this is really long and I don't feel like wirtting in hide tags for every single answer, so I'm just going to hide the whole thing:
1. How would you define atheism?
Depends on what kind of atheism you’re talking about. It can be defined as the default or null position (“I have insufficient evidence or reason to accept the positive claim that any gods exist” <-- I’m this kind of atheist), or it can be defined as the positive claim that no gods exist. It’s entirely dependant on the person assuming the title atheist. I don’t presume to define atheism for anyone but myself.
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)?
If you remove the unnecessary “there is a god” or “lack of belief in god” modifiers which slant this question terribly, I could be accurately described as acting on positive and negative beliefs; whether or not I think there is a god is not a motivating factor for my actions in life. I don’t go around thinking to myself “I believe there is no god, how does this inform my actions while grocery shopping?” or “I lack a belief in god, how can I use this to decide what I want for lunch?”
This is a stupid question.
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?
This question doesn’t make any sense because a god’s existence hasn’t been established such that a person who “lacks a belief” in any gods would be definitively working against any god’s existence. Demonstrate that a god (any god) exists and then this question could be answered as written.
This question is also shifting the burden of proof. It’s not up to the atheist to demonstrate that gods do not exist; it’s up to the theist to demonstrate that they do exist.
I don’t, however, think that it is inconsistent for a person who “lacks belief” in a god to demonstrate the fallacies and logical inconsistencies in a theists arguments. You could have a positive belief in some other god and do this to other religions’ theistic claims.
4. How sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality?
No gods have ever been in evidence, or demonstrated to be responsible for phenomena of any kind, so my atheism (lack of belief in any god claim) currently maps to reality.
5. How sure are you that your atheism is correct?
See answer to #4.
6. How would you define what truth is?
That which is factually correct and comports with reality, regardless of personal subjectivity, biases or interpretations. The more humans learn about the universe and can demonstrate to be factual and objectively accurate, the closer to “truth” we can get.
7. Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold?
See answer to #4.
8. Are you a materialist or a physicalist or what?
Or what.
9. Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview? Why or why not?
Atheism is the non-acceptance or rejection of god claims, and as such it is not a worldview or a philosophy. Theism is also not a worldview, it is merely the acceptance of theistic claims.
10. Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity but for those of you who are, why the antagonism?
Perhaps it has to do with antagonism and condescension atheists get from many Christians who routinely straw man atheists, tell atheists that they’re going to go to hell, or that atheists secretly know God exists but publicly reject him because they love their sin, or other such non-sense.
Add to this that some Christians perpetrate terrible harm upon each other (indoctrination of young children before they known enough to make up their minds on their own, tell each other that masturbation is a sin, that you can be sent to hell for what amounts to thought crimes, etc.), as well as terrible harm on others (The Catholic church in Africa, Mormons pushing for Prop 8, the whole pedophile priest thing, bombing abortion clinics, starting wars using their religion as justification, etc.)
11. If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny his existence?
This question makes the unjustified assumption that the Chrsitian God exists. No one has demonstrated that there is a god to deny, let alone that that god is the Christian God.
This question also assumes that all atheists are strong atheists – that they positively believe there is no god – so it’s also straw manning many atheists.
A less loaded question would have been worded “If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to stop believing?”
12. Do you believe the world would be better off without religion?
I think it could very well be a wash – people will find other nonsense to fill the void religion leaves behind (New-agey, crystal-power, tarot-reading, astrology-chart-constructing, numerology-calculating, guru-consulting, Ouiji-board-divining, paranormal-believing, conspiracy-theorist type crap). But getting rid of religion wouldn’t be a bad thing, IMO, especially if this is accompanied by increases in science education and reasonability of people. But seeing as how these aren’t givens, I stand by the opinion that it could very well be a wash.
13. Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity?
Probably.
14. Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?
No.
15. Must God be known through the scientific method?
If a god isn’t demonstrated through the scientific method, how can you assert that a god exists? Especially if that god is an interventionalist: it intervenes or interacts with our reality by answering prayers, performing miracles, etc.
If we’re talking about a deistic god, I doubt that that god could be demonstrated by the scientific method, but claiming that a deistic god is responsible for the reality we experience is a god of the gaps argument. Just like you can’t demonstrate that the deistic god doesn’t exist, you can’t demonstrate that it does, either. Argument from ignorance.
If we’re talking about a completely immaterial god, devoid of physical properties that doesn’t interact with this reality, that god would probably not be scientifically detectable, which raises the question of how the theist even knows about it to begin with. If it somehow instilled humanity with foreknowledge of its existence, that would qualify as interacting with this reality and, thus, could be scientifically studied.
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?
Not all proposed gods are immaterial – the questioner is, again, assuming their special god is the only possible one in existence and has failed to provide reason, evidence or a demonstration that no other possible gods exist.
17. Do we have any purpose as human beings?
Sure.
18. If we do have purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined?
The evolutionary purpose for any life form, not just human beings, is to live long enough to produce offspring that will survive to reproductive age and produce offspring that will survive to reproductive age and produce offspring that will survive to reproductive age and produce offspring that will survive to reproductive age, etc, etc, etc…
Any purpose humans give themselves above and beyond this evolutionary purpose for life is entirely self-generated and determined by the individual.
19. Where does morality come from?
Morality is a social construct created by animals that live in social groups, and is thus defined by each social group.
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?
I believe there are things which are maximally harmful, to individuals, groups, and societies for which the word “evil” would be a reasonable descriptive word.
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 my society.
(Also, dangerously close to the Euthyphro dilemma, here. Tread carefully, questioner.)
24. What would it take for you to believe in God?
Objective, repeatable, verifiable evidence that a god, any god, exists that is not dependant on faith, feelings, or subjective interpretations of experiences that are unverifiable to anyone else.
(More assumptions about the capital-G Christian God...)
25. What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?
The same kind of evidence anyone else would need to believe in unicorns, fairies, the Loch Ness Monster, mermaids, leprechauns, dragons, Big Foot, the Abominable Snowman, Yetis, genies, ghosts, the Wizarding World, Sauron, ogres, talking animals, centaurs, the Jersey Devil, Pegasus, satyrs, sirens, sphinxes, vampires, Chupacabras, werewolves, wraiths, thunderbirds, spirits of the [bear/wolf/eagle/beaver/whale/etc.], or any god from any other religion.
If there was a god and it wanted me to believe in it, it would know what kind of evidence would convince me and would provide it.
26. Must this evidence be rationally based, archaeological, testable in a lab, etc., or what?
Evidence should definitely be rationally based. Why would anyone accept evidence that was irrational?
(Well,
Tertullian would…)
27. Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer? Why?
That’s entirely unforeseeable. Are the Christians from the Westboro Baptist Chruch, or are they more Unitarian Universalist with a Christian slant? Are the atheists motivated by a political ideology, or secular humanist ideals?
28. Do you believe in free will? (free will being the ability to make choices without coercion).
I don’t know. I feel like I have free will, but does that feeling necessitate that I do? I feel like some, maybe most, of my choices are made freely, without coercion, but are they really? How often are we blind to the coercive mechanisms in our world that subtly push us toward one choice or another without our realizing it? Is coercion the only limiting factor to whether or not one has free will?
How would one tell the difference between a reality in which one can freely make decisions and a reality where every thought, action and choice is predetermined and you only think you have free will? There’s no real way to tell, and thus no real, objective answer to this question.
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?
N/A.
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?
First of all, evolution and the expansion of the universe aren’t linked.
Second of all, I don’t know whether the universe will expand forever.
Third, seeing as how an expanding universe has nothing to do with whether brains would, or could, evolve to the point of exceeding mere physical limitations, I conclude that this is the stupidest, most convoluted, nonsensical question I’ve come across in a long time.
Fourth, I think the questioner is asking about minds exceeding physical limitations, seeing as “brain” is the description of the hunk of physical grey matter residing inside a skull, and I’m not even sure how a physical object like a brain could exceed it’s own physical limitations… Would it have to get larger than the universe in order to exceed physical limitations? How is that even possible?
Fifth, and finally, if I am correct in assuming the questioner is referring to minds, not brains, everything we know about minds (or consciousness, as if often meant when referring to “minds”) tells us that the mind is entirely dependant on physical brains, and thus could not exceed physical limitations of brains.
The rest of the question regarding becoming deity falls back into the nonsensical.
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?
N/A.
1. How would you define atheism?
Depends on what kind of atheism you’re talking about. It can be defined as the default or null position (“I have insufficient evidence or reason to accept the positive claim that any gods exist” <-- I’m this kind of atheist), or it can be defined as the positive claim that no gods exist. It’s entirely dependant on the person assuming the title atheist. I don’t presume to define atheism for anyone but myself.
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)?
If you remove the unnecessary “there is a god” or “lack of belief in god” modifiers which slant this question terribly, I could be accurately described as acting on positive and negative beliefs; whether or not I think there is a god is not a motivating factor for my actions in life. I don’t go around thinking to myself “I believe there is no god, how does this inform my actions while grocery shopping?” or “I lack a belief in god, how can I use this to decide what I want for lunch?”
This is a stupid question.
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?
This question doesn’t make any sense because a god’s existence hasn’t been established such that a person who “lacks a belief” in any gods would be definitively working against any god’s existence. Demonstrate that a god (any god) exists and then this question could be answered as written.
This question is also shifting the burden of proof. It’s not up to the atheist to demonstrate that gods do not exist; it’s up to the theist to demonstrate that they do exist.
I don’t, however, think that it is inconsistent for a person who “lacks belief” in a god to demonstrate the fallacies and logical inconsistencies in a theists arguments. You could have a positive belief in some other god and do this to other religions’ theistic claims.
4. How sure are you that your atheism properly represents reality?
No gods have ever been in evidence, or demonstrated to be responsible for phenomena of any kind, so my atheism (lack of belief in any god claim) currently maps to reality.
5. How sure are you that your atheism is correct?
See answer to #4.
6. How would you define what truth is?
That which is factually correct and comports with reality, regardless of personal subjectivity, biases or interpretations. The more humans learn about the universe and can demonstrate to be factual and objectively accurate, the closer to “truth” we can get.
7. Why do you believe your atheism is a justifiable position to hold?
See answer to #4.
8. Are you a materialist or a physicalist or what?
Or what.
9. Do you affirm or deny that atheism is a worldview? Why or why not?
Atheism is the non-acceptance or rejection of god claims, and as such it is not a worldview or a philosophy. Theism is also not a worldview, it is merely the acceptance of theistic claims.
10. Not all atheists are antagonistic to Christianity but for those of you who are, why the antagonism?
Perhaps it has to do with antagonism and condescension atheists get from many Christians who routinely straw man atheists, tell atheists that they’re going to go to hell, or that atheists secretly know God exists but publicly reject him because they love their sin, or other such non-sense.
Add to this that some Christians perpetrate terrible harm upon each other (indoctrination of young children before they known enough to make up their minds on their own, tell each other that masturbation is a sin, that you can be sent to hell for what amounts to thought crimes, etc.), as well as terrible harm on others (The Catholic church in Africa, Mormons pushing for Prop 8, the whole pedophile priest thing, bombing abortion clinics, starting wars using their religion as justification, etc.)
11. If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to deny his existence?
This question makes the unjustified assumption that the Chrsitian God exists. No one has demonstrated that there is a god to deny, let alone that that god is the Christian God.
This question also assumes that all atheists are strong atheists – that they positively believe there is no god – so it’s also straw manning many atheists.
A less loaded question would have been worded “If you were at one time a believer in the Christian God, what caused you to stop believing?”
12. Do you believe the world would be better off without religion?
I think it could very well be a wash – people will find other nonsense to fill the void religion leaves behind (New-agey, crystal-power, tarot-reading, astrology-chart-constructing, numerology-calculating, guru-consulting, Ouiji-board-divining, paranormal-believing, conspiracy-theorist type crap). But getting rid of religion wouldn’t be a bad thing, IMO, especially if this is accompanied by increases in science education and reasonability of people. But seeing as how these aren’t givens, I stand by the opinion that it could very well be a wash.
13. Do you believe the world would be better off without Christianity?
Probably.
14. Do you believe that faith in a God or gods is a mental disorder?
No.
15. Must God be known through the scientific method?
If a god isn’t demonstrated through the scientific method, how can you assert that a god exists? Especially if that god is an interventionalist: it intervenes or interacts with our reality by answering prayers, performing miracles, etc.
If we’re talking about a deistic god, I doubt that that god could be demonstrated by the scientific method, but claiming that a deistic god is responsible for the reality we experience is a god of the gaps argument. Just like you can’t demonstrate that the deistic god doesn’t exist, you can’t demonstrate that it does, either. Argument from ignorance.
If we’re talking about a completely immaterial god, devoid of physical properties that doesn’t interact with this reality, that god would probably not be scientifically detectable, which raises the question of how the theist even knows about it to begin with. If it somehow instilled humanity with foreknowledge of its existence, that would qualify as interacting with this reality and, thus, could be scientifically studied.
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?
Not all proposed gods are immaterial – the questioner is, again, assuming their special god is the only possible one in existence and has failed to provide reason, evidence or a demonstration that no other possible gods exist.
17. Do we have any purpose as human beings?
Sure.
18. If we do have purpose, can you as an atheist please explain how that purpose is determined?
The evolutionary purpose for any life form, not just human beings, is to live long enough to produce offspring that will survive to reproductive age and produce offspring that will survive to reproductive age and produce offspring that will survive to reproductive age and produce offspring that will survive to reproductive age, etc, etc, etc…
Any purpose humans give themselves above and beyond this evolutionary purpose for life is entirely self-generated and determined by the individual.
19. Where does morality come from?
Morality is a social construct created by animals that live in social groups, and is thus defined by each social group.
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?
I believe there are things which are maximally harmful, to individuals, groups, and societies for which the word “evil” would be a reasonable descriptive word.
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 my society.
(Also, dangerously close to the Euthyphro dilemma, here. Tread carefully, questioner.)
24. What would it take for you to believe in God?
Objective, repeatable, verifiable evidence that a god, any god, exists that is not dependant on faith, feelings, or subjective interpretations of experiences that are unverifiable to anyone else.
(More assumptions about the capital-G Christian God...)
25. What would constitute sufficient evidence for God’s existence?
The same kind of evidence anyone else would need to believe in unicorns, fairies, the Loch Ness Monster, mermaids, leprechauns, dragons, Big Foot, the Abominable Snowman, Yetis, genies, ghosts, the Wizarding World, Sauron, ogres, talking animals, centaurs, the Jersey Devil, Pegasus, satyrs, sirens, sphinxes, vampires, Chupacabras, werewolves, wraiths, thunderbirds, spirits of the [bear/wolf/eagle/beaver/whale/etc.], or any god from any other religion.
If there was a god and it wanted me to believe in it, it would know what kind of evidence would convince me and would provide it.
26. Must this evidence be rationally based, archaeological, testable in a lab, etc., or what?
Evidence should definitely be rationally based. Why would anyone accept evidence that was irrational?
(Well,
Tertullian would…)27. Do you think that a society that is run by Christians or atheists would be safer? Why?
That’s entirely unforeseeable. Are the Christians from the Westboro Baptist Chruch, or are they more Unitarian Universalist with a Christian slant? Are the atheists motivated by a political ideology, or secular humanist ideals?
28. Do you believe in free will? (free will being the ability to make choices without coercion).
I don’t know. I feel like I have free will, but does that feeling necessitate that I do? I feel like some, maybe most, of my choices are made freely, without coercion, but are they really? How often are we blind to the coercive mechanisms in our world that subtly push us toward one choice or another without our realizing it? Is coercion the only limiting factor to whether or not one has free will?
How would one tell the difference between a reality in which one can freely make decisions and a reality where every thought, action and choice is predetermined and you only think you have free will? There’s no real way to tell, and thus no real, objective answer to this question.
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?
N/A.
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?
First of all, evolution and the expansion of the universe aren’t linked.
Second of all, I don’t know whether the universe will expand forever.
Third, seeing as how an expanding universe has nothing to do with whether brains would, or could, evolve to the point of exceeding mere physical limitations, I conclude that this is the stupidest, most convoluted, nonsensical question I’ve come across in a long time.
Fourth, I think the questioner is asking about minds exceeding physical limitations, seeing as “brain” is the description of the hunk of physical grey matter residing inside a skull, and I’m not even sure how a physical object like a brain could exceed it’s own physical limitations… Would it have to get larger than the universe in order to exceed physical limitations? How is that even possible?
Fifth, and finally, if I am correct in assuming the questioner is referring to minds, not brains, everything we know about minds (or consciousness, as if often meant when referring to “minds”) tells us that the mind is entirely dependant on physical brains, and thus could not exceed physical limitations of brains.
The rest of the question regarding becoming deity falls back into the nonsensical.
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?
N/A.
Teenaged X-Files obsession + Bermuda Triangle episode + Self-led school research project = Atheist.
