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.”
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.