As mentioned somewhere else, I'm probably only now "atheist" in a behavioral [not an intellectual and inner feeling of certainty] context -- just reflexively living as if that were the case. That is, not expecting an afterlife, not expecting a higher agency that is interested in me or anyone else, not deeming an invisible "listener / observer" to be hanging around, etc.
During any transition phase I went through, I suppose I did weather it with a kind of militant scientism. The latter not as any dead-on synonymous reference to positivism, but treating science / naturalism as a kind of ideological worldview rather than methodology. Which made any transition of my own fairly comfortable since I was simply replacing one set of beliefs and governance with another (i.e., "nature" simply became the new "god" in the sense of retaining laws
[1] that regulated the cosmos but minus the unnecessary personhood). Immanuel Kant's philosophy later helped me find a kind of neutral or epistemic agnostic stance, realizing that I had never yet truly gotten to or validated some metapyschological reality or immutable truth with a capital "T".
I'd surely also be classifiable as an
apatheist, in addition to whatever else. From the standpoint that even online atheists seem far more interested in religion than I am. In contrast I rarely reply to religious threads or visit religious-topic forums (as evidenced by my extremely late appearance here), and have little interest in persuading anyone away from such or maintaining a driving or persistent enmity / disgust about these Abrahamic faiths. Even my earlier days on the web of futilely trying to correct creationists in regard to their misrepresentations of evolution, was abandoned for the most part when I eventually realized what a waste of time it was; spending three or four weeks working on a potential "client", just to have them snap right back to their original inflexible stance in the end.
I might even still be "Christian" in the sense of Thomas Jefferson, dispensing with the supernatural elements but retaining some kind of philosophical / moral / cultural connection with it. As the Grateful Dead's Jerry Garcia once put similar:
"I feel that I'm enclosed within a Christian framework so huge that I don't believe it's possible to escape it, it's so much a part of the western point of view. [...] I was raised a Catholic so it's very hard for me to get out of that way of thinking. [...] I just don't like the exclusivity clause. [...Regarding God...] Whether it's personal - whether there's a point of view in there, or whether we're the point of view, I think is up for discussion. I don't believe in a supernatural being."[2]
- - - - - -
[1] Paul Davies: "...the very notion of physical law has its origins in theology. The idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws comes straight out of monotheism, which was the dominant influence in Europe at the time science as we know it was being formulated by Isaac Newton and his contemporaries. Just as classical Christianity presents God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, so physicists envisage their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships. Furthermore, Christians believe the world depends utterly on God for its existence, while the converse is not the case. Correspondingly, physicists declare that the universe is governed by eternal laws, but the laws remain impervious to events in the universe. I think this entire line of reasoning is now outdated and simplistic. We will never fully explain the world by appealing to something outside it that must simply be accepted on faith, be it an unexplained God or an unexplained set of mathematical laws. Can we do better? Yes, but only by relinquishing the traditional idea of physical laws as fixed, perfect relationships."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jun/26/spaceexploration.comment
[2] http://malfalfa1.tripod.com/