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.
Sreehari Km:
Notes, “I was born as a Hindu. I was taken to temples and used to celebrate religious festivals. When I was 9, I used to attend the service in a church every sunday, mostly because my friend was going there.”
Main points:
Timeline implies circa 12-13 yrs old.
Was “about 12 or 13 when…I tried to find answers” for, for example, why “500,000 kids below age 5 die of hunger and poverty. Natural disasters, terrorist and racist acts, diseases- there were many things which i could not digest.”
They will claim that this has something to do with God not existing and yet, Atheism leaves them with only the ability to assert that they have decided to subjectively and emotively condemn kids dying of hunger and poverty, natural disasters, terrorist and racist acts, diseases, etc. since on Atheism these things just are amoral brute factoids.
Basically, Sreehari jumps from condemning God for one reason, then the opposite reason and basically damned if God does and damned if God does not, “tried to relate it to god and his power” if “there is no devil/satan. Then logically these acts are done by god” then “let us assume there was a devil” then maybe “we were born with innate sin. Why did god let us sin in the first place. Is he f***ing gambling with our lives?”
Sreehari then merely subjectively asserts without an argument that “Eternal life, multiple lives etc do not make sense to me” which is simply irrelevant.
Sreehari then falls for a very an Atheist assertion that is a popular as it is fallacious, “i want to do good, i will- for the satisfaction and happiness i get out of it. I do not do it for the virgins after my death or to make my life better…” 1) note the selfish nature of the motivation as it is not to do good because others need good done to them but to do good “for the satisfaction and happiness i get out of it” and 2) Sreehari is condemning alternate motivations (whether we agree that wanting virgins in the afterlife is vice or virtue).
Based on such a selfish view of doing good Sreehari then essentially concludes that if the latter motivation is the case then it would mean something to the likes of that “god is the head in a supermarket where you pay him to make your life better.” Well, speaking biblically, God’s grace is a free gift thus, we pay nothing as it is priceless.
Len Gould:
Sadly, this one is very short and based on mere generic assertions, “I grew up in a fairly strongly Anglican family. By middle-school I had accumulated enough astronomy knowledge to realize that it directly contradicted the bible’s writings” but does not state how or why yet, “By 15 I was a certain atheist but not anti-religious.”
Main points:
15 yrs old.
Concludes by simply stating, “Then I started reading history” and leaving it at that.
Andrew Stein:
Simply wrote, “Raised without religion. I can not remember a time when anything about religion ever made sense to me” as if that which subjectively makes sense to him has anything to do with reality. As I have noted time and time and time again simply noting that something does not make sense to you it not an argument, not evidence and thus, not relevant.
Karl Mochel:
States that he “Believes in a lack of belief” which I believe as lack of belief is indeed, not a lack of belief but a belief. Karl seems to merely copy and paste from what another Atheist stated and the statement is from someone who came to very firm conclusions based on utter miscomprehensions, misunderstandings, mistakes, misinformation, etc.
Karl writes, “From the site Letters of Note: Why I am an Atheist” and pastes a statement from which I will glean.
“Because it has dawned upon me that it is right to be so, and upon investigation I find no real evidence of the divine origin of the scriptures” which was “Written by a lot of priests, I cannot accept a salvation that is based wholly upon the dreams of an ancient and superstitious people, with no proof save blind faith.” This seems like elephant hurling as it dawned on whomever Karl is quoting “upon investigation” but by what means is not stated. Thus, they “find no real evidence” but we know not where they have even looked. Thus, take my word for it, I investigated it in some unstated reason—period. Now, as far as I know, the only priest to write anything in the Bible was Joshua. This person is merely asserting a conspiracy theory about some unspecified smoky backrooms some unspecified priests wrote that Bible at some unspecified time.
Based on such vague assertions, this person declares “I cannot accept a salvation that is based wholly upon” and here comes a typical Atheist logical genetic fallacy, “the dreams of an ancient and superstitious people” whom, recall it has merely been asserted had “no proof save blind faith.”
This person also wrote, “because I cannot, as a refined and respectable woman, take to my bosom as a daily guide a book of such low morals and degrading influences” but does not bother stating to what “morals” or influences” she is referring to nor upon what standards she declares herself “respectable” or how she defines, “morals.” The fact is that clearly, Karl is quoting this in an utterly un-skeptical manner and likely accepting it on “no proof save blind faith.”
She also asserts that “It is ignorance of the scientific working of their own natures and mind that keep so much ‘mystery’ in the air; and as long as there is a mystery afloat the people will ascribe it to the supernatural.” This is merely playing the scientism card and she will never have to give up this merely claim since it is unlikely that we will ever scientifically discern everything about everything. It is frustrating dealing with such unspecific jumpers to conclusion as for example, she notes that she is “an Atheist because I know the Bible will not do to depend upon. I have tried it, and found it wanting” but says nothing about what this is supposed to mean.
Now, there is one specific point and yet it defeats itself as she writes, “In fact, I found in the scriptures the origin of woman’s slayer” whatever that means, “and that it was one of God’s main points to oppress women and keep them in the realms of ignorance.” Well, someone kept her in ignorance and it must have be she herself as she claims to have tried the Bible and found it wanting yet, utterly misrepresent its view on women—which begins by affirming that women were created in God’s image. The reason I noted that this defeats itself is that as an Atheist, she can no longer condemn woman slaying, oppression of women, keep them ignorant, etc. on any basis but the one they have appealed to the whole time which is merely the unsubstantiated expressions of emotions and not reason, logic, philosophy, science, etc.
Ah but, not so fast as she does, in the end, reveal her standards in writing, “I am in the ranks of Liberalism because of its elevating principles, its broad road to freedom of thought, speech, and investigation.” A but, no so fast as this is just as vague as anything else that was stated since we are authoritatively told that “Liberalism” whatever that means pertains to “elevating principles” but we are not told how nor what they are and that “its broad road” may be true as “wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it” (Matthew 7:13-14).
Lastly, again and again and again it is merely authoritatively asserted that whatever “Liberalism” is and however it pertains to “elevating principles” is that which leads to “freedom of thought, speech, and investigation” and we are not even told upon what premise we are to think that freedom of thought, speech, and investigation” are virtues. Note that this is not to say that they are not but that it is one vague assertion after another.
Omorogbe Usuomon:
This is a one paragraph statement and begins with a very good and biblically solid point, in a manner of speaking, “I was born a Christian (to a Christian family, clearly babies have no religious affiliation no matter what anyone says).” Well, I am unsure who claims that babies have “religious affiliation” but no one is “born a Christian” which is why we must be born again (John 3:3-7).
Omorogbe also notes, “At a very young age, I realised I didn’t pay much heed to Christianity” as if that to which Omorogbe subjectively paid heed to is any sort of argument, evidence or standard.
Lastly, “as you expose yourself to reading books on Science you begin to realise the folly of many religious beliefs” while this is true of “many” such beliefs, Atheists have a tendency to ignore true and proper science and turn to scientism.
Nikita Kiryanov:
This sad tale begins with poor theology from the parents, “I was 5 or 6 years old. My parents…told me that some people believe there is a God, and they pray to him so that he will make their wishes come true.” Well, this was a set up for failure as “I used to get frequent stomach aches…I prayed to God asking for the stomach ache to go away” and when they did not, the conclusion was that “the assumption that this wish granting God exists must be false.”
Main points:
5-6 yrs old.
Interestingly, Nikita admits that “The concept of God which I tested back then was of course a very simplistic, and…inaccurate, idea of what God is.” She then claims, without examples, that “since then every time I was presented with new arguments and refinements for the concept of God I did the same thing” and concludes that there is “No ‘evidence’ for the existence of God” which one can only conclude if one is omniscient which is a traditional characteristic of God.
Thus, this is much ado about nothing since after admittedly dealing with a “very simplistic, and…inaccurate, idea of what God” we get nothing more than an assertion.
Anonymous:
Well, this person is obviously saturated with hatred and an example of the damage that Atheism and/or evolution can inflict on a person who would otherwise have been smart and descent.
Main points:
No age given.
The comment is three sentences long and yet, manages to be saturated with fallacy.
1) “Because I realized how contradictory ‘strong’ believers like my mother are” yet, they now ignore how contradictory “strong” Atheists are. Yet, I am assuming that Atheists would have some standard in the first place, that violating them would mean something, etc. Also, note the stereotypical rebellion against the parent.
2) “I don’t plan to be lumped in with unreasoning wastes of the evolutionary process” note the charge of thought crime since if you believe in God then you are “wastes of the evolutionary process” so that Anonymous thus declares themselves to be more evolved than thou. Also, they demand that theists are unreasoning which is an unreasonable assertion.
3) “If God exists, he sure isn’t the one the Bible talks about” but coming from a supposedly more evolved and reasonable person this is merely stating a prejudice since no argument, evidence or anything of the likes but only hatred.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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.