Everything it says about atheism is correct to my understanding, but nothing in even "poetic" naturalism in this article says anything that contradicts or even argues against atheism. I can't say I've come across any individual atheists, let alone any even vaguely authoritative text, inasmuch as atheists have them, where there is any objection to talk about reasons and goals and purposes and free will at the human level, or argues that the laws of physics are anything but impersonal and deterministic, or wouldn't change their mind given good enough evidence.

Maybe the larger book draws that distinction. The article doesn't. As it says atheism is just a rejection of an idea. It says nothing more to theistic belief than "I don't accept your claims". So does a poetic naturalism which accepts no deities.

I have come across people who claim that determinism is absolute given neuroscience taken to its un-guessable completion, but even they accept temporal free will, in that a human agent decides today whether to steal food or pay for it. They just claim that it's a theoretically predictable certainty which decision a person with given characteristics will make, so that's a "humans are the sum of their parts" basic argument. There is a theistic equivalent, as after all an omniscient God must likewise know which choices the soul he creates will make. In fact the theistic version is even more deterministic as God also creates as well as knows, whereas some far-distant perfect neuro-science computer will merely know but not create. Even so I see few either theist or atheist who posit a complete absence of any understanding of free will because of this.

There is nothing in the description of naturalism that is not 100% compatible with atheism, even strong or explicit atheism let alone the majority.

How does rejecting theism say there is not a natural world? That would be an extreme form of solipsism not atheism.

How does naturalism saying there are no deities or spirits contradict atheism, which says exactly the same thing (again this is even explicit atheism)? It certainly contradicts theism.

So what exactly is one saying which contradicts the other? All he is saying here is what many atheists have long being trying to get DU believers to accept, which is that atheism is not a belief which makes any positive claims at all, merely saying "we don't believe your claims" to theists.

It doesn't imply or require humanism, naturalism, determinism, etc.

'We don't believe' is the full extent of what I mean when I say 'I am an atheist.'.
If one wants to know more about my worldview, there are better questions to ask me.

But this chap, in this interview at least, is saying absolutely nothing which contradicts atheism at all. As quoted, all he's saying is "I'm an atheist but I want to talk about other stuff I care about". It's just like being a bachelor who likes watching women's basketball. There's no real conflict, incompatibility or even connection between the two statements.

Atheism doesn't require naturalism, although almost every atheist I know agrees with his statements in this interview about the natural world, as do I ( a couple I know believe in ghosts which I assume he rejects as "spirits&quot . Nothing in atheism however rejects any of the statements he makes here about naturalism, even with the gratuitous "poetic" qualifier. Maybe the book will make any point that justifies the "you may not be an atheist" headline, but the interview does not as it raises not a single point of incompatibility.

Strictly speaking, I'm a 'naturalist' but not necessarily in the sense they are classifying it.

For instance I believe the universe is indeterminate AND we have free will. But in the sense that if you were to duplicate it to its last nuance, it would run the 'same' for a while, the real and the duplicate. Until random chance diverged. So in that sense, while I hold the universe to be indeterminate, that is a shade of determinism.

And in the sense that electrical and chemical reactions carry or impulse thought, that would make us NOT 'free will' strictly speaking. Rather the product of those reactions that carry or carry out our thoughts. (Something that can be tampered with, even.) But still, free will in the larger sense.

I'm sure he answers all your questions in the book.

Don't need a physicist to explain it to me.

Was it news to you?

That's the one most commonly used in here. It also excludes atheism as the default position from birth.

Durrr.

The converse claim, however, is common.

But if you don't believe in any Gods, you're an atheist, even if you don't think about Gods or religion.

I found a little bit from Sean Carroll on the question: