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.

[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!!

And this is exactly what I expected. Nothing.

I do hope you are not denigrating these illustrious venues of CHRISTIANITY?

[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.

I do hope you are not denigrating these illustrious venues of CHRISTIANITY?

I see how this goes. If I ask for evidence that you are incapable of providing, you then denigrate the discussion to such an extent that I leave the room. Mission accomplished.

[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!!

And this is exactly what I expected. Nothing.

I do hope you are not denigrating these illustrious venues of CHRISTIANITY?

I see how this goes. If I ask for evidence that you are incapable of providing, you then denigrate the discussion to such an extent that I leave the room. Mission accomplished.

Mirror be thine friend me thinks.
Please don't runaway because of what your fellow christians preach. Please runaway because you are defeated by the evidence of the fallaciousness of your beliefs as demonstrated by the stupidity of your alleged fellow travelers and have no defense for such.

[Danmark]

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. . . .

[emphasis applied]
Earlier you refused to answer my direct question about this. Now you have accidentally lurched into candor and answered. You are insisting on 'absolute' evidence. Now we can end the silliness, because as you know there is no absolute evidence of anything. Phrased this way, it is a college Freshman's game. I know it well because I used to play it myself then as I did in high school.

The freshman challenges his mates, saying they can prove nothing absolutely. They take up the challenge while he grins smugly because he has played the game before. He tells them they cannot even prove the book they think they see on the table is really there. They think they have him. They make the usual proofs.

Then he plays the solipsist card. He explains their minds may be being manipulated at this very moment while they lay on an operating table in the hospital, or on an alien spaceship.

There is a very good reason why the highest burden of proof in a court of law is 'proof beyond reasonable doubt.' No one can prove anything beyond unreasonable doubt. Nothing can be proved absolutely. I submit that is why you refuse to answer the simple question, "What evidence would you consider sufficient?"

[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.

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.

You know what. Since you can't be 'compelled' to define what biological evolution is, I don't see any evidence that you took a course on evolution.

I hope that helps.

[Nickman]

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.

You could look up the origin of the Bugatti, you could go to google image and get the same image (different paint scheme) over and over, you could go to a Bugatti dealership. In the end you can confirm that this image is a Bugatti. Without any doubt. Lastly, I wasn't the one who brought up the Bugatti. I only stepped in to give you a picture of one because you said you didn't know what it was. Then you turned it into a debate about claims.

[Nickman]

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.

Evolution is true because it makes verifiable, demonstrable predictions. If we didn't understand evolution, humans would not be alive right now. Polio, and Small Pox would have eradicated us. These are facts. Evolution is not a "oh this makes religion look bad so lets pretend it is real." It is reality based on observation from history and genetics.

[Sonofason]

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. . . .

[emphasis applied]
Earlier you refused to answer my direct question about this. Now you have accidentally lurched into candor and answered. You are insisting on 'absolute' evidence. Now we can end the silliness, because as you know there is no absolute evidence of anything. Phrased this way, it is a college Freshman's game. I know it well because I used to play it myself then as I did in high school.

The freshman challenges his mates, saying they can prove nothing absolutely. They take up the challenge while he grins smugly because he has played the game before. He tells them they cannot even prove the book they think they see on the table is really there. They think they have him. They make the usual proofs.

Then he plays the solipsist card. He explains their minds may be being manipulated at this very moment while they lay on an operating table in the hospital, or on an alien spaceship.

There is a very good reason why the highest burden of proof in a court of law is 'proof beyond reasonable doubt.' No one can prove anything beyond unreasonable doubt. Nothing can be proved absolutely. I submit that is why you refuse to answer the simple question, "What evidence would you consider sufficient?"

What evidence would I consider sufficient for what?
I already believe that evolution is likely true, yet I have not seen what I consider to be overwhelming evidence. I certainly haven't seen absolute evidence that proves evolution to be true, for reasons that you presently point out. But overwhelming evidence, in my opinion would be the sort of evidence that causes me to believe with little doubt that evolution is absolutely true.

I have received personal evidence of God of this nature. I have received overwhelming evidence that God exists. I have not seen overwhelming evidence that evolution is true. I believe it is true, because I have seen evidence that suggests that evolution might be true. And I have no trouble believing, albeit with some doubt, that evolution is true.

So again, What evidence would I consider sufficient for what?

[Danmark]

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. . . .

[emphasis applied]
Earlier you refused to answer my direct question about this. Now you have accidentally lurched into candor and answered. You are insisting on 'absolute' evidence. Now we can end the silliness, because as you know there is no absolute evidence of anything. Phrased this way, it is a college Freshman's game. I know it well because I used to play it myself then as I did in high school.

The freshman challenges his mates, saying they can prove nothing absolutely. They take up the challenge while he grins smugly because he has played the game before. He tells them they cannot even prove the book they think they see on the table is really there. They think they have him. They make the usual proofs.

Then he plays the solipsist card. He explains their minds may be being manipulated at this very moment while they lay on an operating table in the hospital, or on an alien spaceship.

There is a very good reason why the highest burden of proof in a court of law is 'proof beyond reasonable doubt.' No one can prove anything beyond unreasonable doubt. Nothing can be proved absolutely. I submit that is why you refuse to answer the simple question, "What evidence would you consider sufficient?"

What evidence would I consider sufficient for what?
I already believe that evolution is likely true, yet I have not seen what I consider to be overwhelming evidence. I certainly haven't seen absolute evidence that proves evolution to be true, for reasons that you presently point out. But overwhelming evidence, in my opinion would be the sort of evidence that causes me to believe with little doubt that evolution is absolutely true.

I have received personal evidence of God of this nature. I have received overwhelming evidence that God exists. I have not seen overwhelming evidence that evolution is true. I believe it is true, because I have seen evidence that suggests that evolution might be true. And I have no trouble believing, albeit with some doubt, that evolution is true.

So again, What evidence would I consider sufficient for what?

You've already told us quite explicitly that the evidence you require is whatever it takes to convince you. This is not an objective standard, so there no point in discussing it further since you can reply, "I'm not convinced," and that is the end of the matter. This is an adequate definition of you having a monologue with yourself as the only auditor, but it is inadequate if others are involved, so there is no point in further discussion.

I have received personal evidence that Jesus is not divine. He told me so himself. That ends the discussion, but it also demonstrates the futility of relying on 'personal evidence' in a discussion with others.

[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.

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?

I suppose it depends on whether you stopped believing because you got angry, or you became angry after you found out you were being duped. Certainly the latter is quite logical, but the former isn't.