about the subject -- but it’s silly to attach the label “atheism” to such complete thoughtlessness.
This is only silly if one assumes that "atheism" must somehow be more significant than mere disbelief in gods - which, obviously, commits the fallacy of Begging the Question. The fact of the matter is, the definition I use here is the one you will find in most comprehensive dictionaries, in most specialized reference works, in the books of most modern atheist philosophers, and in most online atheist sites. I didn't make this up - I'm simply telling it like it is. Not a single one of those sources will describe any "metaphysical convictions" that are inherent to atheism. Why? Because there aren't any.
Unlike some, I don't pass off my personal philosophy - my metaphysics, my ethics, my politics, or whatever - as being a part of atheism generally. There are atheists who hold completely different views than I do on a wide range of things, including fundamental metaphysical issues. I do not, however, try to claim that they therefore aren't "True Atheists" - that's just a No True Scotsman fallacy. If they disbelieve in gods, then they are atheists - even if they are Buddhists, if they believe in reincarnation, if they believe in astrology, if they are objectivists, if they are racists, or any other of a million things I am not. That's not a "technicality" - that's simply what atheism is.
Cline’s blog –- devoted solely to atheism and agnosticism –- makes this point on a daily basis, generally in connection with some attack on the religious right. If his atheism had no relevance to such issues, if it were truly just a matter of the absence of a belief, he’d have practically nothing to say at all.
Actually, this site isn't devoted solely to atheism and agnosticism. It doesn't take much reading to realize that - but then again, it also doesn't take much reading to realize that "atheism" only means "disbelief in the existence of gods." In reality, this site covers a wide variety of issues and subjects: general philosophy, religious philosophy, politics, ethics, science, and so forth.
Much of what I write could just as easily be written by a theist - there is no necessary connection between my atheism and my views on things like the Religious Right. Once again, we are seeing a confusion of atheism with atheists. Just because an atheist has something to say on religion or philosophy doesn't mean that those views are a part of atheism.
It is also an error to suggest that I consider my atheism irrelevant to such issues. The fact that atheism doesn't lead a person to any particular metaphysical or political conclusions doesn't mean that it is therefore irrelevant to those conclusions. Skepticism also doesn't lead to any particular metaphysical or political conclusions - does that mean it is irrelevant? Critical thinking isn't a "philosophy" with "metaphysical convictions" - does that mean that it is irrelevant to what I say about the Religious Right? Of course not.
Atheism is the absence of belief in gods - nothing more, nothing less. I know, I'm repeating myself, but some people simply don't get it. Atheism is no more a religion or a philosophy than "bald" is a "hair color." The fact that some atheists have a religion and others have a philosophy doesn't change things.