How do you become an Atheist?

[Anomalocaris]

Scientists have a philosophy (most commonly methodological naturalism) but I don't see how that gets to Physics == Philosophy.

You can have a philosophy (interpretation) of physics, but physics exists without an interpreter.

Philosophy is a systematic study of fundamental problems. The working of the world of which we are a part is the most fundamental of them all, without which no other philosophical problem can exist on anything like credible footing, so the natural sciences are the most philosophical of all philosophies.

[theVOID]

Scientists have a philosophy (most commonly methodological naturalism) but I don't see how that gets to Physics == Philosophy.
You can have a philosophy (interpretation) of physics, but physics exists without an interpreter.

Philosophy is a systematic study of fundamental problems. The working of the world of which we are a part is the most fundamental of them all, without which no other philosophical problem can exist on anything like credible footing, so the natural sciences are the most philosophical of all philosophies.

I'm glad to see that at least one person in the world has a definition of philosophy that fits into a single line

Philosophy is not a study of all fundamental problems, it's more of a fuzzy subset of problems that can't actually be given any clear boundaries, some overlap with physics, some with psychology, some with neuroscience etc, but Science and Philosophy aren't the same thing, notably in the nature of the questions being answered. Science is generally asking "what does this mean" and philosophy "what does this mean for us", but like always there is a healthy amount of overlap, I'm into the Experimental Philosophy movement which is a fairly comprehensive example of this.

Also, natural science doesn't establish a priori truths, which is a massive part of the philosophical endeavor, you can't scientifically arrive at non-contingent and necessary truth.

[Anomalocaris]

I think philosophy certainly once aspired to address all fundamental questions that could be thought at a time when levitated assertions played a large part in attempting to answer any fundamental questions, hence the existence of moral and natural sides of philosophy. Gradually in natural philosophy where verification and objective elucidation is more easily obtained, scientific method supplanted idle assertion as the preferred method for reliable advancements. It would be a self-inflicted loss to philosophy if it were now excludes a part of itself merely because that part has raced ahead in techniques for achieving the goal common to all area of philosophy.

For the rest of philosophy, I do not believe their endeavors are in principle beyond natural science. I think if perception and cognitive conception can be elucidated in detail, then artifacts of perception and cognitive conception such as non-contingent and necessary will lose their appeal as objects of levitated assertions.

[Zen Badger]

When at the age of 15 and I found out Santa Claus was a lie, after that I realised it was ALL a lie.

sob.......

[KichigaiNeko]

When I was * years old and the pontificating paedophile, narrow minded, frivolous bullshit of the people around me suggested that Christianity was NOT the way to go....

It's all bullshit....the abrahamic religions support war, famine, exclusivity, the elite, and molestation of the so call 'innocents' in short to perpetuate the domination of a stupid half of mankind via the 'Male psyche' sans the balance of the female and scant regard to what is operating in the environment is what did it for me

Took a while but I got there eventually...there is no god ...only petty little man things trying to make their insignificant selves feel better...that is all

[theVOID]

I think philosophy certainly once aspired to address all fundamental questions that could be thought at a time when levitated assertions played a large part in attempting to answer any fundamental questions, hence the existence of moral and natural sides of philosophy. Gradually in natural philosophy where verification and objective elucidation is more easily obtained, scientific method supplanted idle assertion as the preferred method for reliable advancements. It would be a self-inflicted loss to philosophy if it were now excludes a part of itself merely because that part has raced ahead in techniques for achieving the goal common to all area of philosophy.

Idle assertion is a bit harsh, armchair philosophy was (and still is) fairly impractical, but some of the conceptual models of ethics and the mind are really invaluable to science (especially psychology). It's had it's day though, I think really empirically grounded philosophy is where it's at, the experimental philosophers put empiricism first and then create their theories in recognition of tentative truths.

For the rest of philosophy, I do not believe their endeavors are in principle beyond natural science. I think if perception and cognitive conception can be elucidated in detail, then artifacts of perception and cognitive conception such as non-contingent and necessary will lose their appeal as objects of levitated assertions.

The whole concept of a non-contingent and necessary thing is that it isn't dependent on perception and cognition, so improving our understanding of those things won't help in the slightest. They aren't in any way 'artifacts' of somewhat flawed cognition either, we could be cognitively perfect (whatever that would mean) and what is necessary is still necessary and what is not dependent on physical things is still not dependent on physical things. We can possibly improve the methods by which we arrive at these necessary truths, but to say that they will 'lose their appeal' is like saying the law of non-contradiction will lose it's appeal. Really, it's not going to happen.

Also, science (probably) can't establish values, so philosophical theories of value (moral and common) are likely to be irreplaceable by any empirical methods, you can determine the relationships between sets of values in competition a priori.

[DeistPaladin]

I'll answer this thread, considering myself a quasi-atheist. At least I'm an atheist with regards to the god of Islam and Christianity, so I'm sure this thread pertains to me.

I was born a deist. I realized I was one after reading Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason". Before then, I'd mislabeled myself "agnostic". Church never had any appeal to me. It was hard for me to understand why God would want to be worshiped. I experienced more of the sublime learning about the universe in science class, visiting a planetarium or seeing a documentary on the human brain than I did in any church I visited. I was raised in an agnostic and anti-religious family, so I managed to escape any indoctrination and was taught to think critically.

I finally started attending church to meet women. That didn't pan out so well but I did start to learn some specifics about Christianity. God sending himself down to earth to sacrifice himself to himself because that was the only way he could convince himself to forgive us for our rib-woman ancestor eating a magic fruit after speaking with a talking snake. I started to look into this religion and the whole thing seemed "barking mad" to me, as Dawkins has said.

Some moderate Christians, my sister included, have suggested that I need both church and science to fully understand God. Why? Religions offer no guidance, either moral, spiritual or intellectual. It serves no purpose at all. At best, it represents a huge waste of time, money and other resources.

[theVOID]

You were born believing in an impersonal god? I find that hard to believe.

[Anomalocaris]

Also, science (probably) can't establish values, so philosophical theories of value (moral and common) are likely to be irreplaceable by any empirical methods, you can determine the relationships between sets of values in competition a priori.
.

But if there is no free will, then at least in principle an advanced version of neuroscience that incorporate models of the effects of the interaction between changes in neurological state and the physiology and physical environment can establish a priori how the philosophical theories of value will be formulated and how the competition amongst the values will be resolved. So the philosophy of value is illusory to exactly the same degree as free will is illusory. If will is in principle externally determinable by empirical means then values too can be determined the same way.

The whole concept of a non-contingent and necessary thing is that it isn't dependent on perception and cognition, so improving our understanding of those things won't help in the slightest. They aren't in any way 'artifacts' of somewhat flawed cognition either, we could be cognitively perfect (whatever that would mean) and what is necessary is still necessary and what is not dependent on physical things is still not dependent on physical things. We can possibly improve the methods by which we arrive at these necessary truths, but to say that they will 'lose their appeal' is like saying the law of non-contradiction will lose it's appeal. Really, it's not going to happen.

[/quote]

My approach to this issue is based not on concept of non-contingent truth but on neurological effect of the grasp of the non-contingent truth. With sufficiently detailed understanding of how neurological artifacts influence interaction with the physical body and between the physical body and the environment, one could at least in principle establish, based on the interaction of their respective neurological effects and physiological and physical environment, which version of necessary truth as comprehended by the human mind would statistically be most unlikely to be overturned by subsequent philosophizing, or will make the most headway towards the objectives for which these concepts are toyed with in the first place.

[DeistPaladin]

You were born believing in an impersonal god? I find that hard to believe.

Odd as it may sound, that's the best way to describe it. I don't personally know any other deists but what I've read from others who've contacted me online is the same "realization" experience. Nobody seems to convert to deism, or at least no one that I know of. We discover that's what we are.

I've said in previous posts on this subject that I can't offer any proof that will satisfy any atheist. The closest and most original I've offered is my "homosexuality proves God" argument. I've come to realize that the sense that the universe is some grand machine is an instinctive one, not one that can be explained any other way. Consequently, there's no debating it rationally and little point in doing so, considering my life wouldn't change as an atheist.

Really, we're both atheists anyway. I just dismiss one less god than you do.