tft-short-4578168
Ken Ammi’s True Free Thinker:
BooksYouTube or OdyseeTwitterFacebookSearch

When and why they became Atheists – Hoi Polloi Atheists, 18

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.

Julio Mario Díaz:
He “grew up in a very catholic country, and in a catholic home” so we have the ex-Catholic stereotype, “started questioning religion when around 8 y/o; those stories just didn’t seem real to me” so we have the very young age stereotype and “In my teenage years told my friends and family I was an atheist” so we have the teen rebellion stereotype.

Main points:
8-teen.

Sadly, he merely asserts that in college he study “engineering, loved science; specially physics. So naturally my skepticism grew” but we are not told how or why.

Yet, then at 23 yrs old he “began to question my beliefs again. Many hours spent reading about philosophy, religion and spirituality, made me realize how closed minded I was being. The ego you need to have to be totally sure that your beliefs are correct and other people’s beliefs are not. And now I see theists and atheists as no one being more correct than the other. It’s better to be happy than to be right.”

So, he appears to have written an answer to the question about becoming an Atheist even if it was for a period of time only and now we know not how he categorizes himself. However, consider the ego he needs to have to be totally sure that his beliefs are correct and other people’s beliefs are not such as his claim that theists and Atheists are more correct than the other.

why2batheism-9824736

Mike Delms:
Mike was “born and raised as a Catholic” well, he may have been raised as such but was not born as such. He “went to a Catholic school…My religious views began to change towards agnostic and eventually atheistic when I was in grade 2.”

Main points:
2 yrs old.

He was preparing for first communion and due to the Catholicism, he was told, “my teacher was telling us how we will be eating the body of Christ. I remember asking why? And how is that possible since he’s been dead for 2000 years. I did not understand this ‘tradition’ and it never sat right with me but they would continue to lead me to believe that it was the ‘right’ thing to do.” Firstly, “never sat right with me” is not an argument or evidence but merely a subjecting non-standard. Secondly, let us pause and note that the same basic question was asked 2,000 years ago. Jesus stated, “my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven…they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life…The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven…[Jesus said] I am that bread of life…the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” And here comes the question, “The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day…Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?” and due to this, “From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him” (see John 6). Now, this was within the context of comparing the mana which came from heaven during the time of Moses with the true bread which came from heaven as Jesus. Again, due to Catholicism he was told, “we will be eating the body of Christ” and it was a “tradition.” Well, Catholic tradition is that the bread literally becomes the body of Jesus (oh yeah, “under the appearance of bread” so, go figure). Yet, when it comes to the eucharist, communion, etc. the fact is that the last supper was the Passover meal which is highly symbolic and Jesus was giving a definition to the symbols: the bread represents His body and the wine, His blood. In fact, within the discussion quoted above Jesus stated something that Catholics tend to ignore when teaching their tradition about Jesus’ literal body in the guise of bread, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” or in a more modern translation, “It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life.”

Thus, His literal physical flesh profits nothing since It is the spirit that quickeneth / It is the Spirit who gives life thus, His statements were spiritual aka symbolic: for details, see here Roman Catholic Doctrine of the Eucharist, part 4—The Issue of John 6:63.

Now that we have another example of how Catholicism’s false doctrines lead to rightful skepticism, let us get back to Mike and go from one stereotype, ex-Catholic, to another one, rebellion against mommy, “I went home and asked my mother…‘who should I love more Jesus or you?’ She thought about it for a few seconds and replied that God was higher than any human and that included herself. To this day this is one of the saddest things I have ever heard. To me, my mother was everything, and now she was telling me that I should love this man/God more than everyone. I refused to accept her answer and I couldn’t believe that the most powerful, intelligent and caring person I knew (my mother) would accept that there is someone (Jesus) who is above her.”

In this case, the mom gave the right answer and yet, the emotionally, logically, theologically, philosophically, etc. child did not concludes something to the likes of since “my mother was everything” she is “the most powerful, intelligent and caring person I knew” and since she was telling me that I should love this man/God more than everyone” then I can trust her and God must be very special indeed. Rather, he had a childishly emotive subjective reaction and “refused to accept her answer” which is not an argument or evidence as is “I couldn’t believe” as this is subjective incredulity. You get the straight up child’s view of the parents when the child “couldn’t believe” that “there is someone (Jesus) who is above her” as he, as a mere child, viewed mommy as the highest, the ultimate, a god.

Mike notes that “After that day I began to notice how it is nearly forbidden to question anything the bible, my teachers or priests said about God and heaven.” Now, in Catholicism it may be nearly forbidden to question but biblically it is encouraged (see Acts 17 wherein Paul interacts with the Bereans and they are praised for double checking that which he claimed, as one example).

Note that Mike complains that “Every time I asked a question about heaven and hell I would be given an answer straight out of the bible. I began asking the priests and my teachers to give me a personal answer but they never could, because they have never died and gone to heaven or hell.” This is good little kid “logic” but not adult logic. For example, every time I asked a question about slow, small step by step, incremental, species to species evolution I am given an answer straight out of a textbook. I ask the teachers and professors to give me a personal answer but they never could, because they have never witnessed it.

Mike then states, “Their answer would come from a book written by a man 2000 years ago who was still alive at the time and had also never been to heaven or hell.” This is confused as he claims that the Bible was “written by a man” which it was not, it was written by 40 authors, “2000 years ago” which is a logical genetic fallacy and then seems to imply that the one man who wrote the Bible has never been to heaven or hell and therefore, must not have known and maybe could not have known anything about it.
Thus, this denotes a shocking level of ignorance about the Bible and I mean even as a document. Back to my statement above what if I stated “The evolutionist’s answer would come from a book written by a man, Darwin, 157 years ago who was had never witnessed slow, small step by step, incremental, species to species evolution”?

Mike “remember[s] thinking ‘oh my God none of these adults really know what happens!!’ It was this realization that adults didn’t have all the answers but still loved to tell you how to live that made me an atheist.” Would Mike now conclude “‘oh my Nothing none of these adults really know slow, small step by step, incremental, species to species evolution happens!!’ It was this realization that adults didn’t have all the answers but still loved to tell you how life progresses and that God is irrelevant that made me an theist.”

Moreover, he notes, “I was young and only understood tangible ideas and I remember thinking religion is the only subject where my teachers don’t have to prove their answers.” Again would he write, “I was young and only understood tangible ideas and I remember thinking evolution is the only subject where my teachers don’t have to prove their answers”?

He then betrays ignorance of the differences between something like math and theology (or evolution) in writing, “In math class I could take 2 pairs of apples and make 4, in science you could look at the planets/stars in the sky, in history you could see real documentary footage but religion, well that was all based on word of mouth and instead of empirical truth they revered faith. Faith?”
If in math class he could see that 2+2=4 since math is a “hard science” as it were. Via astronomy one “could look” (even if cosmology and cosmogony are mathematical and philosophic). In “history you could see real documentary footage” even if that “real” documentary footage was “based on word of mouth and instead of empirical truth” which Mike merely asserts. Yet, evolution is a theory which is supposed to be about biology and it is a worldview-philosophy whereby one interprets (or, reinterprets and misinterprets) evidence and thus, is not a hard but a soft science.

Mike focuses on what he claims is faith in continuing the thought above, “…they revered faith. Faith? Faith is not tangible, faith cannot be measured, faith is…blind. In grade 6 I chose to never accept knowledge that was based on blind faith and could not be proven” (ellipses in original). Of course, this is an Atheistic re- and mis- definition of faith. No idea or concept is “tangible” so that is a nonissue. Faith is more akin to reading a science journal paper and if it is cogent then leaping to the logical conclusion that its resulting claims must be accurate. Would Mike state, “I chose to never accept knowledge that was based on blind faith and could not be proven such as slow, small step by step, incremental, species to species evolution”? Also, “I chose to never accept…” is a personal preference.

Lastly, he states, “Religion was societally placed higher than anything else but required the least amount of proof, this made no sense to me and still doesn’t.” Again, would he write, “Evoluiton was societally placed higher than anything else but required the least amount of proof, this made no sense to me and still doesn’t” also “made no sense to me” is a subjective non-standard.

Lastly, he notes “I am not a forever atheist, I am an atheist until someone can prove that God is empirically true, until then I will continue to live my life based on real truths (science) and not blind faith.” He falsely dichotomizes theism vs. science and then thinking that his views are scientific (even though they obviously are not) he demands scientific empirical evidence for God which means that he wants sense based or physical evidence of a being that is traditionally know to not be known via senses and is not physical. Thus, Mike was confused at 2 yrs old and remains so on various levels.
So, does Mike state, “I am not a forever non-evolutionist, I am an non-evolutionist until someone can prove that slow, small step by step, incremental, species to species evolution is empirically true, until then I will continue to live my life based on real truths (hard science) and not blind ‘faith’”?

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

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.


Posted

in

by

Tags: