I’m an atheist, and my sacred cow is game theory. It is mathematically based, but it assumes a motivation to maximize pay-offs, a belief, if you will, that critters, including humans, have interests, and so we must always treat the presence of those interests as a “sacred cow,” i.e., something we cannot deny. (Ironically, Marxism is atheistic, but Marxists are stupid atheists who don’t have the sense to replace god with self-interest as the world’s life force.)

I believe the job of civilization and government is to harness self-interest, not to please or even surrender to god. Atheism allows me to hold that view. So, saying that atheism is a lack of belief with ipso facto no consequences is wrong. The lack of belief in god does not imply a particular set of other beliefs, but it does make those beliefs possible, and it creates the affirmative belief that an alternative explanation for each phenomenon deists explain as god’s handiwork is worth seeking.

The search for something else thus begins with the denial of god, so whatever I find in that search is the product of atheism. If I find a principle that I consider worthy of being treated as universally true, I make it a “sacred cow,” in the sense that I assume it rather than validate it going forward. I like to believe that my sacred cows are evidence-based, that belief in the absence of evidence is faith, whereas belief with no further search for evidence is just a strategy.

I don’t know if this comment is responsive to the article, because I am not sure what argument the article is making. But I do see a high likelihood that it is on topic. God knows if I’m right.