In the syllabus for Peter Boghossian’s university class on atheistic apologetics, we are told:
Logically and epistemologically, atheism is no different than atoothfairyism.
Really? In the same syllabus, we are also told:
This course is a systematic examination and analysis of atheism. It is primarily focused upon understanding contemporary secular arguments regarding religion and faith-based belief systems. It is secondarily focused upon exploring what secularism means for metaphysics, epistemology, morality, politics, aesthetics, etc.
Hmmm. Then what does atoothfairyism mean for metaphysics, epistemology, morality, politics, aesthetics, etc?
Look, if you insist there is no God, then much more is involved than denying the existence of some other Being. As Boghossian himself admits, it also has implications for metaphysics, epistemology, morality, politics, aesthetics, etc.
For example, if there is no God, there is no ultimate meaning to life. No reason why we exist. We invent our own meaning (or pretend to have one). What is of value is simply that which we decide to value. Morality is what we want it to be. In fact, many atheists also argue it means we have no free will and thus the concept of moral responsibility is an illusion. Even our sense of self is an illusion. If there is no God, everything changes. If there is no tooth fairy, it merely means there is no odd creatures that swaps human teeth for quarters. Other than that odd fact about the world, everything remains the same.