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.

[Danmark]

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.

I appreciate you have somewhat moderated 'dishonest' to 'deceived.' As you suggest, all people probably have biases. One of the way experts try to deal with this is to be aware of what theirs are. Another is peer review.

But before you conclude some expert is 'deceived,' shouldn't you read his work, or at least independent reviews of it, rather than simply conclude he is wrong based on your assessment he disagrees with your own conclusions? As I have mentioned on another subtopic, the famous archeologist Foxworth Albright, who supported much of the biblical stories through research has been discredited by some experts.

In the years since his death, Albright's methods and conclusions have been increasingly questioned. Fellow Biblical archaeologist William Dever notes that "[Albright's] central theses have all been overturned...."
William Dever, "What Remains of the House that Albright Built?" The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 56, No. 1 (Mar., 1993)

I'm not saying necessarily that Albright was wrong and Dever is correct, but shouldn't one interested in this area of research read Dever's article to see the devil in the details, before just announcing from his amateur platform that one or the other is wrong, dishonest, or deceived?

As I think Goat pointed out, Israeli archeologists, if anything, have little interest [one would think] in exposing the stories in the Tanakh as fabrications. [my words, not Goat's]

[Goat]

As I think Goat pointed out, Israeli archeologists, if anything, have little interest [one would think] in exposing the stories in the Tanakh as fabrications. [my words, not Goat's]

I would say it depends on the archeologist. SOME of them have proving the bible true as their motivation, and it colors their conclusions.

When the ossurary of James was found to be faked, and they found that the fake involved rubbing ashes of the proper age for the artifact on the surface to cover a later inscription, the Israeli authority DID go back through their own collection, and found a few very important fakes they had thought were real (and paid lots of money for). For example, a carved stone pomegranate had an inscription on it that showed it was from King Solomon's temple. The artifact was the right age, but the inscription was added later, and a false patina was added to it. They found that out right after they discovered the fraud in the Ossurary. It was a genuine article that an inscription was put on later.

It is going to be hard to accept any artifact in that area these days, unless it is found in-situ by reputable archeologists, since there have been so much forgery

And just because someone find a broken bottle, or a piece of incense, doesn't mean it's connected to the temple.
[/quote]

[Danmark]

As I think Goat pointed out, Israeli archeologists, if anything, have little interest [one would think] in exposing the stories in the Tanakh as fabrications. [my words, not Goat's]

I would say it depends on the archeologist. SOME of them have proving the bible true as their motivation, and it colors their conclusions.

When the ossurary of James was found to be faked, and they found that the fake involved rubbing ashes of the proper age for the artifact on the surface to cover a later inscription, the Israeli authority DID go back through their own collection, and found a few very important fakes they had thought were real (and paid lots of money for). For example, a carved stone pomegranate had an inscription on it that showed it was from King Solomon's temple. The artifact was the right age, but the inscription was added later, and a false patina was added to it. They found that out right after they discovered the fraud in the Ossurary. It was a genuine article that an inscription was put on later.

It is going to be hard to accept any artifact in that area these days, unless it is found in-situ by reputable archeologists, since there have been so much forgery

And just because someone find a broken bottle, or a piece of incense, doesn't mean it's connected to the temple.

[/quote]
Good points. Altho' an expert's reputation and imputed motives for bias may be of interest, there is nothing more important than simply doing the analysis. As even well meaning and honest buyers have found, there is such a huge incentive to provide the buyer of artifacts what he wants, the issue of fraud is ever present. Even artifacts found in-situ are suspect without strict examination of the site.

[bernee51]

[Replying to post 1 by Zetesis Apistia]

While I have not read every reply in the thread, from a quick glance it would appear that few if any atheists claim a 'bad religious experience' as the reason for their atheism.

Perhaps they are all in denial

What MY religious upbringing taught me was critical thinking. It was this and this alone that has led me to atheism. I went to RC schools for my entire education and was very much involved in the rituals of the RC Mass etc.

I have come across similar questions previously to that in the OP. In my exerience the sub-text which brings about the question is a belief on the part of the theist asking the question that NO ONE could NOT believe in god therefore there must be some other reason.

This 'other reason' invariably takes the form of something like the OP, i.e. atheists really, at heart, believe in god but have rejected it because of some 'bad experience'.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by Zetesis Apistia]

While I have not read every reply in the thread, from a quick glance it would appear that few if any atheists claim a 'bad religious experience' as the reason for their atheism.

Perhaps they are all in denial

What MY religious upbringing taught me was critical thinking. It was this and this alone that has led me to atheism. I went to RC schools for my entire education and was very much involved in the rituals of the RC Mass etc.

I have come across similar questions previously to that in the OP. In my exerience the sub-text which brings about the question is a belief on the part of the theist asking the question that NO ONE could NOT believe in god therefore there must be some other reason.

This 'other reason' invariably takes the form of something like the OP, i.e. atheists really, at heart, believe in god but have rejected it because of some 'bad experience'.

Yes. The other thing theists do is to deny the former Christian ever was one. They have the temerity to suggest they better know what we were thinking, what our religious experience was, than we do.

This has as much validity as the former Christian saying, 'The reason you are still a believer is because you didn't have the moral and intellectual courage to face the facts honestly and reject the fairy tale of you youth.

[Philbert]

How does one divorce themselves from their ego? Do tell.

By turning off that which the ego is made of.

Again, please explain this process. This tells me nothing.

I am willing to help you think it through for yourself, should that be of interest.

My reasoning is as follows. If you are really interested in this question, you are capable of figuring it out for yourself.

Evidence of you being sincerely interested in this question would come in the form of you investigating it yourself, even if I get hit by bus and can not participate.

If me getting hit by the bus results in you dropping the investigation, then you're not really too interested after all, and so there's no point in me continuing.

What is ego made of?

[10CC]

My reasoning is as follows. If you are really interested in this question, you are capable of figuring it out for yourself.

And we know from your doctrine that your reasoning is incapable of deciding such a conclusion . Have fun with that.

[Philbert]

And we know from your doctrine that your reasoning is incapable of deciding such a conclusion . Have fun with that.

Thank you for your little blurb, whatever it may mean!

[10CC]

And we know from your doctrine that your reasoning is incapable of deciding such a conclusion . Have fun with that.

Thank you for your little blurb, whatever it may mean!

Well actually Phil, the rest of us have a very clear understanding. Have fun with that.

[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.

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?

Possibly no bias. I am just skeptical by nature that's all. Let's say they must start from there and earn my convincing and that is not an easy task.