Why do atheists deny that they are just biorobots?

[Mister Agenda]

That's what we've been trying to tell you. Atheism isn't a worldview. It's the result of an epistemological stance.

Here's what confuses me. I have exactly the same epidemiological stance, apply reason to experience, and yet I reach a different conclusion, i.e. God exists. Why then, is my belief in God a worldview and your opposite conclusion not one? Moreover, having reached that conclusion I can carry that over as the premise of further inquiry. Why are atheists incapable of doing the same?

We're capable of it, but the rational skeptics among the atheists don't think making it a premise is a good idea. We try to minimize our premises, not add to them. The conclusion 'atheism' for almost every rational skeptic is not that no gods exist but that the proposition that at least one god exists is insufficiently justified to warrant belief. That's not much to build on, even if you were so inclined.

---

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.

Damn, you were almost there. So close....

---

Exlax, its called logic. I know its difficult for you but anyone can see that on the one hand you say theism is a worldview because believers have many and various beliefs and on the other hand you say atheism isn't a worldview because atheists have many and various beliefs.

Theism isn't a worldview. I'm pretty sure Esquilax said as much, explicitly.

---

I believe the point is that their theism is the source of those beliefs, whereas atheism is one result among many that is arrived to through investigation of the world.

I disagree. Theism isn't a worldview, and it isn't a source of beliefs. Mere theism doesn't entail anything but the opinion that at least one god is real. Everything else is added, and doesn't come from theism, but from culture and tradition.