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.

[TheJoshAbideth]

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.

I would simply contend that you cannot invalidate another's arguments for their atheism, by how they got there. (not saying this is what the OP is trying to do necessarily) Though I would agree that disagreeable circumstances tends to make one reflect on the validity of their positions regardless of what they are.

I for one had a very positive religious experience, and the negative stuff only happened once I decided to leave the religion behind.

[Goat]

[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.

Richard Friedman, one of the foremost biblical scholars on the planet, credits 100-150 authors of the bible not 39.

The conclusion is subjective. No one can be precise.

100-150 is certainly not precise, 39 on the other hand is.

Does that make it any more right? Or less of a subjective opinion?

[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.

Richard Friedman, one of the foremost biblical scholars on the planet, credits 100-150 authors of the bible not 39.

The conclusion is subjective. No one can be precise.

100-150 is certainly not precise, 39 on the other hand is.

Who really cares what the exact number is? It is irrelevant to the point that was being made.

[Zetesis Apistia]

[Replying to post 208 by Zetesis Apistia]

What about my previous post lead you to that conclusion? Are you saying that all of the Egyptian first born, including the babies, where responsible for Hebrew infanticide and slavery?

Egypt killed innocent babies. Via judgment Egypt's innocent babies were killed. What comes around goes around. Sumpin like this.....

Obadiah 1:15 For the day of Yahweh is near all the nations! As you have done, it will be done to you. Your deeds will return upon your own head.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 214 by Zetesis Apistia]

How is it just to kill innocent babies?

[master_blaster]

Not real sure how to answer. I was raised methodist - i.e, dragged to the church across the street every week - but they totally failed to convince me of anything. Refused to go any more at 15.

[Zetesis Apistia]

[Replying to post 214 by Zetesis Apistia]

How is it just to kill innocent babies?

You will have to ask the ones who initiated the practice...The Egyptians.

[10CC]

[Replying to post 214 by Zetesis Apistia]

How is it just to kill innocent babies?

You will have to ask the ones who initiated the practice...The Egyptians.

Supply evidence to support this erroneous claim. TIA

[help3434]

[Replying to post 217 by Zetesis Apistia]

As I said before two wrongs don't make a right. If someone kills your child, it is still not right to kill their child. What did the child do to deserve it?

[Jax Agnesson]

[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.

You ask me a question about the authorship of the OT. I offer a couple of possible sources, both 'expert' in their different ways, on the history of the OT and the Land of Israel. One source, Kolel, offers a Jewish religious response to that precise question, and the other, Unearthing the Bible, reports on some recent archaeological research into that same question.
The two sources do not say the same things; they do not argue from the same position; they say very different things in many ways.
And I do not claim strong support for either of them. Rather, I suggest you consider both.
What exactly is 'biased' about that suggestion?