Were the majority of atheists once religious?

[Zetesis Apistia]

I raised this question in another thread. It is my contention that a bad religious experience and not a lack of evidence is the basic cause for atheism. I also believe that the majority of atheists came from either a catholic or a protestant background. What I would like to do is add a poll to the thread so we can get an accurate count. If you desire to add anything with your vote feel free to have at it.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 187 by AdHoc]

They were chosen to be the only one Yahweh revealed Himself to for thousands of years. Don't you think that is playing favorites to reveal the true religion according to the Bible to only one group of people for thousands of years?

[AdHoc]

[Replying to post 187 by AdHoc]

They were chosen to be the only one Yahweh revealed Himself to for thousands of years. Don't you think that is playing favorites to reveal the true religion according to the Bible to only one group of people for thousands of years?

Well they were chosen to be an example not an exclusive revelation of God's truth. Gentiles were a part of God's plan all through the old testament and into the new testament. Melchizedek, Rahab, Ruth, Nineveh, ... Just to name a few.

Speaking of Nineveh, Jonah was chosen to go and preach to that city does that mean God showed favouritism towards Jonah? If so I wouldn't want to be God's favourite.

[Zetesis Apistia]

[Replying to post 8 by Philbert]

Quote:
It is my contention that a bad religious experience and not a lack of evidence is the basic cause for atheism.

I agree, if we are talking about adamant atheism, such as is typically seen on forums.

This seems less true of the casual atheist, who might more properly be called an "apathetic".

And I disagree entirely. Although I was raised Christian my atheism is derived ENTIRELY from a reasoned examination of the "evidence." THERE IS NONE! I am neither "angry at God," nor am I angry at those who raised me to be a Christian. My lack of belief is derived from the fact that the claims are simply not sustainable and and such it was necessary for me to defend that view for most of my life. My own children were not raised to be religious and as a result are apathetic to God and religion in general in exactly the same way they are apathetic to Santa Claus and Zeus. They don't generally feel the necessity of defending their lack of belief when confronted by the religious, outside of a bit of eye rolling.

So your children have never entertained the notion yet they are atheist? A product of their environment then I presume?

[Zetesis Apistia]

[Replying to post 167 by Zetesis Apistia]
Can you present any specific argument in support of your implication that Finkelstein and Silberman are not honest historians? This is a serious slander of serious professional academics.
Justify or withdraw!

My opinion is subjective and I am entitled to it. You are saying that the 39 authors of the bible are not honest historians. Your opinion is subjective and you are entitled to it. I say the bible is true, you say it is false. You say Finkelstein and Silberman are true, I say they are false. It's a matter of opinion.

I think this may be a close call, but I have to rule against you Zetesis.
When you claim an expert is biased, you do irreparable harm to his reputation as a witness or expert if you can support your claim. This is serious business and is very, very different from a subjective opinion that you don't agree with his conclusions.

When you accuse someone of bias, you are not simply saying you disagree, you are essentially accusing him of dishonesty if he is an expert. This is different from saying a witness has an interest in the case. Experts know they must account for personal bias and subjectivity. This is part of their training as scientists. In fact a scientist is held to a very high standard. He must design his studies to account for personal bias, even those that may arise unconsciously.

When you accuse an expert of bias, you cannot strike a greater blow against him.

Therefore it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate your basis for such an accusation.
It is not sufficient that you simply disagree with his conclusion. You must show his actual bias.

Support or withdraw.

Maybe dishonest is a bad word. Deceived would be better. I don't think the guys intend malice. I don't question their integrity at all. They may mean well and I don't doubt that they do. But I think they are greatly influenced by their own presuppositions. That would be to think the scriptures are untrue from the onset and just setting out to find a way to prove it. Can you prove that they remained neutral while doing their research? I will certainly withdraw anything I might have said that brings their integrity or their character into question. But I stand by my notion that they allowed presupposition to influence the direction they were going.

That's an improvement, but you still have the burden of proving they have the presuppositions you claim. Maybe they do. I don't know. But are you speculating or do you have evidence. Would you value the opinion of an archeologist who started with the presupposition that everything in the Bible is true and accurate, and then went out and did his field work with that in mind?

I just want archeologists to be honest and not put a spin on their own conclusions. We both know that people on both sides are guilty of doing it, but it's hard to know who is who sometimes. Your asking me to prove a guys motives. I don't think Richard Dawkins will ever conclude anything that supports God. Is that because his findings don't support God or is it that he prefers it that way? I suspect the latter but I don't suppose i can't prove it.

[Zetesis Apistia]

You don't find it odd that so often when 'god' tells his people to commit some violent act, it just happens to coincide with 'His' peoples' lust for land or sex?

God used the same code of conduct to judge Israel. So he didn't play favorites.

Having a "chosen" people is playing favorites.

So to what benefit is it then?

[Zetesis Apistia]

[Replying to post 115 by Zetesis Apistia]

Letting babies die is different than commanding them to be killed. (I don't feel like getting into the problem of evil here) According to the Bible God commanded that these babies be slaughtered.

What is the difference? Either way the guy has power over life or death.

[10CC]

[Replying to post 115 by Zetesis Apistia]

Letting babies die is different than commanding them to be killed. (I don't feel like getting into the problem of evil here) According to the Bible God commanded that these babies be slaughtered.

What is the difference? Either way the guy has power over life or death.

That must mean that all who die are the result of his decision!

[Zetesis Apistia]

[Replying to post 142 by Zetesis Apistia]

Killing the first born, including those who were children, instead of those that were actually responsible for the system of slavery. That is some intelligent and fair vengeance!

If you recall, when Moses was a baby Pharaoh ordered all Hebrew male babies to be thrown in the river and drowned. The same river that was the means of death for all of those "innocent" Hebrew babies, was used to judge Egypt. Theye merely reaped what they sowed. But you don't have a problem with the Egyptians drowning all of those "innocent" Hebrew babies do you?

[10CC]

[Replying to post 142 by Zetesis Apistia]

Killing the first born, including those who were children, instead of those that were actually responsible for the system of slavery. That is some intelligent and fair vengeance!

If you recall, when Moses was a baby Pharaoh ordered all Hebrew male babies to be thrown in the river and drowned. The same river that was the means of death for all of those "innocent" Hebrew babies, was used to judge Egypt. Theye merely reaped what they sowed. But you don't have a problem with the Egyptians drowning all of those "innocent" Hebrew babies do you?

So the pharaoh is an equal and just as loving god as yours? WOW, I thought he was a man at least but probably a biblical myth in reality, would that more honestly compare the two and the orders given?
Do you have any Egyptian history to support these claims you make?

[Zetesis Apistia]

[Replying to post 167 by Zetesis Apistia]
Can you present any specific argument in support of your implication that Finkelstein and Silberman are not honest historians? This is a serious slander of serious professional academics.
Justify or withdraw!

My opinion is subjective and I am entitled to it.

Sure, you are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts!
The State of Israel places great value on historical evidence of Jewish History, and gives great support to archaeologists from all parts of the world, and from all religious backgrounds. But of course their claim to the Land of Israel would be strengthened by any evidence that supports the Torah account. 'Dig up the title deeds to the Land of Israel.' Ben Gurion exhorted.
But Ben Gurion was a politician. Archaeologists are scientists. Of course they are as human as the rest of us, but they try to tell it like they find it, not how they personally, or their supporters, would like it to be.
In that context, it is really difficult to see how you could accuse Jewish archaeologists, unearthing evidence that contradicts one of Judaism's most important traditions, of 'bias'.
Where is your evidence?

If you were an archeologist I suspect that you would set out to disprove God and not to support him. IMO. I suspect that because I see the way you discount anything that supports the God notion on this forum. I don't suppose a title would change your purpose. Take the freedom from religion group for example. These members hope to free the world from the ignorance of religion. Ya think any of em r archeologists or biologists? And if so do you think they are biased in their research. Well one would haf to wunder huh?

Have you read the book I linked to? Can you cite some passages that demonstrate the authors' 'bias'? If you haven't read it, but just condemned it out of hand because it seems to be claiming things that are contrary to your current beliefs, who is showing 'bias'?

If I looked at a book with Richard Dawkins name on it I would conclude that the info inside was biased before I ever opened the cover. Is that a stretch for you?

You are saying that the 39 authors of the bible are not honest historians.

Show where I have said this, or withdraw!

I will withdraw when you agree that all of the bible historians are honest and all of their findings are correct. If you won't then I have to conclude that my "suspicion" is correct.

Your opinion is subjective and you are entitled to it. I say the bible is true, you say it is false.

Where have I said the Bible is 'false'? I have said it is a collection of stories, fables, laws and accounts.
But I say that Hamlet is fiction, too!. That isn't at all the same as calling it 'false'.

So we will assume that you are saying the bible is true then. Is that ok? Or maybe it is both. Maybe the bible is true and false. Ok got it.

You say Finkelstein and Silberman are true,

Where have I said this? I have not read their book. I have not voiced an opinion on their findings. I have read sufficient critiques and discussions of the book to propose it to you as a source for inquiry into a question you raised..
In the same post, I linked to another site, 'Kolel', suggesting it as another possible path of inquiry into the question 'Who wrote the Torah?'. Kolel is a Jewish religious discussion site. Do you think I am claiming Judaism is true, just because I suggest Kolel as a source of inquiry?
Is this the level of intellectual clarity we can expect from you, or will you resolve to take greater care in the future?

So you cite resources that you have never read? Well so an so said it was a good book so I figurd I'd mention it. That's funny.