My Theory On Why Some People Become Atheist's

[discus70]

The Atheists I have come across have this tendency to be extremely literal. Everything must be dissected and looked upon through a microscope.

My theory is, if most atheists have a tendency to be these literal and precise creatures, then it would be virtually impossible for them to take any religious text with a literal meaning. Once this occurs it leads that individual to question, question leads to doubt and doubt leads to other possible ways. While searching for other possibilities they end up the same answer, so on and so forth. The individual now comes to the conclusion that its not very logical to believe in a supernatural higher power.

Note. This does not apply for all atheist.


What do you guys and gals think. Also take into consideration that this is just a thought, there are no intentions behind it other then debate and conversation.


Could this literal view that some people have be a likely cause for lots of people
to become atheists?

[Galphanore]

lots of good arguments here.

This question is to all.

What are some specific traits one has to have in order to become a non-believer? I ask this because, I've meet very ignorant Christians, I've never met an ignorant atheist.

The only trait necessary to become a non-believer is the ability to stop believing. I have met some people who became atheists because they were convinced by another person that it was the right thing to do, but could no more justify their atheism then your average on-the street believer could. However, I do agree, most atheists you encounter who are willing to tell you they are atheists are reasonable and well-read. I believe, however, that is more a result of how vilified atheism is in our society then it is of an inherent intelligence requirement to become an atheist.

[Fallibleone]

lots of good arguments here.


This question is to all.


What are some specific traits one has to have in order to become a non-believer? I ask this because, I've meet very ignorant Christians, I've never met an ignorant atheist.

First of all, there are many, many ignorant atheists.

I'm not sure that it helps to think of traits, necessarily. Some people might say 'being logical', 'having critical thinking skills', 'being unafraid to not go with the flow', even 'intelligence'. But in all honesty, some these are not really 'traits', but to some extent learned abilities.

I think one of the major defining factors is your background. Additionally, it is a case of being in a psychological and physical and emotional place where one feels able to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, rather than discounting evidence which does not reflect your received views, and this will require autonomy and sometimes courage.

The only thing I have found that atheists always have in common is the lack of belief in God. Beyond that, there are certain similar opinions, but we are all different. Some people are atheists without being able to say why, so they have not necessarily arrived at atheism by 'logical' means, whereas other very learned atheists may have been involved in scientific disciplines for decades and so have seen a good strong scientific case for the non-existence of God. I am not one of those - I have a good grounding in science, but I am not what would be considered very educated in that area.

My non-belief is a mixture of inability to believe in extraordinary claims based only on what I'm told, and the tendency I seem to have to not add extraneous ingredients (God) to the mix (existence) (I'm also incredibly 'wilful', according to Mother, and will do what I want to, no matter who tells me I can't). Plus I was raised that way. I did explore other avenues fairly thoroughly, but the fact is that I ended up back where I started - as an atheist. I am satisfied that I did so because my 'investigations' led me there, but clearly there could be an argument about whether I just went back to what I knew.

[HelloDollyLlama]

It's not just the literalism that shouts out for an embrace of atheism. Even if some Christians admit that you can't take the whole thing literally...then what? The notion would be that you can embrace the parts of the Bible to like and ignore the others. But what is worth embracing? Some of the commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and little else. Even the sweet little parables reek of "love God or else".

And the rest of it? The "science" of Genesis, the appalling religious laws in the rest of the Pentateuch, the genocide and ethnic cleansing demanded by God in the Pentateuch, Joshua and Samuel, the sheer pornography of Song of Songs, the fortune cookie nonsense of Proverbs, the interminable "we love Jehovah" crap in Psalms, several books asserting that it was okay for Jehovah to promise the Jews Israel and then break his word and allow the Babylonians to destroy Israel, silly prophecies, flawed and mutually contradictory Gospels, the drug-induced hallucination of Revelation....


So for me, even cafeteria-style Christianity doesn't work. Because it is based on lies and logical fallacy, and has nothing positive to offer that the Greek philosophers from Aristotle to Zeno weren't already offering anyway.

[Cathar1950]

I can’t speak for atheists even if I were once an atheist. I was also a theist, deist among others. There is not just one form of atheism any more then there is just one form of theism or any other –isms.

I don’t think the atheist problem is they are too literal as I am sure they are capable of complex abstract thought and all the meanings and uses of language.
I think it was Whitehead that said atheisms was an appropriate response to bad theology and repugnant views of God.
.
I often see the bible believer theists take story, myth, metaphor, allegory and analogy literally with some odd results.

[catalyst]

The only trait necessary to become a non-believer is the ability to stop believing.

It may be the only trait required but it is a battle to get there. By battle I mean .... It is very difficult to admit to yourself you have been living a very comfortable lie and opting to tackle life on your own terms instead.

discus wrote:

My theory is, if most atheists have a tendency to be these literal and precise creatures, then it would be virtually impossible for them to take any religious text with a literal meaning. Once this occurs it leads that individual to question, question leads to doubt and doubt leads to other possible ways. While searching for other possibilities they end up the same answer, so on and so forth. The individual now comes to the conclusion that its not very logical to believe in a supernatural higher power.

There are many atheists out there however, who were once "of faith". I am one of them. I began my questioning from the "inside" and as I did have it in me to question or at least , it was the beginning of my removal from not only xianity but ANY god concept as a whole. I appreciate the beauty of the repeated and also-ran mythologies but that is it these days.

[Angel]

The Atheists I have come across have this tendency to be extremely literal. Everything must be dissected and looked upon through a microscope.

My theory is, if most atheists have a tendency to be these literal and precise creatures, then it would be virtually impossible for them to take any religious text with a literal meaning. Once this occurs it leads that individual to question, question leads to doubt and doubt leads to other possible ways. While searching for other possibilities they end up the same answer, so on and so forth. The individual now comes to the conclusion that its not very logical to believe in a supernatural higher power.

Note. This does not apply for all atheist.

What do you guys and gals think. Also take into consideration that this is just a thought, there are no intentions behind it other then debate and conversation.


Could this literal view that some people have be a likely cause for lots of people
to become atheists?[/quote]


I don't think it has to do with literalism as much as it does reason and empiricism. If an atheist reads the Bible, some or most of them would probably read the Bible in light of those two factors, and come out not accepting much since much of religion does not fit into what can be readily observed and reasoned out.

[Cathar1950]

The Atheists I have come across have this tendency to be extremely literal. Everything must be dissected and looked upon through a microscope.

My theory is, if most atheists have a tendency to be these literal and precise creatures, then it would be virtually impossible for them to take any religious text with a literal meaning. Once this occurs it leads that individual to question, question leads to doubt and doubt leads to other possible ways. While searching for other possibilities they end up the same answer, so on and so forth. The individual now comes to the conclusion that its not very logical to believe in a supernatural higher power.

Note. This does not apply for all atheist.

What do you guys and gals think. Also take into consideration that this is just a thought, there are no intentions behind it other then debate and conversation.


Could this literal view that some people have be a likely cause for lots of people
to become atheists?

I don't think it has to do with literalism as much as it does reason and empiricism. If an atheist reads the Bible, some or most of them would probably read the Bible in light of those two factors, and come out not accepting much since much of religion does not fit into what can be readily observed and reasoned out.[/quote]
It Seems to me that we should rightly doubt claims about the ultimate nature, purpose and meaning of the universe and God especially when they fail when it comes to reason and/or empiricism. There is little other justifications especially when the explanations are claims..
I think it is more likely that many atheists rightly object to literalisms when it comes to God when metaphors are more likely and better understood.

[jace]

Someone said that they thought most people willing to admit to being atheist are well read and thoughtful. I agree to that, but I think it also applys to atheists unwilling to admit it. I think that part is more a matter of how accepting the climate is and how willing you are to be taboo. Personally living in utah as a teenager, you would be ostracised and iudiculed if you told anyone other than your closest friends.

Someone also said He'd never met an ignorant atheist. I've unfortunately met a few. The thing is that in my case the people would quickly phase back into theism after making enough shock and awe and not even thknking about why they were atheist other than to displease mummy. Short term atheists are one of the most frustrating things I've ever encountered.


So I'd say that some common traits I've seen in real atheists are, non ignorance, logic, and thoughtfulness.

[xSilverPhinx]

The Atheists I have come across have this tendency to be extremely literal. Everything must be dissected and looked upon through a microscope.

My theory is, if most atheists have a tendency to be these literal and precise creatures, then it would be virtually impossible for them to take any religious text with a literal meaning. Once this occurs it leads that individual to question, question leads to doubt and doubt leads to other possible ways. While searching for other possibilities they end up the same answer, so on and so forth. The individual now comes to the conclusion that its not very logical to believe in a supernatural higher power.

Note. This does not apply for all atheist.


What do you guys and gals think. Also take into consideration that this is just a thought, there are no intentions behind it other then debate and conversation.


Could this literal view that some people have be a likely cause for lots of people
to become atheists?

Interpreting the bible poses a problem because if it's not meant to be taken literally (and leaving problems with translations aside) then it must be interpreted subjectively, at least partly. If only some parts are to be interpreted literally, then which? Does it state clearly in the bible itself? It makes it all the more difficult to know exactly which interpretation is "right" and why, without simply basing it on circular reasoning (the bible is true because the bible is true) or appeals to authority (because so-and-so says it's true). And neither of those appeal much to most atheists.

Literal would the closest to objectivity and testable, and also...the most absurd.

[ThatGirlAgain]

The Atheists I have come across have this tendency to be extremely literal. Everything must be dissected and looked upon through a microscope.

My theory is, if most atheists have a tendency to be these literal and precise creatures, then it would be virtually impossible for them to take any religious text with a literal meaning. Once this occurs it leads that individual to question, question leads to doubt and doubt leads to other possible ways. While searching for other possibilities they end up the same answer, so on and so forth. The individual now comes to the conclusion that its not very logical to believe in a supernatural higher power.

Note. This does not apply for all atheist.


What do you guys and gals think. Also take into consideration that this is just a thought, there are no intentions behind it other then debate and conversation.


Could this literal view that some people have be a likely cause for lots of people
to become atheists?

Interpreting the bible poses a problem because if it's not meant to be taken literally (and leaving problems with translations aside) then it must be interpreted subjectively, at least partly. If only some parts are to be interpreted literally, then which? Does it state clearly in the bible itself? It makes it all the more difficult to know exactly which interpretation is "right" and why, without simply basing it on circular reasoning (the bible is true because the bible is true) or appeals to authority (because so-and-so says it's true). And neither of those appeal much to most atheists.

Literal would the closest to objectivity and testable, and also...the most absurd.

It seems to me that which parts should be taken literally or metaphorcally or poetically or whatever should be based on how the original audience wold have understood it. Different parts had different audiences and the respective authors had various intentions. My approach is to read the various interpretations given by others and see if they make sense to me in the context of the works themselves and the way they would likely be received originally.