Month: August 2016

When and why they became Atheists – Hoi Polloi Atheists, 23

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.

Anonymous:
This Anon. is “the daughter of Agnostic-Atheist parents…My father was an incredibly smart, successful, well-educated man, and he was a very vocal Atheist. He showed respect to everyone’s beliefs, but he despised religions, had something negative to say about every one of them, and always talked about how illogical the whole concept was.”

Main points:
16-18 yrs old.

Sadly, the statements are far too generic as, for example, just what does “smart” mean, “book smart,” “street smart” what? For example, daddy respected beliefs he despised—go figure. We are also told that he appealed to logic but not how or if he premised it on anything or merely assumed it nor why logic is some sort of virtue.

Due to grandma and family friend she was acquainted with Muslims, Jews and Christians who, “never introduced their beliefs as facts, they introduced them as just beliefs.” She notes that “Neither of my parents ever told me about Santa, any fictional story, or, God in a way that would make me believe they were real…I have never been religious, but I considered the option there might have been a God. Until high school.” She notes that she “wanted to believe in a God” because “who wouldn’t like it if an invisible power could help your father heal from the disease he has, help your childhood crush to develop feelings for you, protect you when you’re alone?” With these sorts of presuppositions in mind she states that she began reading the Bible and thought various things I will list and reply to one by one:

“The God I pictured is more loving than this” God is not required to adhere to our preconceived notions of Him. In fact, doing so would mean that we are God’s god.

“This doesn’t make any sense” yet, as we have seen time and time again, this is merely a subjective assertion based on credulity and incredulity.

“No word about dinosaurs?” yet, we are not told why the Bible should mention them. Moreover, she did not seem to have read the Book of Job, for example, which mentions the Behemoth and Leviathan the description of which is certainly akin to forms of dinosaurs (see Job chaps 40 and 41, not surprisingly, Job is the oldest book in the Bible).

“How come nothing like that happens today?” this is merely a presupposition which assumed omniscience as she claims to know this is a fact and also does not explain why such things should still occur.

“If God does control the world like this, why are there children and puppies in pain? If we say children are in pain because humans betrayed God, what is a puppy’s fault?” note the Atheist theology: if God is then X would be the case but since X is not the case then God is not. This also does not tell us why pain is condemnable, wrong, evil, bad, etc.

“God created everything, and an angel HE created betrayed him? And now whole humanity pays for his crime?? What did I do?!” firstly, Satan is not an Angel, he is a Cherub. Technically, whole humanity pays for Adam and Eve’s crime because we are a global village. Yet, since we are not told why any of this is condemnable, wrong, evil, bad, etc. then there is nothing to which we must reply.

Within the last statement this Atheist speaks volumes as it is shockingly honest, “my logic and scientific facts finally suppressed my wish to believe in a God.” Firstly, generic logic and generic science are appealed to but we are not told what, how or why but we are, apparently, supposed to be impressed. Note the key point which is that her “wish to believe in a God” was not proved to be wrong or any such thing but remained and was “suppressed.”
Romans 1 notes that “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them.”

why2batheism-1345170

Alan Cohen:
He refers to himself as a “Rabid atheist” and he may want to wipe the foam from his mouth and actually engage in critical thinking as this is a short paragraph statement beginning with “I grew up in an orthodox Jewish family. Genesis, started me down the road” and asks two questions.

Main points:
No age given.

“Why are there 2 stories about the creation of man?” For the same reason that a good newspaper story begins with an intro paragraph that provides main facts succinctly and then the story progresses filling in details. Genesis 1 provides succinct facts and Genesis 2 provides details.

“What happened to Lilith?” Well, what happened to her is that she is not biblical and was invented by folklorists and thus, is a non-issue, see here.

Anonymous:
I have a lot in common with this Anon. as they notes, “I underwent the seriously difficult time of outing myself to my parents as an atheist” and I underwent the seriously difficult time of outing myself to my parents as an Christian.

Main points:
No age given.

Thus, there were difficulties even though the parents, “are not very religious people.” Anon. “became an atheist almost entirely through satire” which actually make a lot of sense. This is an utterly perfect example of how a little knowledge (very, very little) compounded with lack of skepticism and basing one’s views on emotions leads to poor conclusions. It is notes “When I read quotes from the bible” meaning un-contextual thought fragments, “denouncing homosexuality and that seem to treat women as second class citizens” note that is merely “seem” to and that is good enough by golly, “that prescribe genocide as an answer and that ban the wearing of mixed fabric clothing, I asked myself, should I really believe in this?”

And that is the end of it, apparently the answer was “No.” However, we are not told why we should even believe that there is anything wrong, bad, evil, etc. with denouncing homosexuality, treating women as second class citizens (which is the opposite of that which the Bible teaches, see here), genocide, bans on wearing of mixed fabric clothing, etc. and so the Atheist pulled the rug out directly from under themselves and left themselves no footing on which to condemn anything at all.

Stephen Tingate:
He notes, “my parents werent religious…allow me to make up my own mind” in other words, began with a tendency toward Atheism and raise according to the myth of neutrality.

Main points:
No age given.

He notes, “We were taught about religion at school” and he thought, “it was ‘a good story’ and nothing more” as if this is some sort of argument.

He also merely asserts an argument from subjective incredulity, “I found it hard and still do that people can ever convince themselves thats its real.”

Lastly, he note, “My view is that religion is a convenient where because people can say oh thats how everything was created and ah even better i dont gave to worry about what happens when i die!” This is to say virtually nothing as, for example, for many Christians “religion is” not “a convenient” but brings them persecution, torture and death, it does provide us the “why” regarding the creation and what, exactly, is supposed to be the problem with not having to worry about what happens when I die?

Stephen merely asserts many things rather than premising, arguing and coming to conclusions.

Max Jones:
He simply admits that he lives in a bubble, “The majority of the people I know are and always have been atheist. Its people that are religious that have that coming out thing going.”

Main points:
No age given but from birth is implied.

Seems to base views on one of the various definitions of Atheism which is a mere lack of belief in god(s).

Gil Cosson:
Just as above, Gil plays off of only one view on or definition of Atheism and asserts, without evidence or argument, that “People are all newborn atheists.”

Main points:
From birth.

Gil then writes, “Then socialized/indoctrinated into the family belief system” which is committing the logical genetic fallacy.

There is only one more sentence to this one which is “Apply Occam’s razor to the world. Go with your heart.”
Well, Occam’s Razor cuts both ways and Atheists throw it away when they want to appeal to the multiverse. Lastly, note that Gil admits to relying on emotions for his position.

Richard Smith:
This one is just as short, sour and fallacious as Gil’s beginning with a myopic definition of Atheism, “Everyone was born atheist!!!”

Main points:
From birth.

“Your indoctrination to religion began at the christening or whatever equivalent in religions other than Christianity” this denotes a logical genetic fallacy.

Jean-Philippe Le Picard: He simply offers a one liner, “How and why did you stop believing that Santa Claus brings presents at Christmas?”

This denotes a childish and thus, undeveloped theology, logic and philosophy as correlating Santa and God is to commit a category error.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.

When and why they became Atheists – Hoi Polloi Atheists, 22

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.

Nicholas Rebel:
This one contains the one authoritative and myopic restrictive definition of Atheism as per, “Everyone is born an athiest and my dad made sure I stayed that way by encouraging science and telling me bed time stories about astronomy, physics, and biology instead of religion.”

Main points:
From birth.

Seems to have followed in daddy’s footsteps from Atheism to logical fallacies as dichotomizing science and religion is a false dichotomy: at least from the stand point of the Bible, believers in which designed the scientific method, established its fields and were the world’s greatest scientists.

The only other statement is “My mother did take me to church once, a Unitarian Univeralist denomination” which is like saying that she took him to an Atheist meeting for all it is worth, see here.

Dom Kane: This is a literal one liner, “People become atheist through education.” Note that this conflicts with other definitions of Atheism we have had Atheist demand are the only true definition. For example, some demand that we are all born Atheists and yet, Dom notes that one becomes one.

Also, since it is merely asserted that “People become atheist through education” but we are not told how, why or to what so called “education” he is referring this is a meaningless assertion. Actually, people become atheist through malinformation, misinformation, disinformation, etc. see VIDEO: Are we born presuppositional theists that have to be taught to deny God? (Justin Barrett lecture).

why2batheism-6198512

Theis Poulsen:
Theis also “became” an Atheist, “I became an atheist when I went to a boarding school and was told to read through the bible.”

Main points:
No age given.

“was told to read through the bible” implies that Theis read it yet, “I didn’t stop there, I looked through hundreds of pages of information from Science, Christianity, Islam etc.” Theis then merely makes unfounded assertions and leaves it at that “And I made up my mind. There is no god, or afterlife. When we die there is nothing.”
Note that this is merely Atheist “faith” based dogmatheism and authoritatively asserted without argument or evidence.

Anonymous:
Anon. is from India and “my community while I was growing up consisted only of staunch believers in Christianism. My grandparents would say grace before every meal, say a short prayer whenever a friend or family member left for a short trip, tell me to read the Bible every night, and so on.”

Main points:
No age given.

Things began to go wrong when at 10 yrs old we are told that “My paternal granddad” told him that God “was there to protect us all from bad things happening,” etc. The problem is that this is far too generic.
Add to this that “My maternal grandmom was the guilt-trip expert” then “My step-dad… well he is like Russell Peter’s dad. ‘Pray and read the Bible, or somebady gonna getta hurt real bad’” (ellipses in original).

At 12 yrs old “I tried believing that God was siphoning my worries out of me…I started thinking about death for the first time, and I was scared…I remembered the story of going to heaven, and I calmed down. Death can’t be so bad.”

16 yrs old and this Atheist hits the teen rebellion stereotype on the head, “the rebel phase came. I was not scared anymore of thinking and doing things my family told me not to.” They also fall into the “science” vs. “religion” false dichotomy stereotype, “I started loving science…everything it could to find out how the world worked. And the best part? Scientists actually conducted tests and showed their theories to be true (or false). They made sure that science facts are only those statements which are true whether a person chooses to believe in them or not. To this day no one has shown me any proof of God’s existence, or lack of.”
Well, such is the manner whereby science is supposed to be done and also, Anon. stumbles into noting that science is about “how” but does not seem to note that it states nothing about “why”? As to “proof of God’s existence, or lack of” since Anon. demands proof and not evidence then they are wanting to be utterly convinced and yet, since they do not inform us as to what proof of God’s existence, or lack of would look like, what are their standards, then we are at a loss.

However, while they have a problem being religious without such proof, they have no problem being an Atheist without such proof.

And we come full circle to what good ol’ granddad told them and this was followed with “All the things that Christians told me along the way… the worst being ‘believe in Him and your troubles are gone’” (ellipses in original) which is un-, non- and anti-biblical as one mere example is enough to show, “in this world you will have trouble” (John 16:33).
Thus, false doctrine leads to wrong conclusions and yet, Anon. ran with it rather than concluding that such claims are un-, non- and anti-biblical. Rather, Anon. turns to the problem of evil and yet, when they condemn “hundreds of innocent children will no longer die everyday from stillbirth, earthquakes, tsunamis, hunger and diseases” they offer no premise upon which to condemn any of and it and thus gives us no reason to think that there is anything wrong, bad, evil, etc. with such things.

We should empathize with the emotive nature of the fact that, as Anon. follows from the above false claims, “Yeah sure, that’s why my granddad died in pain in a car crash, despite believing in God. Yeah sure, that’s why my own dad died when I was just 3 years old, and left my mom to take care of me all by herself.” So we have the stereotypes of the father being absentee due to death and also the pain of the grandad’s death. Of course, we are not told why any of these things are bad, wrong, evil, etc.

Anon. “soon realized two things”:

1. Some people believe in God because they are so thoroughly fooled into doing so by their elders, who themselves were fooled by someone else. And very few of them stopped believing in God when they got older because it was also taught that all atheists are ‘Satans’. Well played, Christians. I’m an atheist but I still try to be nice to my fellow human beings. I don’t need the Bible to tell me that I must do no harm.

Some people Atheists do not believe in God because they are so thoroughly fooled into doing so by their elders, who themselves were fooled by someone else. Yet, Anon. committed the logical genetic fallacy. Also, Anon.’s is merely a myopic prejudicial statement as, for example, some people believe in God because they are so thoroughly skeptical in a true and honest manner, etc.
I am unsure who it is that “taught that all atheists are ‘Satans’” but such is the nature of generic assertions. Now, he may not need the Bible to tell them that they must do no harm but it is God’s law written on their hearts which tells them such.

2. Other people believe in God because it helps them cope in difficult times, like how it helped me at the age of 12 when I feared death. I’m not an atheist anymore, but I don’t fear death either. I just manned up and accepted it at some point.

So then this is an apparent conversion to and then away from Atheism and to what have you. Anon. ends by noting “I’m a grown man now, and only logic dictates my life” which is ironic as there is no evidence of that as their statements have been utterly illogical. Also, Anon. does not tell us why reliance on logic is desirable nor what logic is nor whence it comes, etc.

Lastly, Anon. merely asserts that “If you tell me something, I will ask you why it is so. I will never accept anything just on your whims and be satisfied with the answer” and yet, Anon. did not tell us “why” various of their claims are so but merely asserted them at a whim.

Lastly, we circle back to “Show me proof that God exists, and I will believe in Him again” and yet, they want proof not evidence, do not define what such proof would be, they think that such proof will lead to belief and of course, belief in does not necessarily result in love and/or worship of God. If God was proven then Atheists would hate Him even more due to the fact that He exists.

Mike Rumore:
Mike seems to think himself clever and merely makes some assertions, “I believe in all gods equally. My atheist coming-out story is identical to my a-astrology coming-out story and my a-phrenology coming-out story and my a-numerology coming-out story. None. No story at all.”

Main points:
No age given.

Seems to imply from birth which means adherence to a myopic authoritative definition of Atheism.

Anonymous:
Another virtual one liner consisting of “I thought about religion and mythology and it stopped making sense.”

Main points:
No age given.

As we have seen time and again, this Anon. seems to think that “stopped making sense” is some sort of argument or evidence when it is merely a subjective assertion.
Also wrote, “it became really simple how religions would have been developed” which is to commit a logical genetic fallacy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.

When and why they became Atheists – Hoi Polloi Atheists, 21

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.

Harry Cardillo:
This one is more of an advice column as Harry deals with the issue in terms of “coming out” and recommends, for example, “search YouTube for explanations or stories of other atheists.” Not surprisingly, Harry’s was merely a very slightly edited statement that he merely copied and pasted from “How to Come out As Transgender.”

Anonymous:
Anon. refers to their parents taking them to temple and that “mostly I went there to ring the bells…Then I grew up a little more I read about stuff…I started realizing that the mythology that I learned when I was a child were just stories.”

Main points:
No age given.

The rest of the story denotes a Hindu background. Following from the above, Anon. states, “How could there have been Hanuman the flying Monkey king who burned the whole of Lanka with his lit up tail?” Yet, at this time, whenever that was, “there was still a part of me that believed that there is God.”

In college “I realized the true meaning of loneliness…having moved to a new place and then to be so isolated really took a toll on me…I got really depressed and I tried to find solace in the concept of God. The only problem is that you can’t hope for a reply from an entity that doesn’t exist.” Thus, by this time, Anon. asserted God’s non-existence (without evidence) and appears to have done so as the result of emotions.

I do not know which came first chronologically yet, Anon. writes, “I started reading philosophical arguments against the supernatural and then I started reading about arguments against the concept of a deity.”

Interestingly, since there are so many sects/denominations of Atheism some claim that we are all born Atheists yet, Anon. claims, “Becoming an atheist is a process of realization.”

why2batheism-3889406

Matt Whitby: Matt managed to write two short sentences.

“Everyone is born as an atheist” which, as we have seen numerous times, is purposefully narrowing the various definitions of Atheism for a selfserving purpose.

Main points:
From birth.

His only other statement is “Reading books keeps you that way” which is generic enough to mean precisely nothing.

Paul Hsieh: Some Atheists like inventing fanciful terms for themselves such as Paul did by referring to himself as a “lifelong unindoctrinated anti-beliefist.”

As above, he too offers a myopically inaccurate definition of Atheism in asserting, “To become an atheist all you need to do is be born.”

Main points:
From birth.

He only writes one more thing which is that in order to remain an Atheist you have to ensure that you are indoctrinated, “The tricky part is staying atheist. And for that you need to avoid indoctrination. Or if you become indoctrinated, you need to find some way to escape it.”
You see, in having the specific goal of remaining an Atheist you must ensure that you are remaining indoctrinated and if you for some odd reason slip from Atheism you must escape back into it: this is pure indoctrination even if done by oneself to oneself.

Omkar Naik:
Omkar notes “I grew up. I realised that religion promotes discrimination. It forces choices on people.” Of course, as an Atheist, he does not seem to realize that Atheism promotes discrimination. In fact, it is a premise of Atheism to promote discrimination. Also, anything forces choices on people from religion to Atheism and from a restaurant’s menu to a fork in the road.

Main points:
No age given.

Omkar notes “I wont ever go force my own thoughts about religion on anyone, i will however point out to people when they might be hurting someone else or themselves due to it.” You will note that the first statement is a manner whereby to deny what he states in the second. When he points out to people that they might be hurting someone else or themselves due to religion, he is, of course, forcing his thoughts about religion on them. Yet, he would surely deny contradicting themselves by claiming that “force” is not that which he does.

Yet, overall this is a non-issue as they are assuming that there is something wrong with forcing one’s thoughts about religion on someone else but not telling how or why. However, they do stated “I have enough self belief to know whats right & whats wrong” even though we are not told how they know but the point is that Omkar knows what is right and wrong and is telling us that forcing one’s thoughts about religion on someone is wrong and wrong based on their “self belief.”

Now, even though Omkar knows right and wrong and “religion promotes discrimination. It forces choices on people” Omkar still states, “I do not hate religion” so maybe it is not so bad after all.

Lastly, Omkar seems to trail off a bit in writing, “I also know that helping others isnt about them but about making yourself feel better. I dont need to pick who I help & how I treat someone because to me they all are equal (unless and untill they prove me wrong).” Omkar seems to be playing off of the context of discrimination and yet, for example, Christianity has a 2,000 year history of helping anyone and everyone whilst Atheism has a very short history of the exact opposite, see Atheist Charity.

Eric Silverman:
This one is a two sentence one beginning with, “I don’t I ever really believed in god, and when I reached intellectual maturity I couldn’t reconcile the conflicts that I had always been cognizant of. [sic.]”

Main points:
From birth.

He merely genetically refers to “conflicts” but does not state what they were.
The second statement is not only just as generic but myopic and prejudicial, “Also, I’ve always questioned why believers aren’t more critical of what they accept as truth and why.” I’ve always questioned why Atheists aren’t more critical of what they accept as truth and why and also why Eric does not question why he believes that believers aren’t more critical of what they accept as truth and why.

Steven Noble:
This one paragraph statement denotes the ex-Catholic stereotype, “I was raised to be a Catholic, but I never believed in god simply because the idea of god, to me at least, was unbelievable.”

Main points:
From birth.

As we have seen time and time and time again very many of the Atheists under consideration merely assert claims in a generic manner, “I never believed” and “was unbelievable” is an expression of incredulity and not an argument or evidence.
The second statement is just the same, “I never actually became an atheist. I wasn’t born with a god-belief that I lost. I just never acquired a god-belief in the first place.” Well, “I wasn’t born with” and “I just never” are non-statements.

Anonymous:
This one contains the daddy stereotype as reference is made to “My extremely religious dad” who came to believe in the Flat Earth (see here) and various conspiracy theories and so Anon. “said to myself: If that’s what I have to believe in, to be a Christian, then I won’t be a Christian. Of course, you can say, that it’s just metaphorical, and you don’t have to believe that to be a Christian, but that doesn’t really seem like a metaphor to me. Neither does it to my father.”
Thus, rebellion against daddy lead to rebellion against the ultimate father figure, God.

Another stereotype we have encountered again and again and again is combines two logical fallacies, “Another way of explaining my choice was that, there are so many religions out there, that I couldn’t just choose one and say it’s the real one.” That “there are so many religions out there, that I couldn’t just choose one and say it’s the real one” is like saying that since there is an infinite set of numbers then we could not just chose one as the result of adding 2+2 and say that 4 is the real one.

Moreover, as an Atheist, Anon. not only choose one of these worldview-philosophies but does indeed and in fact say that Atheism is the real one.

Now, when you speak generically you can make generic claims, come to generic conclusions, etc. since you are not really engaged in critical thinking. Thus, when Anon. writes, “All religions have the same amount of evidence: none. Except maybe a book, which they claim to be true” it means nothing since various religions make various claims about various things and there is evidence for some such things. For example, the Bible states that the universe had a beginning and behold, it is so.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.

When and why they became Atheists – Hoi Polloi Atheists, 20

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.

Vishnu Raja: This one represents a plethora of argumentum ad absurdums starting with “My dismissal of religious nonsense happened when i stumbled upon Osho” this refers to the guru who is aka Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh. Vishnu notes that “Even if i wanted to explain why religion is bull[****], i cant do it as eloquently as Osho. Ill let his words explain.”

Note that Vishnu asserts that religion is nonsense and bull but that “All esoteric teachings…are just mumbo-jumbo…nonsense literature…is pathological…all kinds of nonsense…” so you get the picture even though the picture is a merely emotional reaction without any argument or premise.

Basically, he plays armchair psychologist and claims that people hold to esoteric teachings so as to give their otherwise meaningless lives meaning.

He then demands that you “Avoid it, it is against life” because thus saith Vishnu since “This is the only life there is” because thus saith Vishnu. In the end he literally plays Zen master and demands that we live life now because thus saith Vishnu.

Wasim Khan: This is a three sentence statement. “Why to follow a religion which directly or indirectly dont allow people from different religion to be together.” Why to follow Atheism which directly or indirectly does not allow people from different worldview-philosophies or religions to be together?

In short, Wasim is condemning not allowing people from different religion to be together without a premise thus, this is an emotive assertion only.

“People anyway follow their religion as per their convinience.”
Becoming a Christian was the most convenient thing I could have done and brought me a lot of trouble such as mistreatment from Atheist and agnostic family members.

“It’s always better to follow only one religion i.e ‘HUMANITY’.”
Note Wasim is demandingly assertion that which is better and yet, doing so without revealing the standard by which to judge better from worse. At least they are honest enough to admit three things: 1) their way is the better one, 2) their way is the only one and 3) Humanity (whatever that means) is a or their “religion” thus, ABG: Anything But God.

why2batheism-9539293

Jeffrey Baird:
Herein we find another ex-Atheist stereotype beginning with “It started with me wanting to be a priest” he grew up “getting a general sense of what it meant to be Catholic. However, I hadn’t really delved in to theology or any real church doctrine” which is a huge problem and thus, manifested itself as such.

He “spent some time reading the bible, histories of the church and the catechism a little more critically…how Catholicism had been used throughout history to control citizens of various countries. The pope had often been more of a political figure than a spiritual one.” He seems to condemn controlling people and being a political figure but does not way on what basis. In any case, see my article Good historical notes on some bad popes. Beginning with a premise that a Popes are any sort of legitimate leaders or representatives of Jesus on Earth leads to many such problems, see Was Peter the Rock? Was Peter the First Pope?.

He then condemningly appeal to “the spanish inquisition and various witch burnings” without telling us what is wrong with such things, see Find it Fast – Fast Facts: on the Inquisition and Bill Honsberger – Why not burn witches?.

Jeffrey well concluded, “These are the works of men, not of god” and wondered “How could the teachings of a man who, by my reading, was one of the earliest humanists in recorded history” apparently Jesus, “be used to do such violence?”
He notes that he first “started looking at the biblical justification for Transubstantiation” which I deal with already within this segment.” He states that “I found the evidence to be sparse. This, along with other, smaller, things (Gay marriage, pre-marital sex, priestly celibacy) that I couldn’t reconcile with made me realize that I wasn’t really catholic.” Well, this is a mishmash and should be properly dichotomized. He confusingly references “Gay marriage, pre-marital sex” along with transubstantiation and priestly celibacy so here is how it breaks down: the Bible does not favor but expressly condemns gay marriage and pre-marital sex (these two are covered in Did Jesus say anything about same sex marriage?), it says nothing about transubstantiation (see the John 6 related issues above) and condemns priestly celibacy in stating that forbidding to marry is a doctrine of demons (1 Timothy 4:3 some would say that priests are not forbidden to marry but they can only do so if they give up their priesthood).

Well, Jeffrey began to think that perhaps he was not a Catholic but a more generic Christian so he “decided to again dive into the bible” and simply asserts that the non-gospels parts of the New Testament (anything beyond Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), were an “attempt to deify Jesus” since Jesus was “more of a Jewish dissenter than a messiah; A great philosopher and not a deity. I felt his message had been lessened by the messianic cult that surrounded him.” Well, Jesus message is utter nonsense without His exclusive claims regarding His person, messiahship and deity. What Jeffrey is doing is tantamount to Thomas Jefferson subjectively cutting portions of the Bible out whilst not realizing that since it is printed front and back, he is also damaging the portions he subjectively deemed acceptable.

Based on his bias reading of the Bible, he decided that he “was no longer a Christian…I began to call myself a deist…the god of Christianity without Christ.” This is fascinating since he claims that he became a deist due to, mostly Paul’s “attempt to deify Jesus” and yet, he now believed in a god of his own making “the god of Christianity without Christ” which is no god at all.

Then, he “began reading the cases for/against God” and only seems to have “found various logical holes” in the for God cases and none whatsoever in the against God cases. However, beyond this, he invented some against arguments of his own and not for argument whatsoever.
Here is one, “Is it logical for a God to need to be worshiped?” Note that he is presupposing the need to be logical without a premise: how is logic some sort of must in a universe that resulted when no one caused nothing to explode? Anyhow, he is merely asserting that God needs to be worshiped (offers no relevant quotations, citations, etc.). Another is, “Does God help people who pray more than people who don’t?” How and/or why this is even an issue is not stated. However, the Bible states that God “sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust” (Matthew 5:45). Here is another, “If God creates us, knows everything about us and everything about the world he placed us in, does free will exist?” Well, obviously there is no absolute “free will” as, for example, it would mean that one could will oneself to become God’s god. Theologically, “free will” is restricted to the issue of salvation (soteriology) and issue relating to God’s “permissive will.” Thus, we really are speaking of “free choice”: a choice between two or more options and not a choice to that anything and everything we want.

Yet, the specific question is whether we have free will exists within the context of God having created us and knowing everything about us and everything about the world. This issue is logically and theologically simple and is that if we have “free will” the God knows that which we freely will to do, etc.

Another is, “Why has God never healed an amputee?” Note that this is merely a claim to knowledge that he could only have if he is omniscient. This is because it is literally impossible for Jeffrey to know that God never healed an amputee, for details on this see Atheists Fulfill Scripture: “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” / “Why Does God Hate Amputees?” and Fundamentalist Theologian Asks: “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” and “Why Does God Hate Amputees?”

Now, Jeffrey states that it was “Those conclusions” that “led me to believe that if there was a God, he was not involved in our day to day existence. I became satisfied with the idea of ‘The Great Clockmaker’” aka a deist. However, those were not conclusions, they were merely questions which are supposed to imply the conclusion that if there was a God, that God is deistic.

Next, he got over deism when he “became interested in theoretical and astro physics. After some reading of some various scientists, most of whom were unconcerned with the idea of a God, I realized I was asking the wrong question.” Interestingly, he seems to have missed the various scientists who are concerned with the idea of a God. Yet, not his confusion, God is not relevant since “some various scientists” involved in “theoretical and astro physics” were “unconcerned with the idea of a God” which is an utter non sequitur.

He claims that “Is there a God?” is an irrelevant question as “one can’t disprove the existence of an invisible being who has no direct influence on the world.” Yet, he is presupposing that God has no direct influence on the world. “Instead” he states, “I needed to ask, ‘Does there need to be a God for the universe to exist as we know it?’ The overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is no.”
This is utterly fallacious on various levels such as that he claims to know that “overwhelming consensus in the scientific community” is that God is not needed yet, he does not cite whatever great survey of scientific consensus on this point he referencing. Also, is it relevant what an embryologist, for example, has to say on the issue of God’s existence? You see, this appeal to the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community is utterly irrelevant, is an assertion and is an argument from authority. Lastly, it is the overwhelming consensus in the scientific community when? When the world’s leading scientists were all Bible believers or when you could have your career destroyed for daring to voice an opinion in favor of belief in God?

Bases on a log series of confused and half-baked assertions, he ends with a confused and half-baked assertion to the effect of that “I don’t make the claim that God does not exist, simply that God doesn’t need to exist” and yet, even though he does not “make the claim that God does not exist” still, “Then, for me, the most reasonable conclusion is that God does not exist.” This denotes the negative effects that Atheism has on an otherwise find mind.

Bárbara Pupo:
She write, “I became an atheist as a kid, but since I was little…uncle was an atheist…When I was 13, my mom passed away, and when that happened I was sure that I would never see her ever again, and right there I became a full atheist.”

Main points:
Little kid, solidifying at 13 yrs old.

She adds, “And don’t get me wrong, I never blamed god for taking her away, it just became clear, in that moment, that i have never really believed on it.” Well, part of the reason is emotive and part is “i have never really believed” which is not an argument nor evidence but a subjective statement.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.

Bob Schlenker on serpent seed of Satan mutations

bob2bschlenker-4058550
If there were another legitimate way to interpret the scene in the garden that wasn’t a sex orgy

version, I’d like that very much

—Bob Schlenker

Herein is the continuation of a review of Bob Schlenker’s article Who is Cain’s Father? Part Three having already considered parts 1-2, you can (eventually) find the whole series in toto here. He makes another claim about Ham which is that his actions were motivated by his genetics, “It’s easy to understand how people are who and what they are because of what’s inherited from their parents, genetically.” To some extent this may be the case but keep in mind that his context is that Ham was “grafted into the bad tree” (whatever that means) and so his actions were drive by Satanic genetics. He adds, “It does not seem at all likely that Ham just woke up one day with the idea of procreating with his mother…it seems likely to me that there were also certain genetic factors that were present from birth.”

Of course, at this point I must ask a gotcha question of my own, as I did when dealing with serpent seed of Satan theorist Zen Garcia when he claimed that Cain murdering Abel was genetically inspired. According to the Bible Adam and Eve sinned (and according to Bob Schlenker they had an orgy which included sodomy between Adam and Satan) and yet, when came their genetics? Adam’s genetics came directly as a creation of God and thus, were pristine. God Himself then made Eve from Adam’s genetics, his rib, pre-fall and so her genetics were pristine as well. And yet, thy both sinned. Thus, there is no reason whatsoever—except desperation to support a false theory—to claim that anyone’s genetics caused their sin.

Yet, he asks “Could Ham have mutated somehow?” and answers that “In the biblical narrative…we’re given what must be considered a clue” and his view of the supposed clue speaks volumes of his propensity for weaving tall tales.

He notes that “Some years must pass” after the flood for Noah to begin farming, planting a vineyard, the grapes to grow, etc. and “they began to eat what grew from the ground. Yet, “The flood did nothing to change the status of the cursed ground, or the promise that it would produce for Adam a ‘thorns and thistles’ people!” Thus, he turns a text which is contextually about Adam going from the hobby of gardening to having to work the ground which would produce weeds, essentially to one about people who have Satanic genetics.

Bob Schlenker notes that Ham:

…ate of the cursed ground…produced Canaan…begat Cush, who brought forth Nimrod. It’s in the biblical account of Nimrod where some light appears to be shed on what happened to Ham.

Cush hath begotten Nimrod; he hath begun to be a hero in the land; he hath been a hero in hunting before Jehovah; therefore it is said, `As Nimrod the hero [in] hunting before Jehovah.’
Genesis 10:8-9 (Young’s Literal Translation)

As Tom Horn points out, Nimrod didn’t start out life as a hero, a giant, or, “gibborim.” He “began to be,” genetically changing, mutating.

Well, referring to 1) hero, 2) giant and 3) gibborim makes this complex so let us go one by one. 1) Hero: no one is born a hero as being considered heroic requires having taken a heroic action. 2) Giant: this is a relative term. For example, what is a giant to an African Pygmy with males averaging 4.11 ft., to a pro basketball player the tallest of which does not make it to 8 ft., or to a Hebrew of biblical times with males averaging 5.5 ft.? The tallest person specified within the Bible is Goliath and that only as per the 9.8 ft. version with other version having him at 6.7 ft. (Hebrew and Greek texts differ).

3) Gibborim: this refers generically to being mighty and is applied to the Nephilim (Genesis 6:4), to Nimrod (Genesis 10:8-9), of Joshua (Joshua 6:2), of Boaz (Judges 11:1), of various of David’s warriors (2 Samuel 10:7), etc., etc., etc.

Thus, Nimrod seems to have become 1) heroic, 2) a giant only if he was tall (even one foot taller than average) and 3) a gibbor only in as much as he became heroic—he was known for his huntsman exploits. Sorry, but no high tech or otherwise genetic manipulation to see here.

Thus, as per Bob Schlenker Nimrod mutated and Ham mutated and he states more as to how and why, “Noah was perfect in his generations…Whether Noah’s wife…may have had genetic corruption…is not something I can say with certainty, but it seems likely…there is certainly the potential…If Noah’s wife had corrupted DNA then certainly Shem and Japheth had the potential for some degree of corruption” and on it goes.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A plea: 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. Here is my donate/paypal page.

Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Twitter page, on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page.

Twitter: #BobSchlenker, #Serpentseed, #Seedlines
Facebook: #BobSchlenker, #Serpentseed, #Seedlines

When and why they became Atheists – Hoi Polloi Atheists, 19

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.

Ravi Kiran:
Ravi claims to have become an Atheist as a result of “Reading, critical thinking, being curious to know the answer, reasoning…reading science books like Brief history of time kind of influenced me to think all the patterns, order and logic must be due to some super natural power (how naive I was then), however as I grew up and read many other books I realized I was wrong.” Well, this tells us precisely nothing as we are told what but not how nor why.

Main points:
No age given.

Ravi then notes that one book in particular “convinced me that, there of course is no super power and logic behind anything” which, again, is saying nothing at all. Moreover, “convinced me” is a subjective statement and “of course” is not an argument or evidence but an assertion.

Ravi also falls for a least two fallacies in one in writing, “In one case, one just accepts an answer and try to route all problems to that answer where no one is allowed to question anything.” He means that in religion “one just accepts an answer and try to route all problems to that answer” and that “no one is allowed to question anything.” I am tempted to claim that this is not only an Atheist talking point and while to some degree it is that, it also results from having non-, un- and anti-biblical experiences with people who have bad or non-answers.

An Atheist stereotype if to complain about not getting answers but then turning around and praising Atheism for giving them no answers. He write that as per science, “one continues to find answers, and is completely comfortable that there can be no answers.” Yet, this leads him to a form of Atheistic nihilism of sorts when he asserts, without evidence, that “When one sees the vast spectrum of time, space and realize that we are operating in a very tiny time & space frame, it is easy to comprehend that we are trying too hard to make sense out of things – the existence is earth is itself an extreme chance – right distance from the Sun, right gases and right evolution etc – it is impossible to think this could be intelligent design.” That “it is impossible to think” is not only obviously untrue but is subjective. Moreover, his is a non sequitur as he could have just as easily have stated, “When one sees the vast spectrum of time, space and realize that we are operating in a very tiny time & space frame, it is easy to comprehend that we are trying too hard to make sense out of things – the existence is earth is itself an extreme chance – right distance from the Sun, right gases and right changes within kinds etc – it is logical, reasonable and scientific to think this could be intelligent design.”

He is merely stating that since “it is impossible to think” therefore “it is impossible.”

Trevor Carter: He notes, “The more I learned about science, including the human brain(mind), the more I pulled away from god. Religious books are childish to me.”

In typical manner, he merely makes an authoritative assertion since he tells us utterly nothing about how or why but only what, “I learned” and “I pulled away” because “Religious books are childish to me” is to say nothing at all.

Main points:
No age given.

Trevor’s reference to that which seems childish is interesting as his entire statement is childish on an emotional and logical level.

He asserts, giving no citations or quotations, “Be good and believe = reward from god. Doubt god = punishment and death. Whoa! God is a [*****] based on what the religious texts say about him. He’s basically an underachiever who likes to blame everyone else for his mistakes. If god is so holy and good, then how in the world did something called ‘evil’ ever come into existence? How can something evil come from something good? It’s bs!”

You see? All emotive assertion and finally an appeal to the problem of evil in, again, merely asserting without argument but merely jumping to conclusions that if “god is so holy and good, then how in the world did something called ‘evil’ ever come into existence? How can something evil come from something good? It’s bs!” which is a claim of inconsistency without backing, is appealing to absolute logic without a premise, is a claim that evil came from God when it did not and implies a condemnation of evil and yet with no premise.

why2batheism-7152223

James Robertson:
This one is short and sour and consists of a note about how “In Australia and New Zealand there are very few outwardly religious people and they tend to keep to themselves. I went to religious schools my whole life and never actually met a single student who claimed to be religious.” And concludes with “There is no need to come out as an atheist because it is assumed until proven otherwise.”

Main points:
No age given but from birth is implied.

The lesson is that socio-cultural “religion” is not a relationship with Jesus. When you lean a bunch of head knowledge stuff it is very easy to walk away from it.
At least James is honest enough to admit that Atheism “is assumed” and it is so “until proven otherwise” yet, since he never defines Atheism we know not what do prove or disprove. The point is that many Atheists demand authoritative adherence to their subjective definition. As you have seen within this series, many demand that Atheism is merely a “lack of belief in god(s)” (so they can run away and claim that they need not prove anything since they are claiming nothing). So, is James asking that a mere “lack of belief in god(s)” be “proven otherwise”? No, he must be implying that he positively affirms God’s non-existence. Yet, for how to disprove even a mere “lack of belief in god(s),” see Do presuppositional apologists misapply Romans 1?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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.