What the hell, I have some time to kill.
But can we have some sort of key to evaluate answers?
1. How would you define atheism?
Lack of belief in a supernatural, intelligent agency - which is the most generic definition of god I can find.
2. Do you act according to what you believe (there is no God) in or what you don't believe in (lack belief in God)?
Both - if my belief or lack thereof relevant to the action. For the record, the given examples of "lack of belief in god/belief in no god" are not relevant to any of my actions.
3. Do you think it is inconsistent for someone who "lacks belief" in God to work against God's existence by attempting to show that God doesn't exist?
No. His attempts to do so maybe dictated by other beliefs he may hold.
4. How sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality?
My atheism doesn't represent the whole of reality - just one aspect of it. And of that I'm as sure as I'm of the scientific method.
5. How sure are you that your atheism is correct?
See above.
6. How would you define what truth is?
Factual truth - the degree of correspondence between the proposition and reality as it is (e.g. the sun is a star).
Contextual truth - the degree of coherence between the proposition and other proposition made in the same context (e.g. according to Tolkeinverse, the sun is the last fruit produced by the tree Laurelin)
7. Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold?
Yes.
8. Are you a materialist or a physicalist or what?
Realist.
9. Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview? Why or why not?
Its not a worldview - it is just an aspect of a much larger worldview.
10. Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity but for those of you who are, why the antagonism?
Because its damaging and curtails critical thinking.
11. If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny his existence?
I was never a believer.
12. Do you believe the world would be better off without religion?
Yes.
13. Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity?
Yes.
14. Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?
Its mental alright, but it is too prevalent to be a disorder.
15. Must God be known through the scientific method?
If your particular iteration acts within the natural world, then yes.
16. If you answered yes to the previous question, then how do you avoid a category mistake by requiring material evidence for an immaterial God?
By pointing out the category error of claiming that something immaterial could affect the material. If your god can affect the material while being immaterial, then he can be known through material evidence.
17. Do we have any purpose as human beings?
As human beings - no. As a rational being capable of action - yes.
18. If we do have purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined?
For some, through an in-depth consideration of one's own life, needs and facts of the the world we live in.
For other, they get it from fantastical bronze age literature.
19. Where does morality come from?
From a rational consideration of one's own needs, biological instincts, emotional imperatives and capabilities.
20. Are there moral absolutes?
No.
21. If there are moral absolutes, could you list a few of them?
N/A
22. Do you believe there is such a thing as evil? If so, what is it?
Negating someone's moral agency.
23. If you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard do you judge that he is bad?
By the standards of a rational moral system.
24. What would it take for you to believe in God?
A definition that is logically coherent and then evidence pertaining to its existence.
25. What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?
See above.
26. Must this evidence be rationally based, archaeological, testable in a lab, etc., or what?
It should be rational and verifiable - whether the verification happens in a lab or at a dig-site is irrelevant.
27. Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer? Why?
I think society run by people who ascribe to a rational political theory would be safer. Their own personal beliefs regarding anything irrelevant are irrelevant.
28. Do you believe in free will? (free will being the ability to make choices without coercion).
Yes
29. If you believe in free will, do you see any problem with defending the idea that the physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemical laws of the brain, can still produce free will choices?
No. Limitations placed by neuro-chemical laws is not coercion. Coercion would require a separate agency to do the coercing.
30. If you affirm evolution and that the universe will continue to expand forever, then do you think it is probable that given enough time, brains would evolve to the point of exceeding mere physical limitations and become free of the physical and temporal and thereby become "deity" and not be restricted by space and time? If not, why not?
I affirm evolution. I don't assume that the universe would continue to expand forever. Brains are fundamentally material in nature, so even if they do exceed their current physical limitations (which I am hoping for), I wouldn't regard them as having exceeded all physical limitations.
31. If you answered the previous question in the affirmative, then aren't you saying that it is probable that some sort of God exists?
While maintaining the whole idea is illogical - any such achievement would occur through natural means and thus the product would be natural - not supernatural, which is what a god is.
But can we have some sort of key to evaluate answers?
1. How would you define atheism?
Lack of belief in a supernatural, intelligent agency - which is the most generic definition of god I can find.
2. Do you act according to what you believe (there is no God) in or what you don't believe in (lack belief in God)?
Both - if my belief or lack thereof relevant to the action. For the record, the given examples of "lack of belief in god/belief in no god" are not relevant to any of my actions.
3. Do you think it is inconsistent for someone who "lacks belief" in God to work against God's existence by attempting to show that God doesn't exist?
No. His attempts to do so maybe dictated by other beliefs he may hold.
4. How sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality?
My atheism doesn't represent the whole of reality - just one aspect of it. And of that I'm as sure as I'm of the scientific method.
5. How sure are you that your atheism is correct?
See above.
6. How would you define what truth is?
Factual truth - the degree of correspondence between the proposition and reality as it is (e.g. the sun is a star).
Contextual truth - the degree of coherence between the proposition and other proposition made in the same context (e.g. according to Tolkeinverse, the sun is the last fruit produced by the tree Laurelin)
7. Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold?
Yes.
8. Are you a materialist or a physicalist or what?
Realist.
9. Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview? Why or why not?
Its not a worldview - it is just an aspect of a much larger worldview.
10. Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity but for those of you who are, why the antagonism?
Because its damaging and curtails critical thinking.
11. If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny his existence?
I was never a believer.
12. Do you believe the world would be better off without religion?
Yes.
13. Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity?
Yes.
14. Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?
Its mental alright, but it is too prevalent to be a disorder.
15. Must God be known through the scientific method?
If your particular iteration acts within the natural world, then yes.
16. If you answered yes to the previous question, then how do you avoid a category mistake by requiring material evidence for an immaterial God?
By pointing out the category error of claiming that something immaterial could affect the material. If your god can affect the material while being immaterial, then he can be known through material evidence.
17. Do we have any purpose as human beings?
As human beings - no. As a rational being capable of action - yes.
18. If we do have purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined?
For some, through an in-depth consideration of one's own life, needs and facts of the the world we live in.
For other, they get it from fantastical bronze age literature.
19. Where does morality come from?
From a rational consideration of one's own needs, biological instincts, emotional imperatives and capabilities.
20. Are there moral absolutes?
No.
21. If there are moral absolutes, could you list a few of them?
N/A
22. Do you believe there is such a thing as evil? If so, what is it?
Negating someone's moral agency.
23. If you believe that the God of the Old Testament is morally bad, by what standard do you judge that he is bad?
By the standards of a rational moral system.
24. What would it take for you to believe in God?
A definition that is logically coherent and then evidence pertaining to its existence.
25. What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?
See above.
26. Must this evidence be rationally based, archaeological, testable in a lab, etc., or what?
It should be rational and verifiable - whether the verification happens in a lab or at a dig-site is irrelevant.
27. Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer? Why?
I think society run by people who ascribe to a rational political theory would be safer. Their own personal beliefs regarding anything irrelevant are irrelevant.
28. Do you believe in free will? (free will being the ability to make choices without coercion).
Yes
29. If you believe in free will, do you see any problem with defending the idea that the physical brain, which is limited and subject to the neuro-chemical laws of the brain, can still produce free will choices?
No. Limitations placed by neuro-chemical laws is not coercion. Coercion would require a separate agency to do the coercing.
30. If you affirm evolution and that the universe will continue to expand forever, then do you think it is probable that given enough time, brains would evolve to the point of exceeding mere physical limitations and become free of the physical and temporal and thereby become "deity" and not be restricted by space and time? If not, why not?
I affirm evolution. I don't assume that the universe would continue to expand forever. Brains are fundamentally material in nature, so even if they do exceed their current physical limitations (which I am hoping for), I wouldn't regard them as having exceeded all physical limitations.
31. If you answered the previous question in the affirmative, then aren't you saying that it is probable that some sort of God exists?
While maintaining the whole idea is illogical - any such achievement would occur through natural means and thus the product would be natural - not supernatural, which is what a god is.
