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.

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 244 by bernee51]

[Replying to post 244 by bernee51]

Zetesis Apistia wrote:

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.

Sonofason wrote:

There's always a reason. I'm quite certain that most atheists who once had faith in God would not care to admit that a bad religious experience was the result of them losing their faith. It places them in a much more favorable light if their decision should be a result of their strong ability to reason. I believe that most atheists have no idea why they've lost their faith.

bernee51 wrote:

Many atheist here have provided very clear reasons as to why the no longer hold a god belief.

As I said, "there's always a reason." But I have never seen an atheist provide a sound reason for his belief that no God exists. I might agree that many of the reasons provided by atheists could be considered reasonable to support an agnostic position, but never do their reasons support the atheist position. Take for example the argument "there is no evidence that a God exists".

First, this argument in itself is flawed. Many people do have evidence that God exists. Those who have it, will tell you that this is true. The fact that they are incapable of reaching into their pockets and pulling out their evidence for everyone to see, is not an indication that they have no evidence, but only an indication that if they do indeed have evidence, they cannot show it. It would be unsound reasoning to suggest that because they cannot show their evidence that such evidence is not existent. It is certainly possible, but not necessarily true. In this condition, the atheist is left where he started, without evidence.

But what about the person who was once a "devout" believer. How does a person go from believing there is a God to believing that there isn't a God? There has to be a reason. But their reasons are not necessarily reasonable. It is not logical to conclude that because you have not received evidence that God exists, therefore a God does not exist. That could certainly be a hypothesis, but in order for a hypothesis to be true it must be supported with substantial evidence, of which, the atheist has none. But reasons must be given. And the atheist does give a reason, but I adhere to what I said, which is that most atheists who had once claimed to be believers have no idea why they stopped believing in God. It just happens. And eventually, they are called to explain why, which is the time when they construct their flimsy arguments.
bernee51 wrote:

{{{{{snipped....a bunch of irrelevant quotes from religious promotional material}}}}

This "bunch of irrelevant quotes", as you have called them, are the reasons why some believers become atheists.

Sonofason wrote:

So, I don't believe that atheists who were former believers necessarily are angry with God; though if they were, making amends would be prudent;

bernee51 wrote:

Or what?

Well, if they would be prudent, and make amends with God, if they would obey Him, their faith and love for God would be restored, and they'd receive awesome evidence of God, namely His Holy Spirit dwelling in them.

Sonofason wrote:

I believe that they quite simply stopped loving Him.

bernee51 wrote:
No...they stopped believing that god is anything more than a concept.

Well then. That explains it. I said they stopped loving God. You say "no". Which either implies that they never did love God, or they still do love God. Since loving God is a huge contradiction for an atheist, I must conclude that the atheist who lost his faith in God never loved God. If person not love an obey God, you will never receive His Holy Spirit, and you cannot consider yourself as one of His. A person who does not love God is not a Christian.

Sonofason wrote:

Perhaps they never did. Perhaps the seed that was planted in them never took root. Perhaps their faith was strangled by thorns and thistles.

bernee51 wrote:

Or perhaps they just came to the conclusion that the concept of god is just that and does not reflect an extant reality.

Yes of course. If you do not love God, you will not receive any evidence of God, and so you probably have no good reason to believe that a God exists. And the argument is constructed.

Sonofason wrote:

There's always a reason, but I gather most of their reasons for losing faith in God have little to do with sound reason.

bernee51 wrote:

On what basis do you 'gather' this?

On the basis that I have never seen a sound reason provided by an atheist to explain why he went from believing in God to believing that God does not exist. I have submitted sound reasons for such an atheist. But no atheist has done this himself.

[10CC]

[Replying to post 251 by Sonofason]

If I tell you that I own a Bugatti Veyron and cannot produce evidence of this Bugatti Veyron would you be within your rights to tell me that my Bugatti Veyron is non existent?
Why then does your claim that a god exists that you cannot provide evidence of bear a mantle of your special pleading?

[Deadclown]

For my part, I was raised Catholic, but gravitated towards more liberal Christianity, before moving on to a sort of deism, then agnosticism, then atheism. It was a long painful journey.

Like Nickman, my worst religious experience was actually reading the bible. I did it back when I was still very Christian, but ended up being shocked at the fact that my just and loving God would do stuff like send bears after kids for making fun of a bald guy.

I think youll find that most atheists disagree with your premise and find it insulting that you would make such presumptions. I imagine that youd likely find it equally insulting if someone made comparable assumptions about your own beliefs and experiences.

For example, if someone were to hypothetically assert that you are only Christian because you were raised that way and haven't actually read the bible.

As I said, "there's always a reason." But I have never seen an atheist provide a sound reason for his belief that no God exists. I might agree that many of the reasons provided by atheists could be considered reasonable to support an agnostic position, but never do their reasons support the atheist position. Take for example the argument "there is no evidence that a God exists".

First, this argument in itself is flawed. Many people do have evidence that God exists. Those who have it, will tell you that this is true. The fact that they are incapable of reaching into their pockets and pulling out their evidence for everyone to see, is not an indication that they have no evidence, but only an indication that if they do indeed have evidence, they cannot show it. It would be unsound reasoning to suggest that because they cannot show their evidence that such evidence is not existent. It is certainly possible, but not necessarily true. In this condition, the atheist is left where he started, without evidence.

But what about the person who was once a "devout" believer. How does a person go from believing there is a God to believing that there isn't a God? There has to be a reason. But their reasons are not necessarily reasonable. It is not logical to conclude that because you have not received evidence that God exists, therefore a God does not exist. That could certainly be a hypothesis, but in order for a hypothesis to be true it must be supported with substantial evidence, of which, the atheist has none. But reasons must be given. And the atheist does give a reason, but I adhere to what I said, which is that most atheists who had once claimed to be believers have no idea why they stopped believing in God. It just happens. And eventually, they are called to explain why, which is the time when they construct their flimsy arguments.

It is irrational to expect anyone to prove a negative. If the existence of God is the assertion then evidence must be presented.

The evidence you speak of is unverifiable and anecdotal. I could just as easily say that many people have evidence that your god doesnt exist but that I just wont do anything but make vague assertions. If that 'evidence' is sufficient for you, then that is fine. I simply recommend that you try to understand that it is not enough for everybody else in the world.

When we say evidence we mean empirical evidence that can be repeatedly shown to be true. For example, if you could show that prayer to a specific god or gods could repeatedly produce statistically significant changes in reality that would be supporting evidence for belief in a given god or gods.

On the basis that I have never seen a sound reason provided by an atheist to explain why he went from believing in God to believing that God does not exist. I have submitted sound reasons for such an atheist. But no atheist has done this himself.

For me, I actually learned what it means to display sound reasoning. I believed in the Christian God because I was raised to believe it (childhood indoctrination). Also the carrot and stick of heaven and hell made for a good combination of incentive and promised punishment for even questioning such beliefs. As I grew older and pursued an advanced education, I studied logic, logical fallacies, and appropriate expectations for evidence. When I turned these tools towards my religion, I found that there was no true justification for my beliefs. So I slowly stopped believing. If you are unwilling to except this as an explanation, then you are probably unwilling to accept any explanations that are offered.

[Danmark]

For my part, I was raised Catholic, but gravitated towards more liberal Christianity, before moving on to a sort of deism, then agnosticism, then atheism. It was a long painful journey.

Like Nickman, my worst religious experience was actually reading the bible. I did it back when I was still very Christian, but ended up being shocked at the fact that my just and loving God would do stuff like send bears after kids for making fun of a bald guy.

I'm a bit embarrassed to say that the genocide and other atrocities in the Bible were not the reason I rejected it. I guess when I was a Christian I just glossed over those things as if they never fully entered my consciousness. Tho' I never thought much of it, I just assumed the bad guys were getting their due from the good guys and after all, God as the creator of the universe could do whatever he wanted.

My faith ended slowly as I read more carefully and read sources about the Bible, sources I'd never considered before, or had considered biased. In other words, in my youth I had given my faith and the Bible a one sided appraisal. I certainly had doubts from time to time, but they were temporary and were very general.

[Danmark]

Well then. That explains it. I said they stopped loving God. You say "no". Which either implies that they never did love God, or they still do love God. Since loving God is a huge contradiction for an atheist, I must conclude that the atheist who lost his faith in God never loved God. If person not love an obey God, you will never receive His Holy Spirit, and you cannot consider yourself as one of His. A person who does not love God is not a Christian.

This is simply does not logically follow, nor does it follow our normal experience.
When we stop loving someone, that does not mean we never loved them.
When you realize the person you believe in and love and respect simply does not exist, but was a fraud invented and perpetrated by people, you stop believing and stop loving because there is nothing to love. But it hardly means that you did not love the person, and want to love them, while you were under the delusion of their existence.

[10CC]

For my part, I was raised Catholic, but gravitated towards more liberal Christianity, before moving on to a sort of deism, then agnosticism, then atheism. It was a long painful journey.

Like Nickman, my worst religious experience was actually reading the bible. I did it back when I was still very Christian, but ended up being shocked at the fact that my just and loving God would do stuff like send bears after kids for making fun of a bald guy.

I'm a bit embarrassed to say that the genocide and other atrocities in the Bible were not the reason I rejected it. I guess when I was a Christian I just glossed over those things as if they never fully entered my consciousness. Tho' I never thought much of it, I just assumed the bad guys were getting their due from the good guys and after all, God as the creator of the universe could do whatever he wanted.

And yet Dan we see exactly this paradigm over and over again on this site and any other religious discussion forum. Those that cling to it are simply not prepared to explore the possibilities, because as you say, that would mean eternal damnation. They like to claim that fear is not a motivation but IMO it is the greatest motivation.

[Deadclown]

For my part, I was raised Catholic, but gravitated towards more liberal Christianity, before moving on to a sort of deism, then agnosticism, then atheism. It was a long painful journey.

Like Nickman, my worst religious experience was actually reading the bible. I did it back when I was still very Christian, but ended up being shocked at the fact that my just and loving God would do stuff like send bears after kids for making fun of a bald guy.

I'm a bit embarrassed to say that the genocide and other atrocities in the Bible were not the reason I rejected it. I guess when I was a Christian I just glossed over those things as if they never fully entered my consciousness. Tho' I never thought much of it, I just assumed the bad guys were getting their due from the good guys and after all, God as the creator of the universe could do whatever he wanted.

My faith ended slowly as I read more carefully and read sources about the Bible, sources I'd never considered before, or had considered biased. In other words, in my youth I had given my faith and the Bible a one sided appraisal. I certainly had doubts from time to time, but they were temporary and were very general.

Oh I totally understand. I was not saying that reading the bible was the reason I eventually rejected any belief in gods, it just the worse experience I had being a Christian or with Christianity in general. I did pretty much as you describe and just rationalized it, even though I found it to be pretty disturbing. It was more than anything else the drive towards me becoming a liberal Christian. I believe that my assertion at the time was that the Old Testament was crazy, but the New Testament more than made up for it.

[Nickman]

Seth Andrews' book Deconverted is a good book for a Christian to see the deconversion process. He went from a top Christian radio host to an atheist. He never had a bad experience, until he left Christianity. Now his own father will not acknowledge him. His father told him "Christians cannot be unequally yoked son." Talk about a slap in the face.

[Nickman]

For my part, I was raised Catholic, but gravitated towards more liberal Christianity, before moving on to a sort of deism, then agnosticism, then atheism. It was a long painful journey.

Like Nickman, my worst religious experience was actually reading the bible. I did it back when I was still very Christian, but ended up being shocked at the fact that my just and loving God would do stuff like send bears after kids for making fun of a bald guy.

I'm a bit embarrassed to say that the genocide and other atrocities in the Bible were not the reason I rejected it. I guess when I was a Christian I just glossed over those things as if they never fully entered my consciousness. Tho' I never thought much of it, I just assumed the bad guys were getting their due from the good guys and after all, God as the creator of the universe could do whatever he wanted.

And yet Dan we see exactly this paradigm over and over again on this site and any other religious discussion forum. Those that cling to it are simply not prepared to explore the possibilities, because as you say, that would mean eternal damnation. They like to claim that fear is not a motivation but IMO it is the greatest motivation.

Do you remember the "blasphemy challenge?" I never did it back then because I was so fearful that I might be wrong. Now it is not a problem, but fear is definitely a factor, no matter how much you claim it is all about love.

[Sonofason]

[Replying to post 251 by Sonofason]

If I tell you that I own a Bugatti Veyron and cannot produce evidence of this Bugatti Veyron would you be within your rights to tell me that my Bugatti Veyron is non existent?
Why then does your claim that a god exists that you cannot provide evidence of bear a mantle of your special pleading?

Why do you not let me answer your first question before putting words in my mouth with regard to your second question. I, at this point in time, have no reason to disbelieve your claim that you own a Bugatti Veyron. But then, I don't know you. I don't even know what a Bugatti Veyron is. Perhaps you could explain what it is before I pass any judgements on your present claim. I have evidence of God. I have God's Holy Spirit dwelling in me. It is not so hard to believe me, for many believers will confirm the existence of the Holy Spirit, because they share a similar, if not the same experience of God, as I do.

So who else do you know has shared your experience of owning a Bugatti Veyron? Are you the only person who owns one? How many people claim to own Bugatti Veyrons? If I knew you better, perhaps I could better determine whether or not you make trustworthy claims. But at present, I see no reason to disbelieve your claim. Because I don't know you, and because I have never heard of such a thing as a Bugatti Veyron, I certainly have no good reason to believe it. But at the same time, at this present time, I have no good reason to disbelieve it either.