Atheism

When and why they became Atheists – Hoi Polloi Atheists, 8

When and why they became Atheists – Hoi Polloi Atheists, 9

When and why they became Atheists – Influential Atheists

When and why they became Atheists – Patterns & Statistics

When Atheists debated how pushy to be

Who created the creator? Who created God?, etc.

Who made God? Who created God? Who designed the designer?

Why Atheist and Satanic display in Boca Raton should NOT be allowed

Why Atheists should convert or, evolutionary argument for Christianity

Why bother praying? Answering skeptics’ objections

Why do Americans still dislike atheists?

Why do Atheist countries lead the production of child pornography?

Why God must be omniscient

Why half of Britons don’t believe in evolution

Why is this Atheist soooooooooooooooooo angry???

Why Skeptic Arena’s Neo is an Atheist

Why won’t God heal amputees?

Why You and I Can’t Understand Atheists

William Lane Craig – Various Texts

William Provine – Heavy on Inference But Light on Implication

With Whom Are All Things Permissible?

You can’t make this up – Atheists and Satanists team up on April 1st

“Atheism”: what does it mean?

“Cosmos” fact or fiction? Neil deGrasse Tyson takes over for Carl Sagan

“Religious civilisations survive. Secular civilisations die”

“Rock Beyond Belief” and Atheist soldiers

“The Ledge” movie compliments Christianity

Islamic Azad University

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

(Science in general, Evolution, Cosmology, Creation Science, Intelligent Design) ————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

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

When and why they became Atheists – Patterns & Statistics

When and why they became Atheists – Statistics

Herein we will consider when and why certain personages became Atheists. We will parse these into Patterns & 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.

why2batheism-4430735

Overall, you will note a few patterns:
1) Many became Atheist at very young ages which proves that their Atheism is not a result of the employment of any sophisticated logic, science, philosophy, etc. but likely a result of a rebellious emotional reaction against parental authority. a) This young rejection of God tends to result in the Atheists’ theology remaining undeveloped even into their adulthood when they persist in holding to childish notions about God. This tends to manifest in likening God to an invisible friend, a sky daddy, Santa, fairies, etc. which denotes a philosophically naïve category mistake. b) All Atheists are theologians as they concoct concepts of God made in their own image and then they seek to discredit this “God” which means that they only succeed, if they succeed, in debunking a “God” of their own making. c) When many Atheists seek to discredit the Bible they tend to merely paraphrase very loosely (often without quotations and citations), they complain that the Bible states things that it does not (likely basing their claims on vague childhood Sunday School memories) and they condemn the Bible without first providing a premise upon which to condemn anything at all in any manner besides an emotive reaction.

d) On a related note, Paul Vitz, Professor of Psychology at New York University studied the most influential Atheists in history and reported certain conclusions within his book Faith of the Fatherless: the Psychology of Atheism (see here). He notes that right down the line, they had poor relationships with their fathers: due to their father being absent, or dead, or abusive, or a pushover, etc., etc., etc. Thus, in many cases Atheist is a result of youngsters attempting to deal with their emotions towards their parents.

2) Many had bad experiences with “religion” (whatever that means) usually in two ways (note that you will find that Catholicism plays a huge role in producing Atheists). a) They conclude that all “religion,” all theology, the Bible, God, Jesus, etc. are contained within their extremely narrow myopic experience. In other words, they conclude that it is all wrong based on their subjective, intrinsic, childlike, emotive experiences and (mis)understandings.

b) They rightly rebel against manmade traditions and oppressive “religious” people and this crosses the line from a good reason to a bad excuse and is also a logical genetic fallacy.

3) Conversely, some appeal to “evolution” (whatever that means to them as they generally do not define it) and “science” (whatever that means to them as they generally do not define it but they tend to imply scientism) and obviously do not apply the same supposed skepticism they apply to “religion” to them.
a) For example, the history of the alleged evidence for let us say biological (Darwinian) evolution is a history of evidence being promulgated in one generation which is then discredited (as a hoax, a mistake, due to learning more with time, etc.) at which time new evidence is promulgated only to be discredited. Consider what you were told is evidence, as your parents, ask your grandparents and you will see that, that which they were told was evidence no longer is and that which you were told is even now going the way of the dodo.

4) Many of them claim that they had question that no one could answer, or they were told to not ask them, or they were not answered as per their subjective standards. One issue is whether unanswered questions were truly unanswered and were reasons for true and honest skeptical disbelief or whether the question were answered but these were rejected as excuses for cynicism: the skeptic says, “I will not believe until…” and the cynic says, “I will not believe” period. What is interesting is that many of them will claim that having become Atheists and interested in “science,” philosophy, etc. they now virtually boast that there are very many unanswered questions regarding various and sundry issues.

Overall, this is a good reason for getting involved in Christian Apologetics.

Here is a breakdown of the age ranges of the 103 Atheists.

40 Atheists:
I list as “No age given” as they did not specify.

8 Atheists: Did not specify but offered hints thus, these are “No age given” and followed with my observation:

1) “but apparently from the earliest childhood,” 2) “but, ‘No form of theism ever made sense to me. Even as a young child,’” 3) “but sounds like she just followed in daddy’s footsteps,” 4) “but references 19 yrs old as a key moment,” 5) “but apparently from birth,” 6 & 7) “but from birth is implied” and 8) “but ‘for years and years.’”

14 Atheists:
Claimed to have Atheists “From birth” which means that they adhere to one definition of Atheism which is a mere agnostic lack of belief in god(s).

4 Atheists: Ranged “From birth” to another age such as:

1) “and/or pre-teen,” 2) “but also via a process which seems to solidify at circa 22 yrs old,” 3) “and/or 11-12 yrs old” and 4) “and ‘16 I went off to college a declared atheist.’”

14 Atheists: Range from 2 to 12 yrs old.

1) 2 yrs old, 2) 3 yrs old when relevant questions and doubts arose, 3) referenced Washington DC Episcopal Sunday school and one such a one begins at 3 yrs old, 4 & 5) 5-6 yrs old, 6) 5-11 yrs old, 7) referenced a non-specific few years after kindergarten which is for ages 5-6 so it could be 7-10 yrs old or so, 8) 8-teen, 9) 8 yrs old, 10) implied 10 yrs old, 11) started circa 9 yrs old, decided circa 15-16 yrs old, 12) 10 yrs old, 13) 12 yrs old, 14) implies circa 12-13 yrs old.

17 Atheists: Fall within the teen years:

1) circa 13 yrs old is noted, 2) little kid, solidifying at 13 yrs old, 3) early teens, 4) mid-teens, 5) possibly 14 yrs old, 6 & 7) 15 yrs old, 8 & 9) 15-16 yrs old, 10) 16 yrs old, 11) 16-18 yrs old, 12 & 13) 17 yrs old, 14) 18-20 yrs old, 15) “around 19 yrs of age…The Spiritual Teachings started appearing baseless garbage,” 16) is currently 19 yrs and implies a recent de-conversion, as some term it and 17) pre-20s.

5 Atheists: 20s:

1) about 22, 2) 20 yrs old, 3) implies circa 20 yrs old, 4) early 20s and 5) 26 yrs old.

2 Atheists: 30s.

1) Mid 30s and 2) “Started calling myself an atheist when I was 35.”

3 Atheists: Only a rough estimate offered:

1) over 45 years ago but we do not know how old they are now and so cannot calculate age, 2) “was an unconscious atheist early” and 3) “In college, I was an atheist” but gives us no actual date of becoming an Atheist.

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

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.

Ata Hasanpour

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

(Science in general, Evolution, Cosmology, Creation Science, Intelligent Design) ————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

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

John Loftus

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

(Science in general, Evolution, Cosmology, Creation Science, Intelligent Design) ————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

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

Paul Seaburn

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

(Science in general, Evolution, Cosmology, Creation Science, Intelligent Design) ————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

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

Iran

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

(Science in general, Evolution, Cosmology, Creation Science, Intelligent Design) ————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

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

skeleton

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

(Science in general, Evolution, Cosmology, Creation Science, Intelligent Design) ————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

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

Discussion on are Catholics saved and authority

A YouTuber who goes by “G Man” posted a video titled Are Roman Catholics saved? Fiona and Jade pay attention!!!!!.

I posted the following comment:

Plainly and simply: Catholics MUST believe in Catholic dogmas in order to be saved. For example, in 1950 Catholicism made Mary’s assumption a dogma. This means that one minute before the doctrine of the assumption became dogma, a Catholic could have been saved without believing it and yet, one minute after it became dogma, a Catholic could no longer be saved as they could have been one minute prior. Whenever Catholicism proclaims a dogma they change the gospel by adding to it. Therefore, theirs is a new and therefore, false non-gospel.

Adrijan Talić replied to me:

Ken Ammi in practices yes but there majority was convicted that that doctrine was true and proclaimed it for dogma it was only a formality, the early church was Catholic.

My reply:

Well, dogmatizing a doctrine is not “only a formality” since prior to 1950 AD you could have been saved without regard to the Assumption of Mary but after 1950 AD you cannot be saved without believing it.

Adrijan Talić:

That’s the authority of the Church.

Ken Ammi:

That is very interesting friend and I would like to learn more. Whereabouts in official Vatican declarations does it state that they have the authority to change to the gospel by adding to it? In the meanwhile, please read 2 Corinthians 11:4, Galatians 1:8 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

Adrijan Talić:

They have the authority to define the right interpretation of the gospel. In Matthew 18:18: “Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

maryolatry-1685058

Ken Ammi:

Friend, I hope you will pardon my continued questions but I am attempting to understand these issue. Apparently, there are no official Vatican declarations does it state that they have the authority to change the gospel by adding to it. Yet, it seems that 2 Corinthians 11:4, Galatians 1:8 and 1 Corinthians 15:3-4, etc. can never apply to the Vatican even when they change the gospel by adding to it. Now, I am concluding that what you are saying that the Vatican has “the authority to define the right interpretation of the gospel” and that authority is derived from Matthew 18:18.

This seems like a chicken and egg issue or rather, an authority and interpretation issue. It seems like the claim is that the Vatican has the authority to define the right interpretation and they derived that authority from defining the right interpretation. In other words, they claim that the Bible gives them the authority to interpret the Bible as giving them the authority to interpret the Bible.

Adrijan Talić:

No problem friend, ok there is a lot of confusion in your mind, first the Bible don’t give them the authority, God give them the authority thought the apostle , the Bible is the perfect word of God but we are not perfect being and can make errors in our interpretation the church has always define the interpretation since the first century because from a not correct interpretation come a not correct doctrine, the Bible is not the only authority that God gave to us, first he came to established a church and not a bible .

Ken Ammi:

Just to ensure that I understand: you are stating that God gave the Catholic Church the authority to define the right interpretation of the gospel thought the apostles. Is that in the Bible or subsequent tradition?
I can see how since we can make errors the church has define the interpretation since the first century—and thus for two millennia—so where can I read the correct interpretation of the Bible?

Adrijan Talić:

The apostolic tradition came before the Bible was completed and collected in a book the church by receiving first the oral tradition they know what was the correct interpretation of the Bible , yes in the church can’t came error outside yes because God promise the even the gate of hell will not prevail how can you destroy a church not by bombs but by Heresy, you can read the correct interpretation in the church fathers writhing and they commentaries of the Gospel.

Ken Ammi:

Very well then: to reiterate for the sake of clarity, I can read any church father’s interpretation of the Bible and what they say is guaranteed to be without error. It seems that what “God promise” is that “even the gate of hell will not prevail” against the church which Jesus established. 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 defines the gospel thusly, “For I handed on to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures; that he was buried; that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures…” 2 Corinthians 11:4-5 states, “For if someone comes and preaches another Jesus than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it well enough.” Galatians 1:8-9 states, “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach (to you) a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed! As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!”

Now, since we agree that the Catholic Church has dogmatically promulgated a “different gospel,” “a gospel other than the one that” the oral apostolic tradition before the Bible was completed and collected and different than the subsequent Bible states then what does the Bible tell you about the Catholic Church: how should you regard it?

Adrijan Talić:

You are twisting my words, the writings of the church fathers are not infallible only the pope or a council of te church is infallible, the oral tradition was before the Bible that doesn’t mean it’s another Gospel when the church receive the written gospel they know how to interpretate it because they receive the oral gospel before, the Bible is a perfect book but we are not perfect and we can make errors when we interprete it, some church fathers receive the directly the gospel from the apostle and when they receive also the written version they make no interpretation errors because the doctrine was clear to their mind, we are not anymore in the apostolic age many cults rised and will rise because the one who started have a different personal interpretation that came from their carnal minds, we Catholics based our interpretation on the teaching of the early church that were also in the apostolic era and the various infallible council. [sic.]

Ken Ammi:

Friend, I implore you: the reason for my reiterations are just to ensure that I am understanding correctly. Now, when I referred to “another Gospel” I was not referring to the writings of the church fathers but to the fact that the Popes and Councils have changed the gospel by adding to it and have done so in a manner which you affirm is to be taken as official, infallible, authoritative, etc. As per my example: the way to the saved, the gospel, of pre-1950 AD is different than the way to the saved, the gospel, of post-1950 AD.

And that, as they say, was the end of that as no reply was forthcoming.

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

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 Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.

Roman Catholicism

Christianity ————-

Atheism

————-

World Religions and Cults

————-

Science

(Science in general, Evolution, Cosmology, Creation Science, Intelligent Design) ————-

Movies & TV Shows

————-

Fringe-ology

(Transhumanism, Aliens/UFOs, Occult, Conspiracies) ————-

Misc. and Resources

(Nazis, Communism, Crusades, Morality / Ethics, Abortion, Rape, Homosexuality / Trans, Audio, Books, Debates, Videos, etc.)

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