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.
Bhashkar Sharma:
“Studied religions. Moving on…. Born and brought up in a devout Hindu family…By the age of 20, I had read more religious and spiritual books than most people do in their lifetime…I thought of taking a look at what others had to offer – Buddhism, Sikhism etc. Found a lot of similarities.” At this point we have a generic claim to book smarts and it is no wonder that they found Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism similar since Buddhism began as a sect of Hinduism and Sikhism is a combination of Hinduism and Islam.
Yet, they then “Tried to learn about Jesus and Christianity, and parts of Islam”—“Tried to learn”? “Do, or do not. There is no try”—Yoda ;o)
Main points:
We are not told when they became an Atheist nor were given a timeline from which to estimate.
They reached the “conclusion that the common message is all the religions is: Be a good person, to yourself and to others. Everything else is pretty much inconsistent, and can be done without.” Yet, this is faulty at a literally fundamental level as that we it is merely asserted that “can be done without” is actually the foundation, the premise, that upon which “Be a good person, to yourself and to others” is based in the first place including that without that which “can be done without” we cannot even absolutely define “good” and without an absolute definition of “good” we can all personally defined “good” and then assign “goodness” to ourselves.
They also note that “Reading up on the history of religions pretty much ripped apart their ‘divinity’; and the reason behind all the pain and suffering in the world was still unanswered.” Thus, in typical Atheist fashion they appeal to the problem of evil without providing a premise upon which to condemn or even define evil, they do away with God and now cannot even blame God for it, they take on Atheism which does nothing about it but impotently and emotively complain—except to make it worse as the fit live, the less fit die and…that’s all folks.
Now, when they note that “at some point in time, every big religion has been at war with some other religion” they are really saying nothing at all as they provide no premise upon which to condemn any war at all. Also, they are an Atheist yet, Atheists mass murdered circa 200 million people in merely a few decades so that their complaint is even more incoherent and emotive in nature.
We next come to a typical Atheist theology when they write, “Why even create this confusion in the first place? If I were God, I wouldn’t seek to be worshipped; and if I really wanted to, I would just tell everyone on the planet the one right way to do it.” In other words: if God was then God would X and not Y, since God does not do X but does do Y then there is no God. The Atheist anthropomorphizes God and demands that unless God does what the Atheist wants then God is not God but they Atheist has put themselves in the place of God: Atheism is auto-theistic.
This is also incoherent as it assumes that God is the one who created confusion which is interesting as the Bible specifically states that God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), people create confusion, not God.
We now come another typical Atheist fallacy: to turn “science” into a worldview-philosophy even whilst utterly misunderstanding and misapplying science.
They note that “The scientific explanation satisfied me. It does not tell you that you are being punished or rewarded. It tells things as they appear, after thoroughly and rigorously examining what it says.”
Note that the subjective premise is that punish or reward are wrong even though he does not tell us why and has no premise upon which to do so. Also, “The scientific explanation” may not punish or reward but scientists and adherents of scientism do punish and reward: they punish by censoring dissenting voices and reward by popularizing adhering ones. Also, science tells us nothing at all rather, scientists do and that “scientific explanation” means the popular interpretation de jour which “tells things as they appear” within the current orthodox theories de jour.
They further note:
Science gave me the answers about the presence of billions of stars in billions of galaxies. Religions have been focused on Earth and humans (apart from maybe Mormonism and Scientology, but for completely different reasons) and pretty much disregard the existence of the whole universe.
I am unsure what is means to have been given, “answers about the presence of billions of stars in billions of galaxies”: answers to what questions? Generically stated it may be that “Religions have been focused on Earth and humans” and he does not say why they should not, are lacking due to this, etc. The exception of Mormonism and Scientology are interesting since they are both ancient alien style belief systems: Mormonism’s god, for Earth, was born and grew up on another planet (the TV show Battlestar Galactica is based on Mormon theology) and Scientology claims that human psychiatric problems stem from when a galactic overlord named Xenu brought people to Earth from another planet and blew them up in volcanos: see here and here.
The Atheist concludes this thought by noting that “Religions…pretty much disregard the existence of the whole universe” without, again, stating why this is a problem. This would be like condemning science for not telling us whether to choose chocolate or vanilla ice cream. I will not speak for all religions but as for the Bible: it tells us that the universe had a beginning (Genesis 1) and it does, that the Sun makes a circuit (Psalm 19) and it does, tells us about Orion and the Pleiades (Job 9), etc., etc., etc.
Now comes this Atheist’s statement of “faith,” as it were:
I’m seeking answers. Science doesn’t tell me to believe things on face value. It gives practical, logical and peer-reviewed explanations for them. Looking at the stars makes me feel more connected to the universe than staring at any depiction of God. Science saved my soul.
Stating “I’m seeking answers” within the context of “religion” versus “science” (whatever he means by either term) is the problem as the scientific method was designed by Bible believers to perform a certain task and no more. It is a tool whereby to discern the cause and effect of the physical ream and no more. Thus, science can provide certain answers to certain questions on certain issues and no more. It is stated that “Science doesn’t tell me to believe things on face value” well, science tells us nothing at all rather, scientists do and scientists, pop-science educators and teachers not only tell us to believe things on face value but demand that we believe things on face value in many instances on many issues.
Note that the statement, “Looking at the stars makes me feel more connected to the universe than staring at any depiction of God” ties into that which I chronicled in Atheism Spirituality which is that some Atheists take a method which was designed to explore certain phenomena and turn it into a worldview-philosophy and finally a religion of their own. Also, it is utterly ironic to claim that “Science” which would deny the existence of the soul (even whilst having no way of observation or testing) “saved my soul.”
Shrey Goyal:
My journey towards atheism has been a rather gradual process, and it is not just how my beliefs changed, but how I labelled and acknowledged my position, that define the how and why of my becoming an atheist.
I was raised in a fairly conservative Hindu household…Hinduism [is] embedded in the cultural fabric of India, albeit in a secular fashion…I was deeply religious and had not just belief, but faith, in god. I sincerely prayed and believed in a personal relationship with a supernatural entity…I turned ten, and started asking myself and others around me some philosophical questions…Within a few years, I had stopped participating in most rituals and rites…I still did, however, believe in god…But it was no longer a personal relationship…But I still did believe in the existence of such an entity, a creator…in college…was introduced to Dawkins and Hitchens, the former whom I had followed more as a scientist than a thought leader. It was a downward spiral from there…one of my best friends, who identified himself as ignostic…there is probably no god, and at least none the kind most religions describe….I considered myself having reached that decision.
Main points:
No age given.
Raised Hindu, culturally secular but had “faith, in god…a supernatural entity” even though Hinduism is generally understood as polytheistic but Shrey may have been henotheistic (accepting the existence of one god whilst not denying the existence of other gods). In fact, she references that she was “dedicated to the monkey god, Hanuman” to whom Barack Obama also seems to be dedicated. As Shrey notes, “Hinduism is a very broad religion” which even “allowed for” Atheism, “In fact, the founder and inaugural president of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (World Hindu Council), was an atheist.”
He also makes an interesting point regarding visiting the Meenakshi temple in the city of Madurai wherein some “fellows were from Europe and the US, and were discussing how inclusive a religion Hindusim is. This was until we reached near the heart of the structure, where a sign saying ‘Only Hindus allowed beyond this Point’ greeted us.”
The monkey god, Hanuman among Obama’s various religious amulets.
Appealing to Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens for information on science, philosophy, theology, etc. is a tremendous error as they both tend to make statements that are scientifically, philosophically, religiously or theologically erroneous on various levels: see here and here.
He notes that he “looked for answers in the Gita. I also tried to understand the teachings of Islam from some friends, and Christianity from the Jesuit school I went to.” Thus, Catholicism is involved, to whatever degree, again due to the Jesuit school.
He also appeals to the problem of evil and/or religious violence in noting, “I saw many other shades of religion. The violence, the unpleasantness it brings about between people” even though Atheism is responsible for unfathomable levels of violence and unpleasantness such as mass murdering circa 200 million people in a mere few decades.
He also falls for the fallacy of appealing to science for apparently all things which results in scientism, “I also became more and more invested in science and philosophy.”
Binay Sahoo: Claims, “Staunch Theist turned Atheist by Logical Awakening” and also notes, “I was born into staunch Hindu Family, renounced religion while crossing adolescence.” Thus, one reason given is “Logical Awakening” and another is “crossing adolescence”; we shall see if the logical awakening coincided with crossing adolescence or not.
Beyond Hinduism, “I was exposed another spiritual organisation, this time a Buddhist one” and Buddhism is a sect or cult of Hinduism.
Main points:
“around 19 yrs of age…The Spiritual Teachings started appearing baseless garbage.”
Binay notes that “All of the fundamental principles, rules & regulations, of Religion and spiritualism appeared fraudulent. Every such damn organisation felt to be cheating money out of gullible & desperate preys.”
As is very stereotypical, this is a generic enough statement to be virtually meaningless. That which “appears fraudulent to Binay is merely subjective. It is certainly true that there are some organizations that cheat money out of gullible, etc. but to make an all-encompassing generic claim is merely prejudice.
Binay notes, “Here I am. A converted Atheist, not giving a damn about Religion, religious practices, concepts and associated myths & superstitions.” The last statement of note is a bit difficult to discern due to Binay’s slightly broken English, “As a result a some of religious activities. All of spiritual sessions & superstitious beliefs has vanished from my family. Its just the Faith in the ‘Almighty’ thats left, and I’m not forcing anyone into my beliefs.”
Akshat Prakash:
Makes the interesting statement, “Only religious people have a right to be offended.” Perhaps this was meant sarcastically yet, they may be on to something as the only viable manner whereby to be offended is to possess an absolute standard which Atheists not only lack but cannot have as per their worldview-philosophy. They do refer to “the morality/God of the gap crap.”
It is stated, “I was raised in a family of cultural hindus…for most Indians as in India religion is highly intertwined with culture and nationalism…My parents always had a pragmatic approach to religion, following rituals but never going out of the way for religious purposes.”
Main points:
Circa 13 yrs old is noted.
The dad’s “view always has been that the capability to form and logically defend opinions is more important than the opinion itself.” Now you understand the reference to pragmatism. I am unsure how it is a good idea to think that your conclusions are less important than being able to form and logically defend them. However, this will come into play: bad conclusions based on supposedly good steps along the way.
They note that they were “really religious” and that “an important part of the hindu religious philosophy is that if you truly believe in god and do your duty regardless of consequence, god will come and help you directly. No signs, no afterlife rewards, direct help and guidance.” This particular Hindu concept will came into play when “I came across a documentary of the holocaust…I can not describe how I feel” or rather, felt about it but pondered, “how could someone do such a thing” and that lead to the problem of evil, “why did god not help these people”?
Now, before getting to the bottom line note that some of the info to which they were exposed was at a popular level which means likely saturated with misinformation, “I was also exposed to a lot of other stuff like paleontology and evolutionary theory (Thank you jurassic park) and cosmology (Thank you old Discovery channel)…That was what started my crisis of faith. In search of answers I started referring to…a lot of history (I had just been introduced to wikipedia)…I dived deeper into books and Wikipedia.” Well, fictional movies, allegedly accurate documentaries on the Discovery channel and Wikipedia are not exactly scholarly sources although generic “books” are referenced.
In any regard, we are told that such info resulted in “four conclusions” to which I will reply: “1. The world is full of sh[****] people doing sh[****]things which no one really cares about.”
Well, this is merely a complaint and largely false as many do care.
“2. All religions are huge ponzi schemes created by smart people to keep the rest in line (Opium of the Masses) full of really evil things (western religions holy s[***], eastern one are a little better, only a little).”
Well, this is merely a complaint and largely false, is utterly generic and paints with a brush. Interestingly, they had referenced Joseph Stalin and now paraphrased Karl Marx and the fact is that we could just as easily say Atheism is a huge ponzi schemes created by smart people to keep the rest in line.
“3. When it comes to explaining physical phenomena, science is way superior.”
Yes indeed, as science was specifically designed by Bible believers to do just that. But, pray tell, what does Atheism have to do with science and what does science have to do with Atheism? The answer is: utterly nothing whatsoever.
“4. Even if god exists, he does not really give a f[***] or is extremely sadistic and evil himself.”
Here again is the stereotypical Atheist ploy of making oneself god by condemning God for not adhering to their subjective standards and doing so without providing a premise upon which to condemn sadism or evil. No wonder they noted that “I had to deal with all the morality/God of the gap crap” even though it is not dealt with whatsoever within the written comments in question.
Well, these vague emotive reaction are “how I decided to leave religion” which means that they left Hindu theology based on pop-level misinformation.
Nikhilesh Iyer:
This person did not have much to say besides, “I was born and brought up in a orthodox (the so called “Brahmin”) Hindu family and I converted to atheism by thoroughly questioning my own faith and beliefs.”
Main points:
No age given.
They just tail off into stereotypical Atheist putdowns of anyone who disagrees with then as being involved in “inherent hypocrisy and insanity” being in a “mental cage” holding to “grand illusions” by “Blind faith” being “blinded by faith” and believing “rubbish.”
Rob Vint:
Notes, “I never believed in the first place…realised this…when I was around the age of 11 or 12.”
Main points:
At birth and/or 11-12 yrs old.
The short story is that “from about the ages of about 4-11” he had to spend time in prayer, “only until later reflection that I realised that, although acting as though I believed I was having a one-way conversation with God, I wasn’t” and “I couldn’t” which is merely an emotive statement and that’s all folks.
Ishabh Verma:
Claims to have gone from being a deist, to an agnostic, and finally to a “Hindu Atheist” noting “Islam made me an atheist.”
Main points:
No age given.
Points to the Paris attack” of 2015 AD as what resulted in Hindu Atheism having been deist before then.
Ishabh notes, “I never actually believed in Hindu gods…Before the attacks I was one of those liberals who use to change their status to ‘Islam is a religion of peace’ on Facebook after every terrorist attack” but “asked myself ‘what If I’m wrong?’” after the attacks.
Ishabh then quotes some Qur’anic surah 2:6-7 “Those who disbelieve, it’s all same for them whether you warn them or not. Those who disbelieve, Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and hearing, a veil over their vision. For them it’s a punishment.” Ishabh notes that 4:3-11 “allows men to take up-to 3 wives,” asks, “Where are all the self claimed feminists?…verse 14…And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger and transgresses His limits – He will put him into the Fire to abide eternally therein, and he will have a humiliating punishment.” Then “Here’s a summary of Chapter 9. If you’ve made a treaty with idolaters then honor it but as soon as the treaty is over, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, lie in wait for them at every place of ambush. But if they repent and observe Prayer and pay the Zakat, then leave their way free. Surely, Allah is Most Forgiving, Merciful.”
To which Ishabh comments, “Wow. Just Wow. Chapter 9 completely shattered my entire notion of ‘Islam is a religion of peace’…After reading about Mohammad I realized that ISIS was actually practicing the true Islam, they were not the ones who were taking verses out of context, as a matter of fact they were interpreting Quran as Mohammad wanted it to be interpreted.”
Here are some relevant factoids: the Encyclopedia of Wars (New York: Facts on File, 2005 AD) chronicles 1,763 wars dating from 8000 BC to 2003 AD and they categorize 123 wars, which is 6.9%, as have been religious wars. The shock is that even though Islam is one of the youngest of world religions, they have been involved in half of the religious wars in the past reckoned 10,000 years.
From here Ishabh dove head first into historical, logical and scientific misinformation as “I started watching videos Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins everyday” which lead to agnosticism.
Ishabh notes that the “Final push came in the form of Du’a Khalil Aswad” who was stoned to death on April 7, 2007 AD. She was of an Yazidi tribe and her death sentence was because, as her father termed it, “She fell in love with a Muslim and there is nothing wrong with that.”
Ishabh writes, “If there’s a god and he let those atrocities happen to Du’a then he doesn’t deserves to be worshiped.” This is a stereotype we have encountered time and again. The Atheist condemns God based on their own subjective, unstated and un-premised, standards and in doing so, they place themselves above God and thus, self-auto-deify themselves as god. Moreover, as an Atheist, the only thing that Ishabh can say about atrocities is that they have emotively personally decided to not like them.
As a final act of modern day-pop rebellion, “That day I unfriended god on Facebook” and writes, “I would prefer to chill out with Satan in hell then hang out with a god in heaven who kills millions of innocent people every year. I just don’t like the company of mass murderers” which nails is as all Ishabh can say is “I would prefer” and “I just don’t like” which are mere expressions of personal preference based on emotions.
Kumar Ayush:
Family were “‘officially’ Hindus…not into superstitious stuff…never ask God for anything, and never thank him for anything…my mother told me…We don’t care if you believe in God or not. Pray to him or not.”
Main points:
No age given.
Interestingly, Kumar writes, “I would never say ‘I don’t believe in God’. Atheism is defined by contemporary dictionaries to be ‘denial in existence of God’ but I don’t agree to it in a philosophical way. We don’t have a proof ‘for’ him, but we have no evidence which can logically establish his non-existence. A true atheist in my opinion, when asked about existence of God, would say, ‘I am not sure.’” Well then, a true Atheist is an agnostic then.
Divyanth Jayaraj:
Gives a nice age by age account beginning with “At 15, I had a somewhat vague idea of what God is. My religion was mostly in line with Hindu beliefs…At 16, I saw the movie, passion of the christ and I was greatly moved by it. I wanted to follow the example of Jesus. Even though I was too tired to read the Bible, I looked for other sources; folklore about Jesus, Moses and other Abrahamic figures.”
Main points:
26 yrs old.
“At 18” reacted to non-stop news about Islamic terrorism and “human-rights abuses in Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan and I developed a genuine hatred for Islam…began trolling and bigoting on various internet forums…At 19, I met someone” who appears to have turned Divyanth on to Muslim mysticism.
At “26…finally realized…Submission” in a mystical Islamic manner “only made me more ignorant and more fearful of my own thoughts…I learned of logical fallacies and found out that Quran is full of it…that’s the story of my atheism. But I still think about God, Allah, Krishna and Jesus for kicks’ sake.”
Lastly, Divyanth notes “I’ve also realized that being an atheist literally frees your mind to endless thought processes” which is the exact 100% opposite of the case. Well, okay, an Atheist can think that which they will but Atheism itself will restrict their conclusions to only those that are materialistic/naturalistic.
Diniel Patel: Interestingly, Diniel begins by noting “Found no evidence to believe in the omnipresent god(s)” and yet, in order to have searched out all such evidence Diniel would have to be omniscient.
Thus, Diniel falls into folly instantly and continues falling further from there by noting, “May be there is a god. I am yet to see any empirical proof of it/him/her. And yeah, Abrahamic religions, why just HE? Greek, Indian religions at least give justice to all genders.”
Main points:
Mid teens.
It may be a language gap but this is an utterly mistaken and confused assertion. Diniel does not define that which is meant by empirical proof in their estimation but only asserts that they have seen none. The Abrahamic religions do not believe that God is a male yet, generically refer to God via male gender terms. Jesus came as a male but there is no indication that the Godhead, in nature and essence is male. In fact, since the Abrahamic religions believe that God is spirit, it is literally impossible for God to be a male since, as Jesus put it, “a spirit has not flesh and bones” (Luke 24:39).
Now, what this has to do with “justice” is unclear but while you are at it you can read Is the Bible misogynistic? and Biblical Women.
As it turns out, Diniel was “Born in to a believer Hindu family, not super religious…went to an [Seventh Day] Adventist school” and notes “how are we different from the stupid Catholics…I could not bring myself to accept god…by the middle of my teens.”
Diniel recalls “praying to god, for a nice pen, a nice girlfriend, end of my dad’s alcoholism, tasty food everyday” and upon being “told to be altruistic…thought, ok, maybe god won’t give me what I ask for myself but maybe he will listen to my prayers AND ACT ON THEM, if I asked for other people” yet upon doing this, “NOTHING WORKED.”
He then went from condemning God for not obeying his commands, prayers, to appealing to the problem of evil as “I couldn’t bring myself to accept a god who brings a child into this world that has cancer or a broken limb or any other diseases or deformities.” Given his Hindu background, he notes that “The concept of sins from your previous birth affecting your current birth, still does not make sense to me” and me neither.
He ends with “I wont believe in god till I find evidence, that can withstand test of time” and yet, does not hint at what such evidence would look like.
Arunav Sanyal:
Grew up in a “moderately religious family. My father is devoutly religious (has strong faith in the trinity of hinduism and generic stuff like astrology). My mother not as much but used to be quite religious at least in my formative years. My brother is agnostic” and in the end, Arunav asserts that “there can be no god.”
Arunav “liked to question almost everything” and, for example, asked, “Why do we view people from different religions with disdain?” to which I would ask, “To whom are you referring by ‘we’?” Hindus in general, you family in particular, who?
Arunav “was often told not to ask questions to elders, they know best, its been like this for centuries etc. It didn’t appeal to me” and it does not appeal to me either. In fact, my experience is hearing pastor after pastor after pastor outright stating during sermons that we are not to take their word for anything but search things out for ourselves.
Main points:
No age given.
Arunav fell for the mistaken notion that, as some term it, science is taking over God’s job or rather, explaining how things occur naturally which were once thought to be the supernatural work of God, “In high school…I read history and beliefs of ancient cultures. Something struck me. They associated god with things they don’t know. For instance Greeks considered lightning to be Zeus’s anger. Its now a well explained phenomenon.”
Arunav fails to note that there are different levels of, sorts of, forms of, kinds of explanations; for example, science can tell us something about how but never why in any ultimate sense on both accounts.
Arunav had been taught to “pray to god every night” but “came up with a simple argument – why would an omniscient god care about me?” Well, that is not an argument, that is a jumping to a conclusion. He further wrote, “What purpose would it serve that deity? To me praying seemed like futile and redundant.” Well, what it seems like to Arunav is not relevant as that is subjective and emotive.
Well, some millennia ago, Psalm 8 asked “When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, The moon and the stars, which You have ordained, that You are mindful of him, And the son of man that You visit him?” Well, the fact is that Arunav non-argument is a non sequitur since there is no logical reason to conclude that it is inconsistent of fallacious that an “omniscient god care about me.” For details on this issue and the Psalm, see Atheism and the Cosmic Insignificance of Humanity and Everything.
We then run into a one, two combo of Atheist fallacies and stereotypes, “Then I read about the crusades and the generic communal tension amongst hindus and muslims. This was the first time I viewed religion with disdain. I was convinced it has caused more suffering than anything else in the world.”
Firstly, Arunav instantly jumps to condemnation without a premise (Arunav seems to tend to jump to conclusion rather than arguing to them) and secondly, merely asserts, without evidence (another mere conclusion), that “religion” (generically) “has caused more suffering than anything else in the world” when the fact is that statistically Atheists mass murdered more people in a mere few decades than all religions in all of history put together, see Find it Fast – Fast Facts: on religious wars.
Arunav also concludes that “praying is a selfish activity” which means that those who pray are being judged as being selfish even though people pray for the benefit of others all of the time.
We encounter a stereotype in the statement, “I came into acquaintance with people who were immoral and selfish but who were also devoutly religious” and while this is shameful, Atheist do not seem to mind that they will come into acquaintance with people who were immoral and selfish and who are also devoutly Atheistic. If you think that in the former case they are supposed to have a set of ethics in the in the latter they do not you are right.
In fact, Arunav states, “The fact that many theists claim that religion is the basis of morality held no value in my mind.” Well, that which Arunav holds as valuable is not relevant. The fact is that while some people may term it as that “religion is the basis of morality” I am unaware of this. Rather, it is God’s very nature and essence which is the basis of morality or rather, ethics, see Ethics vs. Morality which is an article and video combo.
An interesting thing about how Atheists constantly jump directly into fire and brimstone condemnation without a premise is that they are reacting to God’s ethics code written within them but since they do not want to acknowledge God they jump directly into fire and brimstone condemnation without a premise. So, “that religion is the basis of morality held no value in my mind” yet, Arunav refers to “My hatred for religion” due to, for example, “discrimination on its basis. Dalits (lower caste hindus) being treated like s[***]. Temples saying ‘only hindus allowed’, ‘menstruating women are impure’. Misogyny promoted in the name of piety” it is just a list of observations and not actual condemnations, they are unfounded emotive assertions.
Arunav states that it was a “game changer, I learn’t about occam’s razor, the newtons laws, the theory of evolution and finally the theory of probability. I found these concepts infinitely more intuitive than an arbitrary god. You could say I am a devout follower of occam’s razor.” Well, simply listing the terms Occam’s Razor, Newton’s laws, evolution and probability is mere elephant hurling as they are merely labels and we are not told how they benefit the Atheist in the least bit—more jumping to conclusions. Also, as soon as Arunav wants to argue for the multiverse in a desperate attempt to do away with God they will just as quickly do away with Occam’s Razor. So abused, misused and misunderstood is Occam’s Razor that Arunav actually concludes that “there can be no god” because “A god is too complicated and arbitrary” yet, all of these claims are merely assertions based on jumping to conclusions. In fact, traditionally God has been thought of as a mind and a mind is simple even if it entertains complex thoughts.
Yet, in any case they continue by noting, “Atheism is so much simpler. I am ready to accept the fact I don’t know how some things work but I don’t attribute random reasons to it.” Well, if they want to argue that a concept is simpler than a being they may have a point yet, this is not scientific and is comparing apples and the laws of thermodynamics.
Arunav also fell for the Richard Dawkins about appealing to “luck” to explain how the entire universe and life came about in stating, “The moment I lead on eyes on the theory of probability I had an epiphany. Luck is probability taken personally. Plain and simple” whatever that means. Actually, some Atheists seem to employ the term “luck” when they admit something is a miracle but are ashamed to admit it.
Recall that Arunav claims “to accept the fact I don’t know how some things work but I don’t attribute random reasons to it” but then again they do appeal to “random reasons” which they term “luck”—oh, but, of course, “luck” is “probability taken personally” so…there’s that.
Arunav then seems to end in an all over the place manner in stating, “To me god is a weakness in humanity. I admit, if I am in a plane that is about to crash, I will also get my faith back in god.”
They then decide to take another pop-shot to the effect that “my unfortunate theist brethren” are “in a cage” as Arunav has “necessary cojones to accept ‘I don’t know the answer to your question but humanity is working on it.’” Yet, this is merely a pop-Atheist one liner de jour. Arunav then merely asserts “People can’t handle being exposed to the insignificance of their existence, so they make god a defense mechanism” to which I can just as easily asserts “People can’t handle being exposed to the significance of God’s existence, so they make Athiesm a defense mechanism.”
The final statement denotes that Arunav’s hatred of religion has become militant lunacy as it is noted, “I dream of a world free of all religion…Humanity hasn’t” as of yet, “reached that phase in evolution in which we can completely disregard god.” Well, if religion was gone then people would still do exactly what they do but for other reasons: think of, for example, the decades old phenomena of Atheist churches and Atheists mass murdering 200 million people in a mere few decades and you get the picture.
Neeraja R Venu:
“I was brought up in a not-so-religious family” her name and reference to “I was never made to read holy books or fast during festivals as a child” makes me think she had a not-so-Hindu background.
She notes, “I cannot remember an exact point of time in the past, but I had become an atheist long before I realized that I had. It was a gradual transition, and I must have been around 15 or 16 when I started acknowledging the fact that I had stopped believing in this so-called ‘higher power’ or whatever.”
Main points:
15-16 yrs old.
A common theme is:
As a little kid, I always used to ask difficult questions about spirituality and wanted to know the reason behind every blind superstition that I came across. Most of the time, I was told that some things ought not to be questioned, but that was the answer that made me even more curious.
Good point.
She notes, “it could have been some of the Communist literature that I had read in my mid-teens that strengthened my resolve to stop believing. I was inspired by the stories of Ernesto ‘Che’ Guevara and Fidel Castro” it is fascinating that she was inspired by violent oppressive mass murdering thugs.
She also claims, “I don’t preach my belief, or the lack of it, because then atheism would be just like any other religion.” Well, for many reasons, such as that very many Atheists preach their Atheism, it is just like any other religion. For example, the Michael Newdow claims that Atheism is a religion (see video embedded here and Matt Dillahunty admits to being an Atheist missionary (see video here).
Neeraja then definer her particular “Atheism” (tinged with a Hindu flavor?), “Atheism is a state of being, a state of silently existing as a passive observer of the myriad ways in which religion is grossly misinterpreted and practised.” She also notes that “The concept of ‘God’ is a beautiful one, but I’m sometimes amused by people who can blindly believe in his existence, and who simply leave all their problems in the Divine Complaint Box, without realizing the fact that they are the makers of their own destiny.”
I supposed we could say that we are amused by people who can blindly not believe in His existence, and who simply leave all their problems in the random evolution Complaint Box. As for being makers of their own destiny well, in an Atheist universe you can do that and so did Adolf Hitler.
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.
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.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Twitter: #atheism, #atheists, #hinduism
Facebook: #atheism, #atheists, #hinduism
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.