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.

[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.

Supply evidence to support this erroneous claim. TIA

Sure thing....

Exodus1: 15 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:
16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.
17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.
18 And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?
19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.
20 Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.
21 And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.
22 And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.
(KJV)

[Jax Agnesson]

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.

Excellent reply! (I like skepticism. )

so what did you think of Kolel's answer to the question you asked: 'Who wrote the Bible'?

[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.

Supply evidence to support this erroneous claim. TIA

Most certainly....

Exodus 1: 15 The king of Egypt spoke to the Hebrew midwives, of whom the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah,
16 and he said, "When you perform the duty of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them on the birth stool; if it is a son, then you shall kill him; but if it is a daughter, then she shall live."
17 But the midwives feared God, and didn't do what the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the baby boys alive.
18 The king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said to them, "Why have you done this thing, and have saved the men-children alive?"
19 The midwives said to Pharaoh, "Because the Hebrew women aren't like the Egyptian women; for they are vigorous, and give birth before the midwife comes to them."
20 God dealt well with the midwives, and the people multiplied, and grew very mighty.
21 It happened, because the midwives feared God, that he gave them families.
22 Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, "You shall cast every son who is born into the river, and every daughter you shall save alive."
(WEB)

[Zetesis Apistia]

[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?

The same thing the hebrew children did. Nothing.

[Zetesis Apistia]

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.

Excellent reply! (I like skepticism. )

so what did you think of Kolel's answer to the question you asked: 'Who wrote the Bible'?

For one it is from a liberal perspective, which is a different school of thought from the traditional claim that Moses wrote it. Secondly the law was given to Moses in the mount.

[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

Bern welcome to the thread. And yes I do find it odd that every ex Christian atheist has nothing but good to say about their religious past. That is glaring.

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'.

The apostle Paul wrote that all of creation hungers for God. (Romans 8:22-23) In other words we are all hard wired to search for God. To say that we aren't searching is to live in denial. IMO

[Danmark]

[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

Sure thing....

Exodus1: 15 And the king of Egypt spake to the Hebrew midwives, of which the name of the one was Shiphrah, and the name of the other Puah:
16 And he said, When ye do the office of a midwife to the Hebrew women, and see them upon the stools; if it be a son, then ye shall kill him: but if it be a daughter, then she shall live.
17 But the midwives feared God, and did not as the king of Egypt commanded them, but saved the men children alive.
18 And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them, Why have ye done this thing, and have saved the men children alive?
19 And the midwives said unto Pharaoh, Because the Hebrew women are not as the Egyptian women; for they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them.
20 Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty.
21 And it came to pass, because the midwives feared God, that he made them houses.
22 And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river, and every daughter ye shall save alive.
(KJV)

The question asked for evidence, not Bible verses. There is very limited evidence of human sacrifice in ancient Egypt, virtually none of wholesale infant sacrifice. Their is some limited evidence of 'retainer sacrifice' where entire families may have been sacrificed so they could accompany a dead king into the 'afterworld.' Do you have reliable evidence of routine male infanticide in Egypt in that time period outside of Bible verses; i.e. the claims of a competing culture whose other claims of the period cannot be supported?

[Zetesis Apistia]

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]

Obviously there are many competing ideas pertaining to the scriptures. Archeological finds like everything else are interpreted. People will generally interpret things through the lenses of their own presuppositions. It is difficult not to do even when one is aware he or she shouldn't do it. I am convinced that the scriptures are trus so I naturally will defend them. If albrights views happen to contradict what I see in scripture then naturally I would think he was deceived. The thing about deception thoughg is people don't know when they are being deceived. They full well think they are dead nuts center.

[Danmark]

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

Bern welcome to the thread. And yes I do find it odd that every ex Christian atheist has nothing but good to say about their religious past. That is glaring.

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'.

The apostle Paul wrote that all of creation hungers for God. (Romans 8:22-23) In other words we are all hard wired to search for God. To say that we aren't searching is to live in denial. IMO

You're misstating both what Bernee said and what others said directly about their Christian experience. Your "every ex Christian atheist has nothing but good to say about their religious past" is simply a misstatement. What was said was that 'a bad religious experience' was not why they became atheists.

Many if not most atheists who were Christians can probably list a number of 'bad' aspects of their Christian experience; things they hope they have since outgrown.

We could probably start a subtopic on those things.

For me Xianity contributed to a certain insularity and distrust of others who were not part of our tribe; to a measure of intolerance and judgmental attitude. Mostly, I'm embarrassed that I bought so much codswallop and tried to teach it to others.

Sometimes it simply skewed my view of reality, like accepting the nonsense that people are 'in denial' if they do not admit a 'hunger for God' just because Saul/Paul said so.

That's an example of being saddled with the bad habit of judging others because one buys into patent non sense because some 'apostle' says so.

[Danmark]

Obviously there are many competing ideas pertaining to the scriptures. Archeological finds like everything else are interpreted. People will generally interpret things through the lenses of their own presuppositions. It is difficult not to do even when one is aware he or she shouldn't do it. I am convinced that the scriptures are trus so I naturally will defend them. If albrights views happen to contradict what I see in scripture then naturally I would think he was deceived. The thing about deception thoughg is people don't know when they are being deceived. They full well think they are dead nuts center.[/quote]

Excellent point! And that is exactly what you are doing, and what Albright later in his career did; interpreting things in terms of their presuppositions despite evidence to the contrary. I know that when I was a Xian I did the same thing. I had confidence that if the Bible said something it must be true. Later I realized that was a false belief.