Sounds a strange question! And then, how would you or I possibly know - doesn't sound too realistic a prospect, does it? Of course I'm not asking this about your education or qualifications.
What I'm addressing here is the tension that exists in atheistic and secular world views, that is whether those views are logically consistent with some of the assumptions used to form those views.
I say this because I believe any naturalistic theory of knowledge is in a seriously wobbly condition when it comes to looking at the foundations of rationality.
We all tend take for granted that we relate to an objectively real and meaningful cosmos, but this is nothing short of amazing, if you believe in naturalism - that everything is composed of matter and exists in space and time.
You see, here we are, looking at the cosmos and ourselves and trying to figure out what it all means, including ourselves.
And so many people have imbibed the view that there is no ultimate answer; no final frame of reference out there to which we relate; there couldn't possibly be, because the whole show is one massive meaningless accident.
Well, it only takes a moment's reflection to note that any such view is an interpretation, an ideological belief.
It is gained by looking at something with preconceived ideas, and then taking a meaning from it.
You believe it's an accident because you deny that it's part of a larger purpose.
And if you say that what you see is ultimately meaningless, you may be saying any one of several things.
You might, for instance, be saying that it all appears meaningless at present, because you haven't yet found a key that unlocks an objective meaning; one that might be lurking in the background somewhere.
Its very meaninglessness is a hint of a deeper meaning (an agnostic position).
Or, you may be saying that you believe reality has no objective or final meaning, otherwise that would imply there was an ultimate Personal Mind who would give it all a final meaning.
And as many dislike this thought, especially people who have imbibed the philosophy of secular humanism, or naturalism, they reject all thought of a living personal God, and especially one who might communicate meaningfully to us.
But for those of us who live within a biblical Christian world view that sort of denial is like trying to shut out the sunshine! It's like trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted! Why so? Well, if you are trying to get away with treating reality on the basis of naturalistic explanations, you already know more than you ought! Look, how is a partially evolved collection of matter able to see into the ultimate nature of reality and say what it does, or does not mean? And when you say that there is no final meaning to anything, you are trapped in futile thinking, because that has become your final meaning.
So, from where does this capacity come, to reason and believe things to be objectively true even if it is mistaken? - From the personal, transcendental dimensions of our rationality.
That you have gained this ultimate kind of insight into reality is truly amazing - way beyond what is consistent with naturalistic premises! And how come this implicit confidence in the validity of your thinking, which if it was only grounded in cerebral electro-chemical reactions would only ever produce a subjective, 'inside your head' reaction? And you would never be able to consider there was a meaningful objective reality.
So, how come an atheist believes there is an understandable objective reality but there is no final meaning to anything - in a schizophrenic belief system? There are so many conundrums with naturalism and atheism that leave you high and dry, exposed to futility, needing to borrow what you need to deny.
Atheism wants it both ways - on the one hand, a cosmos with no final meaning or purpose; everything is ultimately meaningless, which to be consistent must include atheism.
And on the other hand, an understandable cosmos in which authentic science is able to flourish.
Well, which is it to be? On atheistic premises, you already know more than is consistent with your position.
You already know that you have a personal significance that allows you to believe you have a lot more value than a grain of sand, and able to consider ultimate questions - which would be absurd if everything was meaningless as there would then be no answers, which if logic is logic leaves the atheist playing tricks in order to try to escape from the I AM, the inescapable living God.