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]

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.

You make this same error over and over; that whatever is in the Bible is true because 'it's in the Bible.' This attitude absolutely destroys critical analysis.

It is not true because it is in the bible it is true and just so happens to be in the bible.

[Zetesis Apistia]

Thank you ZA, nice to talk again.

Oh I could say plenty bad about the religion in which I grew up...it, through its tenets and those who believed in them, have caused all sorts of mischief in the lives of many. Christianity, a religion of conversion, is by its nature a religion of division, a religion of violence.

Religion is divisive sure, but the same can be said for atheism. Heck the same can be said for street gangs, or ethnic groups, or sports fans, well you get the point.

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'.

Then why in the world do atheists spend so much time on forums debating what they have already concluded as false? Is it a mission to save those on the fence?

Romans 22 is the first noble truth of Buddhism...The truth of dukkha (suffering, anxiety, unsatisfactoriness).

That all 'creation' hungers to be relieved of suffering is no surprise. You would seem to call this 'freedom from suffering' god. Something 'out there'. Freedom, in the words of Paul rests in some 'other' as we "...wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies."

I see the answer, god if you will, as being a lot closer "to home".

Monoimos gave us an inkling when he wrote....

Seek Him inside yourself, and learn who it is that says: "My God, my spirit, my understanding, my soul and my body. Understand the source of sorrow and joy, and love and hate, and waking though you don't want to, and sleeping though you don't want to, and getting angry when you don't want to, and falling in love though you don't want to. For if you closely investigate these things, you will find Him inside yourself."

We know that people search for true happiness. I believe that people really search for the euphoric joy of the Lord, which we know only subconsciously, and we mistakenly accept counterfeits. But everyone does search for happiness. How do we know that intimacy with God doesn't = true happiness? Well those who have experienced intimacy do, but they cannot convince those who haven't.

[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.

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. It just happened. I think the following verses of scripture apply.

Well if an atheist admitted to leaving the faith due to anger or a bad experience then they could no longer justify their atheism. So they must say it was a calculated decision. They have no choice. But where are those that did leave the faith out of contempt? They are out there but I guess maybe they aren't.

[Danmark]

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.

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. It just happened. I think the following verses of scripture apply.

Well if an atheist admitted to leaving the faith due to anger or a bad experience then they could no longer justify their atheism. So they must say it was a calculated decision. They have no choice. But where are those that did leave the faith out of contempt? They are out there but I guess maybe they aren't.

You just can't bend reality to fit your preconceptions, no matter how much you try. Your statement is ridiculous. "...if an atheist admitted to leaving the faith due to anger or a bad experience then they could no longer justify their atheism" makes no sense. Why can't one be contemptuous and angry at a false system of belief that attempts to enslave one? Anger and contempt are hardly reactions inconsistent with rejection of nonsense. The fact that some may come to that sooner than others is irrelevant; as is the fact some may dismiss nonsense without emotion.

Rather than announce your illogical "if an atheist admitted..." conclusion, perhaps you could attempt to explain your logic?

[bernee51]

Thank you ZA, nice to talk again.

Oh I could say plenty bad about the religion in which I grew up...it, through its tenets and those who believed in them, have caused all sorts of mischief in the lives of many. Christianity, a religion of conversion, is by its nature a religion of division, a religion of violence.

Religion is divisive sure, but the same can be said for atheism. Heck the same can be said for street gangs, or ethnic groups, or sports fans, well you get the point.

How is atheism promoting division. It does not try to convince people that you must believe a certain set of dogma at the risk of facing some eternal consequences. Atheism does not attempt to inflict on all rules as supposedly set out by some god which cannot be shown to exist other than as a concept.

Atheism does not proselytise in traditional communities pitting father against son and mother against daughter and destroying the fabric of that community.

A religion of conversion is a religion of violence.

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'.

Then why in the world do atheists spend so much time on forums debating what they have already concluded as false? Is it a mission to save those on the fence?

I can't speak for other atheists...just this one.

For one, I enjoy the interaction. I seek to learn, both about belief and non-belief and the reasons for either position.

I have stated elsewhere my views on 'spirit', conversations such as this are an engagement with spirit.

Understanding the true nature of our being, and more importantly, bringing about an inner transformation which leads to abiding in that understanding, is a process not a destination. Conversations such as this can aid in that process.

Romans 22 is the first noble truth of Buddhism...The truth of dukkha (suffering, anxiety, unsatisfactoriness).

That all 'creation' hungers to be relieved of suffering is no surprise. You would seem to call this 'freedom from suffering' god. Something 'out there'. Freedom, in the words of Paul rests in some 'other' as we "...wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies."

I see the answer, god if you will, as being a lot closer "to home".

Monoimos gave us an inkling when he wrote....

Seek Him inside yourself, and learn who it is that says: "My God, my spirit, my understanding, my soul and my body. Understand the source of sorrow and joy, and love and hate, and waking though you don't want to, and sleeping though you don't want to, and getting angry when you don't want to, and falling in love though you don't want to. For if you closely investigate these things, you will find Him inside yourself."

We know that people search for true happiness. I believe that people really search for the euphoric joy of the Lord, which we know only subconsciously, and we mistakenly accept counterfeits. But everyone does search for happiness. How do we know that intimacy with God doesn't = true happiness? Well those who have experienced intimacy do, but they cannot convince those who haven't.

And I am not speaking of happiness, which is impermanent and conditional.

The 'joy of the Lord' is not contingent on the existence of any god. It is to be found in truly abiding in the Self.

Think of those moments when you have felt that you were abiding in the 'euphoric joy of the Lord'. Where were your thoughts, beliefs, ideas, the 'ego'...non-existent? How long does the feeling last? How quickly does the 'joy' become merely happiness...impermanent and conditional.

[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.

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.

This is amazing to me. You have provided 6 sources for me to review in an attempt to show evidence that evolution is true. Some of them have secondary links for me to review as well. And I did. And none of them are displaying any evidence that seem to be relevant evidence to substantiate your claim that evidence exists showing that evolution is true. I find it fascinating. I came into this debate with a belief that it was very likely that evolution is true. Now, I'm beginning to wonder. I thought the concept to be quite reasonable. Now that you have shown me that which you claim is evidence, I'm second guessing myself. You actually don't have any evidence of evolution. This is absolutely amazing.

[Goat]

This is amazing to me. You have provided 6 sources for me to review in an attempt to show evidence that evolution is true. Some of them have secondary links for me to review as well. And I did. And none of them are displaying any evidence that seem to be relevant evidence to substantiate your claim that evidence exists showing that evolution is true. I find it fascinating. I came into this debate with a belief that it was very likely that evolution is true. Now, I'm beginning to wonder. I thought the concept to be quite reasonable. Now that you have shown me that which you claim is evidence, I'm second guessing myself. You actually don't have any evidence of evolution. This is absolutely amazing.

Yes, it is amazing you want to wave your hand, close your eyes and deny. I would suggest if you really were interested, maybe you should take some simple biology 101 classes. It's really quite simple, actually.

I wonder if you could even give the correct biological definition of evolution though.

[Sonofason]

This is amazing to me. You have provided 6 sources for me to review in an attempt to show evidence that evolution is true. Some of them have secondary links for me to review as well. And I did. And none of them are displaying any evidence that seem to be relevant evidence to substantiate your claim that evidence exists showing that evolution is true. I find it fascinating. I came into this debate with a belief that it was very likely that evolution is true. Now, I'm beginning to wonder. I thought the concept to be quite reasonable. Now that you have shown me that which you claim is evidence, I'm second guessing myself. You actually don't have any evidence of evolution. This is absolutely amazing.

Yes, it is amazing you want to wave your hand, close your eyes and deny. I would suggest if you really were interested, maybe you should take some simple biology 101 classes. It's really quite simple, actually.

I wonder if you could even give the correct biological definition of evolution though.

Well, when I was in college, I did take a course called "Evolution". When I was taking this course, I do believe seeing and hearing compelling arguments, but I do not recall witnessing any substantial evidence that convinced me that evolution was absolutely true. I do believe that evolution makes logical sense. But I've seen no overwhelming evidence that evolution is absolutely true. I just thought, that because all you guys are so into science and your beliefs that evolution was true, that you'd be able to provide some evidence showing that evolution is true. But none of you have done so. All I have seen is claims upon claims, none of which I qualify as evidence. So here we are again. Please provide some evidence that evolution is true. I don't feel overly compelled to provide a biological definition of evolution however. Any sort of evidence will do. Just provide some evidence that you feel is compelling evidence for you, that shows that evolution is true. Perhaps you could show me the evidence that you saw that caused you to believe that evolution is true. Maybe that will help.

[10CC]

This is amazing to me. You have provided 6 sources for me to review in an attempt to show evidence that evolution is true. Some of them have secondary links for me to review as well. And I did. And none of them are displaying any evidence that seem to be relevant evidence to substantiate your claim that evidence exists showing that evolution is true. I find it fascinating. I came into this debate with a belief that it was very likely that evolution is true. Now, I'm beginning to wonder. I thought the concept to be quite reasonable. Now that you have shown me that which you claim is evidence, I'm second guessing myself. You actually don't have any evidence of evolution. This is absolutely amazing.

Yes, it is amazing you want to wave your hand, close your eyes and deny. I would suggest if you really were interested, maybe you should take some simple biology 101 classes. It's really quite simple, actually.

I wonder if you could even give the correct biological definition of evolution though.

Well, when I was in college, I did take a course called "Evolution". When I was taking this course, I do believe seeing and hearing compelling arguments, but I do not recall witnessing any substantial evidence that convinced me that evolution was absolutely true. I do believe that evolution makes logical sense. But I've seen no overwhelming evidence that evolution is absolutely true. I just thought, that because all you guys are so into science and your beliefs that evolution was true, that you'd be able to provide some evidence showing that evolution is true. But none of you have done so. All I have seen is claims upon claims, none of which I qualify as evidence. So here we are again. Please provide some evidence that evolution is true. I don't feel overly compelled to provide a biological definition of evolution however. Any sort of evidence will do. Just provide some evidence that you feel is compelling evidence for you, that shows that evolution is true. Perhaps you could show me the evidence that you saw that caused you to believe that evolution is true. Maybe that will help.

Why don't you go to one of those magical creationist "museums" and see for yourself how Dino always locked Fred out every night and he woke the neighborhood calling out Wilmaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Apparently they are literally miraculous.
Only in America!!

[Sonofason]

This is amazing to me. You have provided 6 sources for me to review in an attempt to show evidence that evolution is true. Some of them have secondary links for me to review as well. And I did. And none of them are displaying any evidence that seem to be relevant evidence to substantiate your claim that evidence exists showing that evolution is true. I find it fascinating. I came into this debate with a belief that it was very likely that evolution is true. Now, I'm beginning to wonder. I thought the concept to be quite reasonable. Now that you have shown me that which you claim is evidence, I'm second guessing myself. You actually don't have any evidence of evolution. This is absolutely amazing.

Yes, it is amazing you want to wave your hand, close your eyes and deny. I would suggest if you really were interested, maybe you should take some simple biology 101 classes. It's really quite simple, actually.

I wonder if you could even give the correct biological definition of evolution though.

Well, when I was in college, I did take a course called "Evolution". When I was taking this course, I do believe seeing and hearing compelling arguments, but I do not recall witnessing any substantial evidence that convinced me that evolution was absolutely true. I do believe that evolution makes logical sense. But I've seen no overwhelming evidence that evolution is absolutely true. I just thought, that because all you guys are so into science and your beliefs that evolution was true, that you'd be able to provide some evidence showing that evolution is true. But none of you have done so. All I have seen is claims upon claims, none of which I qualify as evidence. So here we are again. Please provide some evidence that evolution is true. I don't feel overly compelled to provide a biological definition of evolution however. Any sort of evidence will do. Just provide some evidence that you feel is compelling evidence for you, that shows that evolution is true. Perhaps you could show me the evidence that you saw that caused you to believe that evolution is true. Maybe that will help.

Why don't you go to one of those magical creationist "museums" and see for yourself how Dino always locked Fred out every night and he woke the neighborhood calling out Wilmaaaaaaaaaaaaa. Apparently they are literally miraculous.
Only in America!!

And this is exactly what I expected. Nothing.