The Dictionary Atheist scuffle

There has been a flurry of excitement and discussion within the atheist community lately regarding one of PZ Myers recent blog posts where he professes his hatred towards "dictionary atheists", ie, those that, according to Myers, announce that:

"Atheism means you lack a belief in gods. Nothing more. Quit trying to add meaning to the term."

I figured I'd go ahead and voice my response for the funsies, even though I am a bit late on the taking. Oops on my part. Anyway, here goes.

For starters, lets examine the actual definition of atheism. I'll take the standard: "the disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings."

If you meet this criteria, you're an atheist. Period. Anything else is additional. Let's continue.

"As if atheism can only be some platonic ideal floating in virtual space with no connections to anything else"

To the individual, this is entirely correct. My atheism isn't simply a definition, but a part of my identity. I associate my atheism with a myriad of my own personal values and life experiences. It must have connections to other aspects of my being in order for the doubt to seed and enable me to reach its conclusion, and so it is definitely more than a singular "platonic ideal" floating around within my psyche. But, my own route and interpretation of atheism is frankly, irrelevant. It doesn't affect the meaning of the term atheism, at all. My "version" is not applicable to all people that lack a belief in deities, which is essentially the only thing that atheism itself entails. It isn't compatible with the collective, and can thus quickly be considered irrelevant.

"If I ask you to explain to me why you are an atheist, reciting the dictionary at me, you are saying nothing."

Agreed. I don't understand why or know of anyone who would respond with a dictionary in that scenario, but I get the point he's making.  I have explanations and reasoning for my atheism and it is hence more than mere unbelief, which is all there is to the definition. Yet once again, my reasoning is not universal.
If someone asks of my position regarding deities and religions, describing myself as an atheist perfectly suffices the question. If they request further elaboration regarding my motivation or logic behind my stance, I will comply with much more than the standard definition. When I do this, however, I have left the confines of atheism, which is but a particular branch of my worldview, and am now indulging in other areas of this view  that contributed to my atheism but are not indicative of it.

As Myers later acknowledges, atheism is simply a consequence of a worldview. It is not the root of it. Any paths and attitudes adopted to attain this outcome are merely contributory: they are not necessarily values of atheism.

"My point is that nobody becomes an atheist because of an absence of values, and no one becomes an atheist because the dictionary tells them they are. I think we also do a disservice to the movement when we pretend it's solely a mob of individuals who lack a belief, rather than an organization with positive goals and values."

People become atheists because of certain values, but these values don't necessitate atheism. Following this, it doesn't make sense to try to conflate them with atheism itself. Regarding the second sentence, I have to agree with vjack of Atheist Revolution: "Nobody is claiming that the atheist movement is nothing more than people who lack theistic belief. Nobody. But the atheist movement is about a hell of a lot more than just atheism! Atheism (i.e., the lack of belief in gods) is not by itself bringing people to conferences to hear PZ speak, to donate money to political causes, or to join freethought organizations. We come together because we give a damn about social justice, separation of church and state, civil rights, etc. And yet, none of this is part of the definition of atheism."

Myers later clarifies his position in a follow up post:

"I'm not redefining atheism, nor am I declaring the dictionary wrong: I'm saying it is insufficient. Also, no one is a Dictionary Atheist, and the folly lies in pretending that you are one... Everyone who is an atheist is so because of other, prior ideas."

Once again, I'm in agreement with this. Yet, I don't know of anyone who would consider a one line definition a sufficientl summary of their atheism. Obviously, it is derived from a rich tapestry of prior ideas and often means far more than any single sentence could evince. But, these are individual and separate concepts. "Dictionary atheism" is not the extent of someones atheism, merely the only common factor between all atheists. As someone succinctly worded it in the comments of Myers response post, "Atheism is the conclusion, not the philosophy." and as vjack of Atheist Revolution puts it: "we should instead view it [atheism] as one of many building blocks supporting our worldviews."