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

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.


Posted

in

by

Tags: