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]

You're not helping me out by providing photographs of cars and making claims about them. I'm sorry. If you want me to believe that is a Bugatti Veyron, then you're going to have to provide some evidence for your claim.

Oh geez, really? So you use critical thinking, and skepticism when someone sends you a pic of a car that you can easily google and verify, yet when it comes to 3000 year old texts written by people you have never met nor ever will, you believe every word they wrote. You have provided a perfect example of your indoctrinated ideas.

Actually, my faith in God comes from personal experience of God. My knowledge of God, I assume has come from what I've learned of God. It seems my knowledge of God has indeed come from the Bible. My experience tells me that a great deal of what was written in the Bible is true. The other areas of the Bible that I do not have evidence to verify as truth, I believe to be truth due to the veracity and truth that I've found in the Bible that I have verified by experience as true. It's rather complicated and hard to explain. But my belief in God is quite reasonable. I'm sorry I can't prove his existence to you.

According to your last post, this is false. You asked for evidence that the pic I gave was a Bugatti, which you can verify very easily on google, yet when it comes to the bible you have repeatedly shown that no matter what, the bible is correct. Your actions show a lapse in logic and rationality.

Let me ask you something. If I were to do what you are asking me to do, to go on google and do a search for a Bugatti, and if I should find that this particular website were confirming that what you say is true, that the car in the photograph is a Bugatti, would it be necessary for me to believe that the website is giving correct information? In other words, would there be a need for me to believe the website's claim in order for me to have the proof that you say I can find there?

Believe the Bible, and you will know that God exists.

[Danmark]

You're not helping me out by providing photographs of cars and making claims about them. I'm sorry. If you want me to believe that is a Bugatti Veyron, then you're going to have to provide some evidence for your claim.

Oh geez, really? So you use critical thinking, and skepticism when someone sends you a pic of a car that you can easily google and verify, yet when it comes to 3000 year old texts written by people you have never met nor ever will, you believe every word they wrote. You have provided a perfect example of your indoctrinated ideas.

Actually, my faith in God comes from personal experience of God. My knowledge of God, I assume has come from what I've learned of God. It seems my knowledge of God has indeed come from the Bible. My experience tells me that a great deal of what was written in the Bible is true. The other areas of the Bible that I do not have evidence to verify as truth, I believe to be truth due to the veracity and truth that I've found in the Bible that I have verified by experience as true. It's rather complicated and hard to explain. But my belief in God is quite reasonable. I'm sorry I can't prove his existence to you.

According to your last post, this is false. You asked for evidence that the pic I gave was a Bugatti, which you can verify very easily on google, yet when it comes to the bible you have repeatedly shown that no matter what, the bible is correct. Your actions show a lapse in logic and rationality.

Let me ask you something. If I were to do what you are asking me to do, to go on google and do a search for a Bugatti, and if I should find that this particular website were confirming that what you say is true, that the car in the photograph is a Bugatti, would it be necessary for me to believe that the website is giving correct information? In other words, would there be a need for me to believe the website's claim in order for me to have the proof that you say I can find there?

Believe the Bible, and you will know that God exists.

Believe in Satan, and you will know God is evil.
Believe in nonsense, you will 'know' anything.

The absurdity of your position is transparently revealed in post after post of yours. You dispute the reliability of photographs, well documented websites, peer reviewed scientific studies and virtually everything on Earth... with one glaring exception, your own interpretation of a book chock full of fantasy and unproved claims.

And the only justification you can give is 'well, that's just what I believe based on my own feelings about what I think is personally revealed 'evidence.' This silliness is no more reliable than the claims of those who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The only difference is the latter have their tongues planted firmly in their pasta.

[Sonofason]

You're not helping me out by providing photographs of cars and making claims about them. I'm sorry. If you want me to believe that is a Bugatti Veyron, then you're going to have to provide some evidence for your claim.

Oh geez, really? So you use critical thinking, and skepticism when someone sends you a pic of a car that you can easily google and verify, yet when it comes to 3000 year old texts written by people you have never met nor ever will, you believe every word they wrote. You have provided a perfect example of your indoctrinated ideas.

Actually, my faith in God comes from personal experience of God. My knowledge of God, I assume has come from what I've learned of God. It seems my knowledge of God has indeed come from the Bible. My experience tells me that a great deal of what was written in the Bible is true. The other areas of the Bible that I do not have evidence to verify as truth, I believe to be truth due to the veracity and truth that I've found in the Bible that I have verified by experience as true. It's rather complicated and hard to explain. But my belief in God is quite reasonable. I'm sorry I can't prove his existence to you.

According to your last post, this is false. You asked for evidence that the pic I gave was a Bugatti, which you can verify very easily on google, yet when it comes to the bible you have repeatedly shown that no matter what, the bible is correct. Your actions show a lapse in logic and rationality.

Let me ask you something. If I were to do what you are asking me to do, to go on google and do a search for a Bugatti, and if I should find that this particular website were confirming that what you say is true, that the car in the photograph is a Bugatti, would it be necessary for me to believe that the website is giving correct information? In other words, would there be a need for me to believe the website's claim in order for me to have the proof that you say I can find there?

Believe the Bible, and you will know that God exists.

Believe in Satan, and you will know God is evil.
Believe in nonsense, you will 'know' anything.

The absurdity of your position is transparently revealed in post after post of yours. You dispute the reliability of photographs, well documented websites, peer reviewed scientific studies and virtually everything on Earth... with one glaring exception, your own interpretation of a book chock full of fantasy and unproved claims.

And the only justification you can give is 'well, that's just what I believe based on my own feelings about what I think is personally revealed 'evidence.' This silliness is no more reliable than the claims of those who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The only difference is the latter have their tongues planted firmly in their pasta.

I don't blame you for overlooking my argument with regard to your refusal, rather your inability to provide evidence for evolution. It is quite obvious to me that you have great faith in evolution. It is quite clear, and so I know you have not seen any evidence of evolution, but nevertheless, you believe. I understand faith. I admit when my beliefs are based upon faith. But for some reason, you won't. It is not a weakness to have faith in people. It is not a weakness at all. In fact it is God's will. Sorry, but this is my opinion. I don't have any evidence to show that this is a fact. I could quote some scripture, but you won't listen, at least you won't acknowledge it as any sort of evidence. I understand, and you have my sympathy. I'm sorry this faith thing is so disturbing to you.

It has been my goal to show that just as I have faith in a Book, you too have great faith in a book. I have shown that as I cannot provide evidence for my God, you also cannot provide evidence of your god. We are indeed in the same boat. And I have proven this to be so. I rest my case.

[Goat]

You're not helping me out by providing photographs of cars and making claims about them. I'm sorry. If you want me to believe that is a Bugatti Veyron, then you're going to have to provide some evidence for your claim.

Oh geez, really? So you use critical thinking, and skepticism when someone sends you a pic of a car that you can easily google and verify, yet when it comes to 3000 year old texts written by people you have never met nor ever will, you believe every word they wrote. You have provided a perfect example of your indoctrinated ideas.

Actually, my faith in God comes from personal experience of God. My knowledge of God, I assume has come from what I've learned of God. It seems my knowledge of God has indeed come from the Bible. My experience tells me that a great deal of what was written in the Bible is true. The other areas of the Bible that I do not have evidence to verify as truth, I believe to be truth due to the veracity and truth that I've found in the Bible that I have verified by experience as true. It's rather complicated and hard to explain. But my belief in God is quite reasonable. I'm sorry I can't prove his existence to you.

According to your last post, this is false. You asked for evidence that the pic I gave was a Bugatti, which you can verify very easily on google, yet when it comes to the bible you have repeatedly shown that no matter what, the bible is correct. Your actions show a lapse in logic and rationality.

Let me ask you something. If I were to do what you are asking me to do, to go on google and do a search for a Bugatti, and if I should find that this particular website were confirming that what you say is true, that the car in the photograph is a Bugatti, would it be necessary for me to believe that the website is giving correct information? In other words, would there be a need for me to believe the website's claim in order for me to have the proof that you say I can find there?

Believe the Bible, and you will know that God exists.

Believe in Satan, and you will know God is evil.
Believe in nonsense, you will 'know' anything.

The absurdity of your position is transparently revealed in post after post of yours. You dispute the reliability of photographs, well documented websites, peer reviewed scientific studies and virtually everything on Earth... with one glaring exception, your own interpretation of a book chock full of fantasy and unproved claims.

And the only justification you can give is 'well, that's just what I believe based on my own feelings about what I think is personally revealed 'evidence.' This silliness is no more reliable than the claims of those who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The only difference is the latter have their tongues planted firmly in their pasta.

I don't blame you for overlooking my argument with regard to your refusal, rather your inability to provide evidence for evolution. It is quite obvious to me that you have great faith in evolution. It is quite clear, and so I know you have not seen any evidence of evolution, but nevertheless, you believe. I understand faith. I admit when my beliefs are based upon faith. But for some reason, you won't. It is not a weakness to have faith in people. It is not a weakness at all. In fact it is God's will. Sorry, but this is my opinion. I don't have any evidence to show that this is a fact. I could quote some scripture, but you won't listen, at least you won't acknowledge it as any sort of evidence. I understand, and you have my sympathy. I'm sorry this faith thing is so disturbing to you.

It has been my goal to show that just as I have faith in a Book, you too have great faith in a book. I have shown that as I cannot provide evidence for my God, you also cannot provide evidence of your god. We are indeed in the same boat. And I have proven this to be so. I rest my case.

Why, there is plenty of evidence for evolution.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... opic_id=46
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/fitch/cours ... dence.html


Here are a few resources for you to look at. Notice how many I gave that are universities.

[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.

Thanks for the direct reply.
Can I ask what you thought of the archeological eidence, and the interpretations offered by Finkelstein and Silberman?

I have no problem with archeological evidence. But they set out to interpret through the lens of criticism. Their opinions are speculative without evidence to support them. They may well say that there is no evidence to support an exodus but that doesn't prove it didn't happen.

[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)

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?

Bible verses are evidence. They may not be the kind you like but the book is as ancient as anything you will reference. Personally I reject some of the things you will use as a reference. And the babies were ordered thrown into the river.


The Ipuwer Papyrus (fig. 6)



- In the early 19th Century an ancient papyrus was found in Egypt. It was taken to the Leiden Museum in Holland and interpreted by A.H. Gardiner in 1909. The papyrus describes violent upheavals in Egypt, starvation, drought, escape of slaves (with the wealth of the Egyptians), and death throughout the land. The papyrus was written by an Egyptian named Ipuwer and appears to be an eyewitness account of the effects of the Exodus plagues. The account parallels the Book of Exodus.


Here is an interesting link...
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... WM&cad=rja

[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

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.

I think your "x" ianity gives the sense that "Christ" ianity has left a sour taste in your mouth. This contempt began somewhere. When? And if atheists admitted that they left Christianity out of contempt it would invalidate their atheism. That is why "no" atheist will admit it. Although I do know of instances where people left the faith because they were furious with God. Funny no one wants to admit that tho.

[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

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?

Bible verses are evidence. They may not be the kind you like but the book is as ancient as anything you will reference. Personally I reject some of the things you will use as a reference. And the babies were ordered thrown into the river.


The Ipuwer Papyrus (fig. 6)



- In the early 19th Century an ancient papyrus was found in Egypt. It was taken to the Leiden Museum in Holland and interpreted by A.H. Gardiner in 1909. The papyrus describes violent upheavals in Egypt, starvation, drought, escape of slaves (with the wealth of the Egyptians), and death throughout the land. The papyrus was written by an Egyptian named Ipuwer and appears to be an eyewitness account of the effects of the Exodus plagues. The account parallels the Book of Exodus.


Here is an interesting link...
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... WM&cad=rja

Not poor old Ipuwer again

Some have interpreted the document as an Egyptian account of the Plagues of Egypt and the Exodus in the Old Testament of the Bible, and it is often cited as proof for the Biblical account by various religious organisations.[24]

The association of the Ipuwer Papyrus with the Exodus as describing the same event is generally rejected by Egyptologists.[25] Roland Enmarch, author of a new translation of the papyrus, notes: "The broadest modern reception of Ipuwer amongst non-Egyptological readers has probably been as a result of the use of the poem as evidence supporting the Biblical account of the Exodus."[26] While Enmarch himself rejects synchronizing the texts of the Ipuwer Papyrus and The Book of Exodus on grounds of historicity, in The reception of a Middle Egyptian poem: The Dialogue of Ipuwer.. he acknowledges that there are some textual parallels "particularly the striking statement that the river is blood and one drinks from it (Ipuwer 2.10), and the frequent references to servants abandoning their subordinate status (e.g. Ipuwer 3.14"4.1; 6.7"8; 10.2"3). On a literal reading, these are similar to aspects of the Exodus account."[27] Commenting on such attempts to draw parallels, he writes that "all these approaches read Ipuwer hyper-literally and selectively" and points out that there are also conflicts between Ipuwer and the Biblical account, such as Ipuwer's lamentation of an Asiatic (Semitic) invasion rather than a mass departure.[26] He suggests that "it is more likely that Ipuwer is not a piece of historical reportage and that historicising interpretations of it fail to account for the ahistorical, schematic literary nature of some of the poems laments," but other Egyptologists disagree (see Genre section above). Examining what Enmarch calls "the most extensively posited parallel", the river becoming blood, he notes that it should not be taken "absolutely literally" as a description of an event but that both Ipuwer and Exodus might be metaphorically describing what happens at times of catastrophic Nile floods when the river is carrying large quantities of red earth, mentioning that Kitchen has also discussed this phenomenon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ipuwer_Papyrus

[Zetesis Apistia]

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.

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.[/quote]
When you say "xian" is that intended disrespect and if so why do you have contempt for a fictitious character?

[bernee51]

[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?

Bible verses are evidence. They may not be the kind you like but the book is as ancient as anything you will reference. Personally I reject some of the things you will use as a reference. And the babies were ordered thrown into the river.


The Ipuwer Papyrus (fig. 6)



- In the early 19th Century an ancient papyrus was found in Egypt. It was taken to the Leiden Museum in Holland and interpreted by A.H. Gardiner in 1909. The papyrus describes violent upheavals in Egypt, starvation, drought, escape of slaves (with the wealth of the Egyptians), and death throughout the land. The papyrus was written by an Egyptian named Ipuwer and appears to be an eyewitness account of the effects of the Exodus plagues. The account parallels the Book of Exodus.


Here is an interesting link...
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... WM&cad=rja

The Wiki article on the issue states that the association of the Ipuwer Papyrus with the Exodus as describing the same event is generally rejected by Egyptologists.

If the bible is placed where it belongs... in the same genre as the Bhagavad Gita, Vedas, and like texts....then it is viewed for what it really is, a valuable wisdom text representing through legend and metaphor the spiritual experiences of the writers. Historic literacy requires more than legend and metaphor.