Short answer: It isn’t good. Not as a standalone position, at least. Let me explain.

Neither atheism (a general rejection of god-beliefs) nor theism (a general acceptance of god-beliefs), nor any other formulation of belief related to the god hypothesis, possesses ethical implications—whether “good” or “bad”—in and of themselves in a vacuum. It would be an error to say or think that belief or disbelief in deities itself makes one better or worse than whatever contrary perspectives that oppose them.

The question posed inevitably leads me to the subsequent choices I make that align with this philosophical stance. It is in the land of contingencies that I can more precisely answer as to what positive values I perceive branching from a lack of belief in gods.

Bertrand Russell, one of my favorite philosophers, once said: “So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence.” Russell’s words highlight a common deficiency promoted by certain traditions that store trust in the unseen and astounding but insufficiently supported claims: Anti-intellectualism.

Along my path to a better understanding of my Pentecostal faith, I asked questions. This was usually met with resistance, annoyance, or insistence that I basically not think so much. In her book “Battlefield of the Mind for Teens”, Christian author and speaker Joyce Meyer gave advice along the same lines:

“I once asked the Lord why so many people are confused and He said to me, ‘Tell them to stop trying to figure everything out, and they will stop being confused.’ I have found it to be absolutely true. Reasoning and confusion go together.”

Joel Osteen, world renowned televangelist who promotes a prosperity gospel, frequently toes the party line of lionizing admittedly uncorroborated, inward apprehension over tangible, verified data.

Scientology doctrine—as covered in the recent HBO documentary, “Going Clear: Scientology and the Prison of Belief”—dictates that whomever attempts to question or break ties with the church shall be ruled “suppressive,” and that individual is removed and ostracized, usually resulting in the fracture of family ties and intimate interpersonal relationships. For many within Islam, merely questioning instruction may potentially be met with threats, verbal, or emotional abuse. Or worse.

These are all absurd attitudes, and for more than one reason. The book Philosophy: The Quest for Truth figuratively echoes this retreat to conformist unthinking:

“There is often deeper truth, better and new evidence that disturbs the status quo and that forces us to revise or reject some of our beliefs. This experience can be as painful as it is exciting. The pain may lead us to give up philosophical inquiry and may require a deal of emotional health to persevere in it. We may retreat into unreason and obey the commandment of Ignorance, “Think not, lest Thou be confounded!”

There seems to be a tendency within some religious belief systems to prey on credulity, reward narrow-mindedness, and perpetuate unawareness of what lies beyond the imaginary box each has constructed.

Atheism is a byproduct of my endeavoring to satiate curiosity about my religious conviction and the origins of Christianity. Released from mental bondage and devotion to bizarre, cumbersome and irrational precepts, I find myself more content. For example: Guilt accompanied with sexual desire (a biological imperative) outside of wedlock (a social construct) has been voided.

Concentrated through this particular lens—of seeking clarity and questioning what has been taken for granted—atheism is a kind of mind liberation to some extent. More than a “get out of jail, free” card for those who simply don’t wish to “follow the rules,” I find my tenacity for seeking knowledge and learning unquenchable.

As an atheist, I am not tethered to static pronouncements; coupled with a basic comprehension of empiricism, I understand that facts are things that are confirmed to such a degree that it would be absurd to deny them. Further, I am more readily willing to seek better and new evidence, even if it means turning away from widely accepted attitudes, behaviors, and beliefs.

Another point: There is a quote by physicist Steven Weinberg that states, “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

This is an exaggeration, of course, and also omits factors whereby otherwise good people would do very bad things (i.e., for monetary gain, etc.). That said, this does speak to an issue that has yet to be discovered in all the annals of human history. To my knowledge, there has never been an individual who has harmed, slain or waged war in the name of atheism.*

It would be unnecessary to detail the longstanding adverse role god-centric belief systems has had on a social and political level when it comes to this world. Granted, religion and faith in gods has produced many benevolent effects. Even so, god-beliefs have also played a contributing factor in bigotry, apathy, preserving ignorance, strife, violence, torture, wars, and general suffering. Its desolation is so extremely copious it’d take a proper encyclopedic indexing of each instance to adequately wrap our minds around it.

I recall an interview Ricky Gervais had with Piers Morgan back in 2013 where he, among other things, said: “There’s this strange myth that atheists have nothing to live for. It’s the opposite. We have nothing to die for…We have everything to live for.”

Wed to this falsehood often sown by religious adherents who reduce nonbelievers to demon-riddled, hopeless caricatures is the thought that atheists must not have morals since our sense of right and wrong isn’t informed by ancient text or by what a cleric declared.

This line of reasoning tends to be modeled after preconceived notions and staggering unawareness of how one could possibly divorce unsubstantiated belief from their rationale. Similarly, this mirrors the mischaracterization that leads to the conflation of atheism with misotheism, as if the only way one could reject the notion of an invisible, intangible intentional agency is by hatred or vendetta.

Again, it isn’t so much that there’s “good” in nonbelief in gods, but there is something more earnest and untainted about those that behave in charitable ways due to an independent decision to do so rather than appeals to what ought to be done in obedience to religious dogma.

Levi Pettit, a former University of Oklahoma frat student who led a racist chant caught on video, gave a public apology recently. Many seemed pleased with this act, but I ask: “If the incident had not been taped and exposed, had the frat not faced penalty, had he not been expelled, had there not been strong persuasion to appease public outrage– would Pettit have issued that professionally manufactured apology for the transgression?”

Without the constraints of ecclesiastical pronouncements, or experiencing inner turmoil due to natural desires conflicting with antiquated ideas of virtue and scriptural instruction, I am able to do “good.” It is far more sincere to help others or “do the right thing” because I choose to do so entirely of my own volition, rather than to comply with external pressure, avoid social stigma, or adhere to what I perceive to be divine bidding.

In an essay titled “The Peculiar Case of Belief-Disassociation,” I parse on what it means to believe and the theory of knowledge as it relates to atheist beliefs. Breaking down epistemology, I state that atheists value empiricism, naturalistic rationality and the null hypothesis (at least when it relates to the god hypothesis): Thus, atheists are more inclined to better appreciate reality from these three standards, though they could (and do) still occasionally diverge into more spurious beliefs due to other mitigating factors.

With a higher likelihood to face life experiences and unavoidable trials without slipping into god-based fatalism, abject inaction supported with wishful thinking prayer, stopping short of human-based solutions to a dilemma in preference for the imagined breakthrough of divine intervention, there appears to be features of an atheist-based rationale that are advantageous. More practical.

This brings me to my final point: Atheism in conjunction with humanism produces a breed of secular humanism that greatly informs my beliefs, reflection, and activism. Granted, atheism and secular humanism aren’t mutually exclusive; nevertheless, most who identify as the latter are typically atheists. I think secular humanism is the kind of progressive mindset that can lead to an outlook that is more conducive to humanity, as well as all life and a series of issues besetting this world. Good for good’s sake without extraneous entanglements due to alleged supernatural sources that may derail or warp the motivations, intentions, and conduct associated with a cause.

As an atheist, I don’t discriminate against marginalized groups out of submission to Bronze Age edicts. I wouldn’t try to pass legislation to exert disproportionate power and congeal preferential treatment at the expense of those who didn’t possess identical beliefs out of fascist perceptions steeped in a resolve that exclaimed, “This is the Truth! Everyone must submit for their own good!”

As an atheist, I couldn’t fathom hating, disassociating with, or not being able to countenance an individual or group of people that I don’t know personally—that didn’t do anything directly harmful against me—whose only offense is that they ran afoul of prescriptive ordinances reinforced by family, revered ministers and an exclusionary social sect.

It is for these (and more) reasons that I embrace human reason, ethics, critical appraisal and empirical evidence. Likewise, I reject religious dogma, supernaturalism, pseudoscience or superstition as the basis of morality and decision making. There is no creed an atheist must abide by, nor a hierarchy of consecrated leaders, despite the media’s attempts to crown certain people like Dawkins and Harris as atheist caliphates.

In closing, atheism in and of itself is neither good nor bad. However, I would argue that, through the divergence of propositions selected that spiral from nonbelief, I am more capable of being attuned to addressing real world issues rather than buck-passing responsibility or initiative onto appeals to dubious, faith-based ideas. And I do it all with a perspective that this life is all I have to give, something I wager makes my efforts to be a catalyst for change more enriched.

*Naysayers please do adequate research before appealing to bunk notions of “in the name of atheism” acts of terror and horror. Hitler wasn’t an atheist, and dictators like Pol Pot, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao and Than Shwe did not consolidate their power and enforce brutal political policies in the name of atheism. Each oppressor’s actions coincided with megalomania or traits similar to this and not with a desire to bring glory to the power of nonbelief in gods, or because a nonexistent deity they don’t believe in told them to do it, or to magnify the majesty of godlessness. Don’t be silly.