How do you become an Atheist?

[theVOID]

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.

If we have to incorporate neuroscience then it cannot be a priori by definition, all science is a posteriori. I can prove a priori that all values exist as relationships between sets of desires and states of affairs or objects simply by examining the language used in expressing subjective value statements, all science can contribute is a higher level of accuracy in determining the precision of these relationships. In other words, we have to decide what sort of relationships give rise to 'value' before we try and learn about value interactions at a precise and analytic level, we aren't going to look into the brain and see brain-state x and then determine that this is value, it needs to be compared to what we mean when we use value terms first.

As for comparing philosophical 'value' with free will, it's really a false analogy, values do exist as physical brain states (specifically desires) and free will doesn't(exist). However, if we don't have an a priori conclusion about what we mean specifically by value, our chances of relating that practical concept to a neurological abstract are nil.

And besides, because we don't have a neurological understanding of value at this point it is meaningless to make scientific value claims in the interim, but we have value statements regardless, they all stem from desires, and that gives us a concrete starting point for working out these neurological relationships. It's very much a case of philosophy giving science a starting point, and then feeding off the scientific results to gain higher precision.

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.

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.

This seems confused to me, the concept of the non-contingent is the neurological component, so if you are going to say anything about our conception of necessary or non-contingent truths you're dealing with neuroscience and whether or not we are accurate in our determining that something is in fact necessary or non-contingent. An example might be William Lane Craig's belief that God's existence is necessary (KCA), you could by all means determine whether or not his brain is functioning correctly in tying together his premises and conclusions, but this says nothing about the non-contingent things that do exist or whether or not his premises are true.

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.

That's all rather beside the point, if you can establish that the premises are true (which neuroscience can't tell us unless the premises are neurological in nature) and you're correctly using logic (which neuroscience could potentially tell us, but it can also be determined without it) then the conclusion is necessarily true.

Non-contingent things are even further removed from neuroscience, you can't establish truth that is by definition independent of minds and/or physical things by measuring minds and physics. You can't neurologically prove that a =/= not a, only whether or not we are accurate in our application of these concepts.

[Skipper]

Pretty much the same as previous responses. I was born an Atheist. Everyone is.

I was then sent to a Christian school by my non religious mother as it was close to home and rated very highly. They told me all the usual stories, tried to instil a christian attitude in me, took me to church and all that jazz, but luckily also never pushed it to hard, and always focused more on education and free thinking than religion, so I got lucky and wasn't brainwashed. I then got to a point where I questioned the whole religious aspect of my up brining and while I was never truly a Christian I finally, via the logic and intelligence that was given to me by the Church of England school, decided I must be an Atheist and have found it strange that fully grown adults can by into the whole religion bullshit.

[coffeeveritas]

OK, after reading these posts it seems a lot of people here would say that religion makes no sense logically, does nothing beneficial, and is in fact generally harmful. Also I'm getting that you think of atheism as the basic, default stance, and it is supported by science, which explains the universe in much clearer terms.

I'm not much of a fan of philosophy, either. It all seems like mental gymnastics to me... and I don't care how you word the claim that god exists, or what mental gymnastics you take to get there... none of it makes the claim true, nor does it give me any reason to believe that it is.

Interesting stance, generally science is closely tied to philosophy throughout human history, and they both operate off of logic structures, I would like to know more about how you see this. In any case, The Void certainly seems to like philosophy enough for the both of you!

Lots of good input and even a debate about philosophy, good stuff. Thanks everybody!

[Lethe]

I was seven and me and my mother were discussing "God", I was skeptical that there was a man living in the sky causing chaos and miracles and no "astronaut or airplane" had found him. I asked her flat out, "Do you know that god exists?" She said 'no', she's always been irreligious. So from that point on I was an atheist, I could do with or without the agnostic qualifier, though I didn't have a name for it then. I stuffed the 'god idea' in with the fanciful notions of the boogieman, fairies, unicorns, and the like. Though I didn't actively disbelieve in any of them. There was always: well, there could be fairies, there could be gods, there could be a hand underneath my bed waiting to grab my ankle when I wake up in the middle of the night to pee -- but, I just love playing around with 'what ifs' and 'could bes' in general, no matter how minimal their likelihood. Santa Claus followed in to that same category the next year, apparently I found Santa's existence to be more likely. I reasoned he had a time machine, and that the children who weren't given presents on Christmas were given extra presents on their birthdays. I didn't actually label myself as an atheist until fairly recently though.

[Minimalist]

OK, after reading these posts it seems a lot of people here would say that religion makes no sense logically, does nothing beneficial, and is in fact generally harmful. Also I'm getting that you think of atheism as the basic, default stance, and it is supported by science, which explains the universe in much clearer terms.

There is a saying which goes, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." For some unfathomable reason, the religious seem to think they are exempt from that requirement.

[Anomalocaris]

For some unfathomable reason, the religious seem to think they are exempt from that requirement.

It's easily fathomable. They fear even the threat of contradiction.

[Cando]

For some unfathomable reason, the religious seem to think they are exempt from that requirement.

It's easily fathomable. They fear even the threat of contradiction.

I don't.

[Anomalocaris]

For some unfathomable reason, the religious seem to think they are exempt from that requirement.

It's easily fathomable. They fear even the threat of contradiction.

I don't.

Yes you do, otherwise you would provide an answer and offer it for scrutiny:

You haven't got the first clue as to what god even is. You have no business asking such a question.

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

OK, after reading these posts it seems a lot of people here would say that religion makes no sense logically, does nothing beneficial, and is in fact generally harmful. Also I'm getting that you think of atheism as the basic, default stance, and it is supported by science, which explains the universe in much clearer terms.

Atheism isn't a stance, but many atheists turn to scientific answers over religious ones and many atheists are atheists because of scientific concepts.
What atheism is is an anti-stance. It's a denial of pre-established notions.

I'm not much of a fan of philosophy, either. It all seems like mental gymnastics to me... and I don't care how you word the claim that god exists, or what mental gymnastics you take to get there... none of it makes the claim true, nor does it give me any reason to believe that it is.

Interesting stance, generally science is closely tied to philosophy throughout human history, and they both operate off of logic structures, I would like to know more about how you see this. In any case, The Void certainly seems to like philosophy enough for the both of you!

Lots of good input and even a debate about philosophy, good stuff. Thanks everybody!

Not really. Science has always been based upon empirical evidence and what that evidence can prove more than anything else. Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom. Science is the pursuit of truth.

[Minimalist]

You have no business asking such a question.

By all means, when you're ready to start asking questions let us know.