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]

How is atheism promoting division.

It isn't always the case, but there are militant atheists. The same can be said for religion.

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.

you certainly are one of the less emotional atheists, which would identify you as a seeker. But there are atheists that are not here to learn about religion. Many of them are already learned to the gills about religion before they ever become atheists. Their sole intent is to hopefully rid the world of a religion they have come to hate. In fact it is an intolerance that they say only religious people possess.

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.

You can only reference your own experiences. There may well be a "joy" that only comes form God that you have yet to experience. That is not illogical and you have no basis to deny the possibility. It is knowledge that can only be learned through experience. The same as tastes, and smells, and sounds. One cannot give an opinion on what tastes, smells, or sounds good until one has experienced it. The joy of the Lord can only be known by experience. There is a difference between intellectual knowledge and intimate knowledge. Intellectual knowledge is incomplete until it is confirmed or dismissed by experiential knowledge. In fact, you are saying something doesn't exist just because you haven't experienced it. That is a premature conclusion because you have yet to confirm or dismiss it via experience.

[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?

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.

Well, I think you make a valid point. I'll see what I can do.

[Danmark]

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.

No. They both make sense. In the first case the former Christian may become angry because he realizes he his being duped. He then rejects Christianity.

In the 2d case he realizes Christianity has no proper foundation and he rejects it without anger. Anger is simply not necessary in either case. The former Christian may simply realize what he has been told is a crock, but was taught to him by people who were sincere. No reason to be angry. They were as misguided as he was.

Emotions can be quite divorced from the intellectual process, and should be.

Let's take a case where emotions would certainly be understandable:

A young boy who was born into a sincere and devout Christian family. His parents, grandparents and aunts and uncles are all dedicated Christians. His Grandfather is an evangelical minister and dynamic public speaker, revered in his community.

His father is equally devout and a powerful intellect, a champion of Christianity. But he is physically disabled. His Christian community and family pray for him daily. The boy joins in these prayers on a nightly basis with great sincerity, closing each prayer every night with, '... and dear Jesus, please make it so Daddy can walk.'

Daddy never walks. Neither the boy nor his father are overly concerned about this answer to prayer that never comes. The father has taught the boy the lesson of Jesus at Gethsemane; that sometimes the answer to prayer is 'no.'

The boy is not angry. He understands there are contradictions in life and seeming contradictions in scripture because he does not have perfect knowledge.

Later in life the boy who cherishes his parents all his life grows and studies and his quest for knowledge takes him beyond his parents' and grandparents' studies.

He realizes with some sadness that they believed something that was not. He does not like where his intellectual honesty has led him because it means his grandparents, his aunts and uncles, his own parents are not in heaven where he will see them again. He will not go to heaven where he will live in paradise forever. He is not angry. He is resigned to the truth, to reality.

There is no reason for anger or resentment. He realizes this. He also realizes there is no great answer or purpose to life imposed by some distant god who does not exist. He understands that he must forge his own purpose and find his own meaning for life. Rather than anger and resentment, he experiences happiness about his discovery and is grateful for the lessons and values of love and intellectual honesty he has been taught in his youth.

[bernee51]

How is atheism promoting division.

It isn't always the case, but there are militant atheists. The same can be said for religion.

A recent doco God loves Uganda is an indication of what I am talking about.

Described by Film International: Before I watched Roger Ross Williams documentary God Loves Uganda, the idea of a wide eyed missionary speaking to an African Muslim about the word of Christ would not have filled me with an implacable anger; indeed, I would have regarded it as a mostly harmless act. But the Christian faith has begotten something vile and dangerous in Uganda, and for better or worse I can no longer say the same.

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.

You certainly are one of the less emotional atheists, which would identify you as a seeker. But there are atheists that are not here to learn about religion. Many of them are already learned to the gills about religion before they ever become atheists. Their sole intent is to hopefully rid the world of a religion they have come to hate. In fact it is intolerance that they say only religious people possess. [/quote]

I too learned to the gillsand it was that learning and continuing investigation that lead me to, and confirms, my atheism.

I understand and accept that there are reasons why there are people who truly believe in their god and the religions that come with that belief.

I also believe I understand why this occurs.

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.

You can only reference your own experiences. There may well be a "joy" that only comes form God that you have yet to experience. That is not illogical and you have no basis to deny the possibility. It is knowledge that can only be learned through experience. The same as tastes, and smells, and sounds. One cannot give an opinion on what tastes, smells, or sounds good until one has experienced it. The joy of the Lord can only be known by experience. There is a difference between intellectual knowledge and intimate knowledge. Intellectual knowledge is incomplete until it is confirmed or dismissed by experiential knowledge. In fact, you are saying something doesn't exist just because you haven't experienced it. That is a premature conclusion because you have yet to confirm or dismiss it via experience.

You are correctI can only directly reference my own experiences but I can also learn from the experiences of others as reported personally or in wisdom texts such as the bible, the Vedas, the Gita, the Koran and so forth.

I do not deny the possibility of the existence of any godI just do not see any necessity for one, any reason for one nor any evidence for one.

But I can be sure that, if there is some form of god, the JCI god is not it.

As to joy in the Lordin my days of belief I certainly felt joy in that beliefI had both intellectual and experiential understanding of god.

Over the past 40+ years of seeking through continued intellectual pursuit (jnana yoga), meditation and self-inquiry (raja yoga) and communion with the sacred (bhakti yoga) I have come to realise, intellectually and experientially, the true source of this joy.

In order to find god you first have to lose god.

[Zetesis Apistia]

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.

No. They both make sense. In the first case the former Christian may become angry because he realizes he his being duped. He then rejects Christianity.

In the 2d case he realizes Christianity has no proper foundation and he rejects it without anger. Anger is simply not necessary in either case. The former Christian may simply realize what he has been told is a crock, but was taught to him by people who were sincere. No reason to be angry. They were as misguided as he was.

Emotions can be quite divorced from the intellectual process, and should be.

As long as the decision was not the result of being angry it can be justified. My point is many people are atheist because they became angry.

Let's take a case where emotions would certainly be understandable:

A young boy who was born into a sincere and devout Christian family. His parents, grandparents and aunts and uncles are all dedicated Christians. His Grandfather is an evangelical minister and dynamic public speaker, revered in his community.

His father is equally devout and a powerful intellect, a champion of Christianity. But he is physically disabled. His Christian community and family pray for him daily. The boy joins in these prayers on a nightly basis with great sincerity, closing each prayer every night with, '... and dear Jesus, please make it so Daddy can walk.'

Daddy never walks. Neither the boy nor his father are overly concerned about this answer to prayer that never comes. The father has taught the boy the lesson of Jesus at Gethsemane; that sometimes the answer to prayer is 'no.'

The boy is not angry. He understands there are contradictions in life and seeming contradictions in scripture because he does not have perfect knowledge.

Granting every child's wish only makes for spoiled brats. The same little boy stomps his feet in Wal mart because mommy said no when he asked for a toy. God is not a genie in a bottle as some would like him to be. And if someone stops believing because God didn't let daddy walk again then that person is being both unrealistic, and quite demanding. But you did hit the nail on the head. Many people stop believing because daddy never walks again. And that is where the anger comes from. Oh I know you say that they understand and they're not angry, but the fact that it is an issue means it is an issue.

Later in life the boy who cherishes his parents all his life grows and studies and his quest for knowledge takes him beyond his parents' and grandparents' studies.

He realizes with some sadness that they believed something that was not. He does not like where his intellectual honesty has led him because it means his grandparents, his aunts and uncles, his own parents are not in heaven where he will see them again. He will not go to heaven where he will live in paradise forever. He is not angry. He is resigned to the truth, to reality.

There is no reason for anger or resentment. He realizes this. He also realizes there is no great answer or purpose to life imposed by some distant god who does not exist. He understands that he must forge his own purpose and find his own meaning for life. Rather than anger and resentment, he experiences happiness about his discovery and is grateful for the lessons and values of love and intellectual honesty he has been taught in his youth.

Yes but I cannot believe that somehow daddy's not walking again didn't influence that little boy's atheism somehow. I don't buy it.

[Zetesis Apistia]

A recent doco God loves Uganda is an indication of what I am talking about.

Described by Film International: Before I watched Roger Ross Williams documentary God Loves Uganda, the idea of a wide eyed missionary speaking to an African Muslim about the word of Christ would not have filled me with an implacable anger; indeed, I would have regarded it as a mostly harmless act. But the Christian faith has begotten something vile and dangerous in Uganda, and for better or worse I can no longer say the same.

You are using one bad apple to condemn the whole pie. That is unfair to the Christian missionaries who love others genuinely.

I too learned to the gillsand it was that learning and continuing investigation that lead me to, and confirms, my atheism.

I understand and accept that there are reasons why there are people who truly believe in their god and the religions that come with that belief.

I also believe I understand why this occurs.

I also believe I know why people become atheist. The road to belief is filled with many doubts. Doubt can either cause one to exit the journey or it can be the springboard to new dimensions.

You are correctI can only directly reference my own experiences but I can also learn from the experiences of others as reported personally or in wisdom texts such as the bible, the Vedas, the Gita, the Koran and so forth.

You can only gain intellectual knowledge from another mans experience. You cannot gain intimate knowledge from it. I may tell you something tastes good but you must tatse it for yourself to confirm it.

I do not deny the possibility of the existence of any godI just do not see any necessity for one, any reason for one nor any evidence for one.

Yes and necessity is the mother of invention. Most people come to believe at a time in their lives when they are in need. So maybe you too will arrive at a time of desperation in the future that may provoke you to look for a divine crutch. You cannot say you won't because you have yet to be placed in such a situation. At least I assume.

But I can be sure that, if there is some form of god, the JCI god is not it.

on what do you support your belief?

As to joy in the Lordin my days of belief I certainly felt joy in that beliefI had both intellectual and experiential understanding of god.

Over the past 40+ years of seeking through continued intellectual pursuit (jnana yoga), meditation and self-inquiry (raja yoga) and communion with the sacred (bhakti yoga) I have come to realise, intellectually and experientially, the true source of this joy.

In order to find god you first have to lose god.

From my experience counterfeit joy tastes good to the tongue but it sours in the belly. Anything that relies on effort is temporal. How do you know that your "joy" was not the counterfeit?

[Danmark]

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.

No. They both make sense. In the first case the former Christian may become angry because he realizes he his being duped. He then rejects Christianity.

In the 2d case he realizes Christianity has no proper foundation and he rejects it without anger. Anger is simply not necessary in either case. The former Christian may simply realize what he has been told is a crock, but was taught to him by people who were sincere. No reason to be angry. They were as misguided as he was.

Emotions can be quite divorced from the intellectual process, and should be.

As long as the decision was not the result of being angry it can be justified. My point is many people are atheist because they became angry.

Let's take a case where emotions would certainly be understandable:

A young boy who was born into a sincere and devout Christian family. His parents, grandparents and aunts and uncles are all dedicated Christians. His Grandfather is an evangelical minister and dynamic public speaker, revered in his community.

His father is equally devout and a powerful intellect, a champion of Christianity. But he is physically disabled. His Christian community and family pray for him daily. The boy joins in these prayers on a nightly basis with great sincerity, closing each prayer every night with, '... and dear Jesus, please make it so Daddy can walk.'

Daddy never walks. Neither the boy nor his father are overly concerned about this answer to prayer that never comes. The father has taught the boy the lesson of Jesus at Gethsemane; that sometimes the answer to prayer is 'no.'

The boy is not angry. He understands there are contradictions in life and seeming contradictions in scripture because he does not have perfect knowledge.

Granting every child's wish only makes for spoiled brats. The same little boy stomps his feet in Wal mart because mommy said no when he asked for a toy. God is not a genie in a bottle as some would like him to be. And if someone stops believing because God didn't let daddy walk again then that person is being both unrealistic, and quite demanding. But you did hit the nail on the head. Many people stop believing because daddy never walks again. And that is where the anger comes from. Oh I know you say that they understand and they're not angry, but the fact that it is an issue means it is an issue.

Later in life the boy who cherishes his parents all his life grows and studies and his quest for knowledge takes him beyond his parents' and grandparents' studies.

He realizes with some sadness that they believed something that was not. He does not like where his intellectual honesty has led him because it means his grandparents, his aunts and uncles, his own parents are not in heaven where he will see them again. He will not go to heaven where he will live in paradise forever. He is not angry. He is resigned to the truth, to reality.

There is no reason for anger or resentment. He realizes this. He also realizes there is no great answer or purpose to life imposed by some distant god who does not exist. He understands that he must forge his own purpose and find his own meaning for life. Rather than anger and resentment, he experiences happiness about his discovery and is grateful for the lessons and values of love and intellectual honesty he has been taught in his youth.

Yes but I cannot believe that somehow daddy's not walking again didn't influence that little boy's atheism somehow. I don't buy it.

No you don't 'buy it.' But then, you weren't there. A little boy not getting a piece of candy is not the same as having a father you love who can't walk. Not getting a toy from WalMart is not the same as realizing there's a problem with Abraham being willing to kill his son because ANYone told him to.

Why would the little boy give up his dream of paradise, unless he was convinced it was simply not true?

Think about that for a while.

The former Christian has every reason to cling to his upbringing and dreams of paradise. Even if he's not happy about something, even if he has a doubt, why would he willfully give up his belief of paradise, his dream of eternal bliss, his joy, unless his intellectual honesty fueled by his education compelled him to be honest and reject the fantasy?

Why would he suffer slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and unrequited love, the laws delay? Why would he grunt and sweat under the burdens of a meaningless life of unfairness and emptiness, when he could embrace the promise of paradise at the mere cost of credulity, unless his honesty compelled him to?

[bernee51]

A recent doco God loves Uganda is an indication of what I am talking about.

Described by Film International: Before I watched Roger Ross Williams documentary God Loves Uganda, the idea of a wide eyed missionary speaking to an African Muslim about the word of Christ would not have filled me with an implacable anger; indeed, I would have regarded it as a mostly harmless act. But the Christian faith has begotten something vile and dangerous in Uganda, and for better or worse I can no longer say the same.

You are using one bad apple to condemn the whole pie. That is unfair to the Christian missionaries who love others genuinely.

By their fruits shall they be known?

Im sure missionaries love othersbut they love their god and religion more.

Have you seen the damage done in Indian communities by these loving missionaries?

I have.

If they had true love and compassion for their converts they would not bring the division. Their reasoning...losing some temporal peace for the possibility (should the converts truly believe) of eternal salvation. In the process they destroy whole communities.

The embodiment of Luke 12:53

I too learned to the gillsand it was that learning and continuing investigation that lead me to, and confirms, my atheism.

I understand and accept that there are reasons why there are people who truly believe in their god and the religions that come with that belief.

I also believe I understand why this occurs.

I also believe I know why people become atheist. The road to belief is filled with many doubts. Doubt can either cause one to exit the journey or it can be the springboard to new dimensions.

With that I am in total agreement.

You are correctI can only directly reference my own experiences but I can also learn from the experiences of others as reported personally or in wisdom texts such as the bible, the Vedas, the Gita, the Koran and so forth.

You can only gain intellectual knowledge from another mans experience. You cannot gain intimate knowledge from it. I may tell you something tastes good but you must taste it for yourself to confirm it.

Again, I agree. In order to understand the nature of being, one must do the experiment which leads to the taste.

Interesting that you use the terminology of tastethe Tibetans call it One Taste (ekrasa)

I do not deny the possibility of the existence of any godI just do not see any necessity for one, any reason for one nor any evidence for one.

Yes and necessity is the mother of invention.

Indeed it isthus 1000s of gods have been invented.

Most people come to believe at a time in their lives when they are in need. So maybe you too will arrive at a time of desperation in the future that may provoke you to look for a divine crutch. You cannot say you won't because you have yet to be placed in such a situation. At least I assume.

Oh I have indeed been through the dark night of the soul.

Have you?

But I can be sure that, if there is some form of god, the JCI god is not it.

on what do you support your belief?

History, archaeology, palaeontology, sociology, psychology, philosophy

And personal experience.

As to joy in the Lordin my days of belief I certainly felt joy in that beliefI had both intellectual and experiential understanding of god.

Over the past 40+ years of seeking through continued intellectual pursuit (jnana yoga), meditation and self-inquiry (raja yoga) and communion with the sacred (bhakti yoga) I have come to realise, intellectually and experientially, the true source of this joy.

In order to find god you first have to lose god.

From my experience counterfeit joy tastes good to the tongue but it sours in the belly. Anything that relies on effort is temporal. How do you know that your "joy" was not the counterfeit?

Because the joy is effortless, timeless and boundless.

In order to find god you first have to lose god.

[Zetesis Apistia]

Yes but I cannot believe that somehow daddy's not walking again didn't influence that little boy's atheism somehow. I don't buy it.

No you don't 'buy it.' But then, you weren't there. A little boy not getting a piece of candy is not the same as having a father you love who can't walk. Not getting a toy from WalMart is not the same as realizing there's a problem with Abraham being willing to kill his son because ANYone told him to.

There are underlying reasons as to why people aren't healed and a proper understanding of that is necessary in order to accept those times when God doesn't heal. But then again it is not up to little boys to know that, it is the parents responsibility to help them with that understanding. My grand daughter had to have a heart transplant. The doctors wrote her off and told us to do the same. It was through that process that I truly came to understand the potential for healing and how most people are more ready to be angry at God during those times as opposed to being ready for God to perform miracles. In fact my granddaughter lived to the amazement of the entire medical team. So much so that her transplant has been listed in medical journals for future references. It was through that process that I truly learned how to tap into the power of God.

Why would the little boy give up his dream of paradise, unless he was convinced it was simply not true?

Think about that for a while.

I don't suppose he would.

The former Christian has every reason to cling to his upbringing and dreams of paradise. Even if he's not happy about something, even if he has a doubt, why would he willfully give up his belief of paradise, his dream of eternal bliss, his joy, unless his intellectual honesty fueled by his education compelled him to be honest and reject the fantasy?

Why would he suffer slings and arrows of outrageous fortune and unrequited love, the laws delay? Why would he grunt and sweat under the burdens of a meaningless life of unfairness and emptiness, when he could embrace the promise of paradise at the mere cost of credulity, unless his honesty compelled him to?

The bible is full of accounts where people got wearied while waiting for God. Job's wife said to Job, "curse God and die". Sarah lost all patience and told Abraham to go in to the handmaid. And there are countless verses like these.....

Ps 13:1 How long wilt thou forget me, O LORD? for ever? how long wilt thou hide thy face from me?

Ps 13:2 How long shall I take counsel in my soul, having sorrow in my heart daily? how long shall mine enemy be exalted over me?

Ps 74:9 We see not our signs: there is no more any prophet: neither is there among us any that knoweth how long.

Ps 80:4 O LORD God of hosts, how long wilt thou be angry against the prayer of thy people?

Ps 89:46 How long, LORD? wilt thou hide thyself for ever? shall thy wrath burn like fire?

Learning perseverance and patience comes with great pains. Some people get discouraged and give up. Some people press on in spite of adversity. Personally I have learned that it is through much adversity that I can arise to new heights. Were there times when i felt like throwing in the towel? Heck yes. We all feel that way at times. Some people do throw in the towel. I have come to welcome those times as new challenges that will only make me wiser and stronger...

James 1: 2 Reckon it nothing but joy, my brethren, whenever you find yourselves hedged in by various trials.3 Be assured that the testing of your faith leads to power of endurance. 4 Only let endurance have perfect results so that you may become perfect and complete, deficient in nothing.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 308 by Zetesis Apistia]

The point of this discussion is that you can't just assume people stopped believing because they got angry at god or didn't have 'endurance' or any other reason that you want to will into existence to fit your preconceptions or satisfy your own needs to keep the faith.

Obviously the data in our sample here is from a very small sample and hardly a random one, but until someone does a proper study of the issue you have to accept that NO one here agrees with your bias. The data here presented is that 0% of former Christians say they left the faith because of some 'bad experience.'

To question that and claim they are 'in denial,' is simply an insult to their honesty and ability to self reflect.