Herein we will consider when and why certain personages became Atheists. We will parse these into Statistics, Influential Atheists, Ex-Catholics, Ex-Hindus and Hoi Polloi Atheists. As of now, I list the tales of 107 Atheists. You can find them all at the When and Why They Became Atheists Project page.
These examples are taken from Quora.
Binay Sahoo: Claims, “Staunch Theist turned Atheist by Logical Awakening” and also notes, “I was born into staunch Hindu Family, renounced religion while crossing adolescence.” Thus, one reason given is “Logical Awakening” and another is “crossing adolescence”; we shall see if the logical awakening coincided with crossing adolescence or not.
Beyond Hinduism, “I was exposed another spiritual organisation, this time a Buddhist one” and Buddhism is a sect or cult of Hinduism.
Main points:
“around 19 yrs of age…The Spiritual Teachings started appearing baseless garbage.”
Binay notes that “All of the fundamental principles, rules & regulations, of Religion and spiritualism appeared fraudulent. Every such damn organisation felt to be cheating money out of gullible & desperate preys.”
As is very stereotypical, this is a generic enough statement to be virtually meaningless. That which “appears fraudulent to Binay is merely subjective. It is certainly true that there are some organizations that cheat money out of gullible, etc. but to make an all-encompassing generic claim is merely prejudice.
Binay notes, “Here I am. A converted Atheist, not giving a damn about Religion, religious practices, concepts and associated myths & superstitions.” The last statement of note is a bit difficult to discern due to Binay’s slightly broken English, “As a result a some of religious activities. All of spiritual sessions & superstitious beliefs has vanished from my family. Its just the Faith in the ‘Almighty’ thats left, and I’m not forcing anyone into my beliefs.”
Alwyn Brannewyn van Deventer:
Begins by noting, “I have superpowers” and that he “became an Atheist after asking many questions.”
Main points: No age given. The above statement actually continues with “…and not getting any answers. Or the answers being so open to interpretation that they aren’t really answers at all.” He elucidates some of these question as follows, “I also have a very curious mind, and thus continuously ask questions about what I experience. ‘Where did God come from?’ ‘How can God always have existed?’ ‘How big was Noah’s boat to fit all the animals?’” Well, answers to such as easy but the issue is why Alwyn decided to claim “open to interpretation” and claim that they were not answered as per his subjective standards.
Where did God come from? This presupposes that God came from somewhere and to somewhere. The answer is actually a lead up to the second question.
How can God always have existed? We live within a time, space, matter continuum which is our universe. Genesis 1:1 states, “In the beginning [time] God created the heavens [space] and the earth [matter].” We otherwise know that the universe had a beginning, just as the Bible states, and it is logical to conclude that since time had a beginning, whatever brought the universe about was outside, beyond, not subject to time, timeless, eternal.
How big was Noah’s boat to fit all the animals? All what animals? This is important to ask since many mistakenly think that, for example, Noah had to fit every single species (whatever that means) of canine—multiply this by every species of every animal and the numbers add up very quickly. However, the Bible speaks in terms of animal kinds which appears to refer to animals that can mate with each other. Thus, only one canine male and female kind were needed—subtract this by every kind of every animal and the numbers reduce very quickly. A good place to start on the details of this question is the book Noah’s Ark: A Feasibility Study by John Woodmorappe.
Alwyn notes, “Then I also experienced the attitude that religious people have when someone asks them as many questions. Even though they are perfectly legitimate questions, they were many times seen as an attack towards the faith of the other person.” This may be the case as it seems to be a natural response. For example, I experienced the attitude that Atheists have when someone asks them as many questions. Even though they are perfectly legitimate questions, they were many times seen as an attack towards the worldview-philosophy of the other person. For instance, Atheists tend to take evolution, which is supposed to be a theory about biology and turn it into a worldview-philosophy. This is why so many of them get unhinged when you question something which is supposed to only pertain to issue relating to biology—they take it as you poking at the core of their worldview-philosophy.
He also notes, “I started becoming interested in cosmology, and started teaching myself about the Big Bang, physics and the way the universe works and behaves…things started making more sense…simply proves that it’s correct.” Well, those are important sciences yet, they are pretty soft as far as the sciences go since they are largely based on mathematical models about which cosmologists philosophize. We do not so much know how universe works and behaves as much as what certain people tell us about how the universe works and behaves.
Worse yet, “I learned about people like Carl Sagan and Richard Feynman. I watched so many of their shows and recordings it’s not even funny.” No, it is not funny when, for example, you note that the very premise of Sagan’s Cosmos show was the motto, “The cosmos is all that is or was or will ever be”: this is a 100% non-scientific “faith” based statement. Why does Alwyn not ask, “Where did the cosmos come from?”, learn more about Sagan and Feynman here and here.
As is stereotypical of many Atheists, the first complain that they “became an Atheist after asking many questions, and not getting any answers. Or the answers being so open to interpretation that they aren’t really answers at all,” etc. and then they end up stating words to the effect of, as in this case, Sagan and Feynman, “made me come to terms with the fact that many things will stay unknown, and that’s actually great.”
He also wrote, “If the answer to everything was ‘God made it’, it would not be very exciting at all and thus, when I became an Atheist I didn’t ‘loose’ anything, I actually gained a lot.” What?! He gained the fact that many things will stay unknown, and that’s actually great?! Well, another stereotypical Atheist fallacy is to not understand that there various kinds, forms or levels of answers or explanations. God made it is a sort of answer just like life just happens to have happened is a sort of answer. Yet, if we ask just how God made it and ask just how life happened then we are on to a different sort of answer: more of a step by step scientific one.
Lastly, he notes, “I got rid of the idea that the universe needs a God to exist, the universe became so much more amazing, and absolutely stunning that for the first time you see things for what they really are.” What?! He now sees things for what they really are even though the fact is that many things will stay unknown, and that’s actually great?! This is part of that about which I wrote in Atheism Spirituality which is that Atheists take the pop-science-theories-de jour, assume that they are infallibly true, use them to besmirch religions and turn them into a styled spirituality.
Thus, he got rid of the idea that, for some unstated reason, the universe needs a God to exist. He does not seem to ask “Where did the universe come from?” but he already referenced the Big Bang so apparently, it can just happen to happen—no one caused nothing to explode for no reason. Yet, the universe is now his god since getting rid of God means that, for some unstated reason, the universe became so much more amazing and absolutely stunning. This is, apparently, because according to his subjective standards it is an accident and for some unstated reason an accident not only results in an amazing and absolutely stunning object but one that was populated by being who could discern this amazing and absolutely stunning object.
Danny Karg:
Notes that becoming an Atheist, “was a lifelong process for me of simply having too many questions about God, and finding too few answers, or none.”
Main points:
No age given.
We have dealt with this again and again, Atheists claiming that they asked question and got no answers.
Stereotypically, we run into Catholicism yet again:
I was raised Catholic, and spend most of my life as a Catholic, although I always had trouble with my faith, and the things I was told to believe in. I called myself Christian, but in my heart I never really was one. I was getting too much contradicting information, and things just didn’t add up for me…
I’ve spoken to priests and others about the problems I had with God, to no avail. Not only was I told there are no real answers to my questions, but also that I shouldn’t even be asking them. Nice.
Interestingly, I am not and have never been a Catholic but my experience with Christianity is that Christians are people who asked all sorts of skeptical questions and got a lot of great answers even if they had to search them out for themselves. The fact that Danny writes, “Bishop, a super-priest!” denotes how Catholics view their clergy and why they are so devastated when the clergy does something untoward.
Then there is that ever present Catholic guilt, “As any good Catholic will tell you, if something is wrong, it’s their fault.”
Danny notes that some of his questions were:
“God is all-loving, all-caring, all-wise, and only wants the best for us.” Hmm, but don’t we also love to tell the story about how God got mad that one time and drowned nearly everyone on Earth? Or what about all those great old-timey stories about God encouraging genocide, or him just plain smiting some bothersome sinners? That sounds more like we created God in our image (as people have always done), not the other way around.
Now, upon what premise does Danny condemn drowning nearly everyone on Earth, genocide, smiting sinners or anything? Well, he bases it on his bio-chemical neural reactions called emotions. Thus, he cannot condemn anything at all.
He also does not tell us what is inconsistent about God being all-loving, all-caring, all-wise and only wanting the best for us even whilst performing those noted actions. In fact, he also does not state why he is condemning being inconsistent. As one myopic example, let us imagine that I am the all-loving, all-caring, all-wise and only wanting the best for my family; does this mean that I could not also kill someone who breaks into my home to harm my family? It answers itself.
Another of Danny’s question is:
“God is omniscient, and omnipotent; he sees all, and there’s nothing he can’t do.”
So why is it that for years I tried to get God to give me a sign, any tiny sign at all, that he existed, with no luck?
It is actually a stereotypical misconception to think, within the biblical context, that “there’s nothing” God “can’t do.” God can only take those actions which are commensurate with His holy nature. Thus, the Bible states that “God cannot lie” (Titus 1:2). Yet, Danny’s point is that God should have known that Danny spent years trying to get God to give him a sign but God did not so God must not be omniscient, omnipotent, sees all and therefore, God is not.
I do not mean to be un-empathetic but this is a stereotypical Atheist claim which results in the effect that God must do that which the Atheists demands or else the Atheist will deny God. The fact is that, for example, within a parable of Jesus’, he quotes Abraham as stating that if they do not believe in Moses and the prophets then they will not believe even if someone rises from the dead (see Luke 16). Also, Jesus played on this concept again in noting, “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas: For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matthew 12:39-40).
Danny notes, “I one day just came to the point of saying what if? I’m a man of logic, so what if I apply Occam’s Razor here?” as I have noted again and again, those who appeal to Occam’s Razor the most seem to understand it the least and utterly ignore Occam’s Razor when it is not convenient to them such as when they want to claim the unproven existence of the multiverse. We can also discern his stereotypically childish Atheist theology when he writes, “Is it likely that the entire universe was created by, and controlled by, an all-powerful wizard who refuses to show himself?” We can also discern his stereotypically erroneous Atheist theology when he writes, “Is it likely he can read my thoughts, that he’s in every cell of my body, in fact everywhere in all of creation, but can’t be found?” I have certainly never heard anyone claim that God in every cell of our bodies and everywhere in all of creation except, maybe, within pantheistic theology which is not within the context of Danny’s reference to the God of the Bible.
Perhaps, as some have noted, an Atheist claims that God cannot be found for the same reason that a thief cannot find a police officer.
Again demonstrating undeveloped childish Atheist theology, Danny asks, “is it more likely that there simply is no God? Does that explain more? For me, it was like waking up. Giving up the dream of God wasn’t easy, just like I hated to learn that there was no Santa Claus, but there it is.” Thus, he is positively affirming God’s non-existence and must therefore prove it, he does not.
Yet, in stereotypical Atheist fashion, he does affirm God or rather, a god of his own making as he states, “Now math is my God” and this is that which he finds in “every cell of my body” as math “contains all the harmony, truth, spirituality and beauty” and we are back to the aforementioned Atheist spirituality.
What is interesting is that, as Cornelius Van Til has noted, an Atheist can count but cannot account for counting. In other words, a randomly and accidentally existing universe cannot account for how intelligibility such as linear chronology, cause and effect, the possibility of orderly numbers can occur. Same with aesthetics, beauty, against what is Danny determining what is beauty? Preference is in the eye of the beholder but beauty is not for if beauty is merely in the eye of the beholder then there is no beauty but merely preference.
Also, were are back to why a thief cannot find a police officer when Danny states that with math there is “No judgment, no punishment, it just… is” (ellipses in original). Is “No judgment, no punishment” a merely unexpected convenient side effect or is that was Danny was looking for in a god? It answers itself. He also wrote, “This mortal life is all we have, and it’s finally enough for me.” I know a pastor that told me that when he was a young unbeliever, he was very pleased to believe that this mortal life is all we have, and it’s finally enough for me since he wanted to ensure that he got away with whatever he wanted to do: “No judgment, no punishment” is a desired end.
Lastly, interestingly, Danny does not seem to ask “too many questions about” math or any whatsoever since he is happily giving us the non-answer of “it just… is.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Twitter: #atheism, #atheists
Facebook: #atheism, #atheists
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page.
I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help out. Here is my donate/paypal page.