Some good criticisms here.
The mind is not a box for storing information, it's an instrument for extracting meaning from reality. 1. Not quite correct. If the mind stores no information upon which to base its processing then it can not understand/comprehend reality.
It must not use knowledge as the basis for debate, but science. Our combined knowledge as a species is overwhelming and proves extremely beneficial, but we must remember that it is only a side-effect of the scientific method. 2. Science is knowledge. That knowledge is not a side effect of the scientific method but the goal. The scientific method is an incredibly useful process.
Time and space are impossible to quantify without inaccuracy, they embody the principle of our universe: everything changes and nothing is concrete. There is no knowledge, only interpretation; what matters is method. 3. This is inaccurate. We can and do quantify time and space. There is knowledge. There are some things that are concrete but much of the universe does change as does our understanding so we continually revise it.
Our only control is over our cognitive process. 4. Also inaccurate. Much of our cognitive ability is subconscious and we have no control over that portion. And our cognitive ability can be faulty or fooled which is what makes the scientific method so powerful: it gives us correct answers (if followed correctly and rigorously) in spite of problems with our cognition.
5. We don't all need to agree, but we do all need to think. The only things that would be eliminated if everyone thought this way are authoritarianism, spiritualism and other "I just know" bullshit; It makes everyone irrevocably equal. A lot of people don't want any of that and would be lost without being able to use make-believe as justification or evidence, so it makes a society-wide transition difficult. Take a look for a moment at this forum ignoring the theists. While not every atheist here uses the scientific method rigorously with regards to everything they write here, I think most at least try to be logical. But some still retain a spirituality. Some tend to be authoritarian. Some go with "I know this" – not quite the same as the "I just know" which is usually code for "I'm bullshitting but don't want to admit that even to myself". The atheists here (and on other sites I read) do demonstrate those flaws to a far lesser degree than theists. I would very much like to think those problems would be eliminated if we got everyone to think logically but our brains evolved with certain traits that can undercut that hope.
If atheism is to be the true antithesis of religion and not merely irreligion, ... 6. You say this as if that is the goal for atheism but it is not. Atheism is only "irreligion" nothing more. Some atheists do work to eliminate religion but others are happy with just not believing in the lies.
7. All that said, underlying your new philosophy seems to be a hope for everyone to think more logically/critically. I heartily agree.
1. Of course we need to store information, I was trying to highlight that learning isn't just remembering facts and formulas.
2. Since you're the second person to say that I think this is a semantic error on my part. What I call science is the discipline itself; knowledge is the product of science. I look at science on three levels: knowledge is at the bottom, it changes often, giving and receiving feedback from the layer above: science (logic, reasoning, the scientific method) which changes at a much slower rate. The top layer is a very strange place where nothing changes, where science and knowledge fuse into one and everything is known about the universe. I imagine all of science being condensed to a single equation or thought, which answers everything about the universe: a theory of everything. We already have examples of this, such as electro-magnetism: the amalgamation of two distinct fields into one. I don't think it would even be a what we think of as a theory: it would be so incredibly simple and intuitive that there would no longer be any meaning to theories, measurements or data.
I've gone all wishy-washy!
3. There is always a degree of inaccuracy when measuring anything, no matter how precise the equipment is. There's no such thing as one metre or three seconds, these are approximations for utility.
"There is no knowledge" - it's hard for me to explain what I mean by this, and I'm really arguing against semantics. There are things we know that will never change but we thought the same about things that did. Knowledge is damn useful but it's not set in stone, none of it (that doesn't mean it will all evaporate either). It's like a reflection of the universe that we catch glimpses of but can never capture; like a river that runs through us, surrounding us with water, but flows by and not a single drop can be named or laid claim to.
4. That was a mistake and I can't remember what I was trying to say there.
5 and 6. This is really what urged me to make this thread. I want to see what people think it means to be an atheist. I think merely stating a lack of belief in deities is a grossly vague understatement. There must be a philosophy behind that reasoning: everyone has a philosophy whether they realise it or not. It seems apparent to me that to reject theism one must be of the philosophy that scientific evidence trumps assertion; I take this further to mean that method trumps knowledge ("knowledge" in this sense is whatever people think they know, whether supported by evidence or not).
7. Yes, I believe that there is no such thing as human nature: we adapt to our surroundings and become cruel or kind, rational or irrational depending on our culture and circumstances. It's always preferable to be kind unless culture imposes some restriction on kindness i.e. money. Bearing that in mind, I don't see why we couldn't have an entire world full of kind and rational human beings. The difficulty is that we're not born that way, each person has to be trained for it.