Why do atheists deny that they are just biorobots?

[Esquilax]

Truly, I believe you’re reaching. You cannot honestly believe that atheism doesn’t affect subsequent inquiry. Ruling out options, like divine influence over physical reality, is one such philosophical consequence.

Of course it affects subsequent inquiry, but it doesn't make explicit demands of what one should believe, with the same level of asserted epistemological authority as organized religion does. Tell me, do you think every person reaches exactly the same conclusions about everything? If your answer is no- and really, why wouldn't it be?- then I have to ask why you think every atheist would come to precisely the same conclusions, just because they happen to have reached one conclusion in common? Do cultural, intellectual and other forms of context mean nothing in the determination of one's opinions? Is it only the belief in a god that affects that? If not, then what is stopping atheists from reaching vastly different conclusions about every other question, despite having common ground with regards to nonbelief in god? There are no mandates or commands that atheists should believe or adhere to this or that principle, there's nothing to guide them by fiat to any set of ideals, beyond the single conclusion they've come to regarding divinity. Hell, even the strength or stringency to which they hold that conclusion varies between atheists.

Contrast that with organized religion, where the god conclusion grants huge amounts of authority to a set of claims contained within scriptures or religious doctrines, that do impose upon the rest of your beliefs in a much more present and directed way. Surely you can see the difference now?