has anyone started out religious then become atheist?

[EconomistBR]

I was raised Catholic but never believed in it.

I was raised a Catholic too, but I never could believe the dogmas then I changed

 

[Izipo]

Same here, was raised as a Roman Catholic, done the whole shebang (catholic schools and all)... until I was a teenager and church stopped being compulsory.
Plus the fact that I've always been a scientific nerdy type... It was gradual I think, even before I did the confirmation. It was important to my parents, so I just did it to please them, never truly believing.
But I still think its important for people. Some people need religion to cope with other things, okay, no problem, I don't, that's all.
It's sad to see people arguing over and over about a personal belief.
Anyway, I'm glad I was raised that way, the morals are sound (love thy brother...) and its an important part of our culture.
Now I've moved on to something else and I'm glad too.

EDIT : On a side note. For those reasons my daughters are baptized... I'll be ok if they get into Catholic school, I just hope that they won't take everything too literally.

 

[fishjie]

You don't "convert" to atheism.

true that. thread title changed. the original was the easiest thread title i could come up with.

Nope, seeing as how God exists and all, I figure there will always be some people around in touch with the truth.

edit: apologies if you're not actually christian, i got carried away here. but if you are, please explain what truth you are referring to.

What truth would that be?

The truth being that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?

That those who do not accept the zombie as master will burn in a place of eternal torment and hellfire while those who did live on in a holy city in the sky

That the earth is only 10000 years old?

That light and darkness were created first, AND THEN the sun and the stars?

That a flood covered the entire earth and wiped out everything, and there was a boat that had two of every animal that repopulated the entire world?

That there was a tower that would reach the sky was being constructed by people, which was then abandoned, because a super omnipotent omniscient being that can read peoples minds

etc etc etc

 

[Shadylookin]

I would have thought the same OP question, but in reverse, would have been far, far more interesting.

not really by default everyone that is religious was once a non-believer. Unless of course you think you were born believing in jesus/allah/buddha/Ahura mazda/

Not to mention most religious people were just raised that way

 

[Merkinball]

I'm not athiest. But I am agnostic.

My family was never the best set of catholics out there. My father is a self-professed alterboy turned athiest, and my mom took my sisters and I to church enough to get us confirmed and that was about it. There was a point in life where I was pretty deep into my belief in God, but I always the scriptures, and the bible with a sharp critical eye. I was always outspoken in Sunday school, asking for justifications, and even got kicked out one day for questioning how absurd the idea of the trinity was. I also got kicked out on day for suggesting that Jesus spoke of Mohamed, or at least another prophet to follow him, so there was probably a good chance we were all completely wrong. I wanted justifications for the violence, the bigotry, the discrimination. I wanted to know why it was wrong for me to date a Presbyterian, or a Mormon, or a Jew. It all seemed ridiculous to me. I was also shunned by some, but revered by others for criticizing church members who used their faith to fight abortion. But...I still thought that my church was a great family (except for the zealots), and always went to church even though I found the entire ordeal to be completely dogmatic.

Then I went and saw some suffering in the world. And there's just no justification for it. And even when I ask the most religious of people to justify such suffering on earth, there's no justification for it. And I simply refuse to worship any human concieved notions of God. That guy's a bastard and not worth rejoicing over.

Oh, and the Jews were in Egypt, and the bible is probably of African origin's. The original Jews are largely believed now to have been black. Most of their ancestors can be found in West Africa, and some of these tribes, who've remained independent from Judaism or Christianity have similar traditions and beliefs anyhow. Many of the biblical names can also be traced back these tribes. It's now thought that the lost tribe of Dan ended up in Ethiopia. It's also no coincidence at all that the "black madonna" exists. Mary, Joseph, and Jesus were probably black as the ace of spades. It's also been noted that hundreds of churches in Europe still have black biblical figurines of Jesus, Mary, Joseph, the whole nine yards.

You're right about the bible being rewritten and stolen by people for their own pleasure's. There's a lot of suspicion within the Jewish community about the origins of the Torah, and the belief that this book is entirely out of Africa, and that the history of the Jews being black has been buried by Jewish scholars. The Bible itself was completely rewritten, with English names being given to numerous people in the bible (There were no John, Luke, or Mark's in Israel then). Many people believe that the bible was completely rewritten and reshaped (I forget by which Pope) in order to justify slavery. The irony of course, is rich. There is some DAMN interesting literature on this subject.

At this point in life, I just find the three religions of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, along with their histories, how they developed, to be entirely engrossing.

But I've completely rejected the religions themselves and the God the worship. Seriously. F--k that guy...

 

[Tank_Guy#3]

Was Catholic, baptism, communion, -----> then enlightenment: atheism.

It came about during my chemistry, biology, physics and some of the higher math classes.

 

[Stapel]

I was raised calvinist (gereformeerd). I guess presbyterian comes closest. I was already doubting, when a dramatic event (a suiced by a man sufering from multi-personality syndrom; he killed himself when he was normal, to avoid turning into the wife-and-daughter-beating-freak once more) made things clear: God is passive. That's the way it happened to me. I did not have doubts over the existance of God, but wondered why he is such a lazy bastard. The world looks EXACTLY like it would look like without any divine interception.
Later I came to the conclusion that instead of God being passive, it might very well be that He simply is not there at all. Same differecne, right? I really felt like an extreme idiot for having believed he actuall WAS there.
Today, I still think that believing in God, makes just as much sense as believing that the invisible pink teacup created the world.

I still read the Bible a lot. Merely for it's value of literature and for its influence on society. What I find really shocking is that most Christians are Paulinic Christians. Anyone who reads Paul's epistals MUST come to the conclusion he was an extremely wicked man who cannot possibly have been a Christian as described in the gospels..... Paul's epistals are very emotional and one of his emotions is hatred. Simple as that.

 

[fishjie]

I still read the Bible a lot. Merely for it's value of literature and for its influence on society. What I find really shocking is that most Christians are Paulinic Christians. Anyone who reads Paul's epistals MUST come to the conclusion he was an extremely wicked man who cannot possibly have been a Christian as described in the gospels..... Paul's epistals are very emotional and one of his emotions is hatred. Simple as that.

?

where do you see that?

 

[Stapel]

Epistals to the Romans, first chapter, to start with. Please have an OPEN mind before reading it (again). If your religious beliefs withhold you from concluding it is wicked, than you will not draw the obvious conclusion....

 

[RedRalph]

I'm agnostic, leaning towards atheism. I think theres a chance there is some form of afterlife, I doubt its a blissful paradise, I think maybe it might be just some form a different conciousness. I definitely dont believe in a creator deity. but I'd never try to argue with someone that there must be an afterlife, because its nothing but a gut feeling, possibly based on wishful thinking, so there is no real reason for anyone to believe it.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

Although I would deny it in person, I did become rather religious alongside the mainstream Americana evangelical Christian movement when I was a senior in high school and a freshman in college. Unfortunately, it really set me apart from my family (who were moderate catholics) and friends (who thought of church as a chore). So I pretty much kept it under raps and allowed it to guide me 'spiritually'.

I think there in lied the problem. Even in college I always trying to save face in front of parents and other friends in some kind of attempt to mitigate the appearance of being what was then and is now typically even seen as some sort of 'crazy' in my family and friends. Religion is good, but too much Christianity and you'll end up in the poor house.

I eventually grew tired of trying to save face in Catholic culture of Polish-Americans on one hand and 'true' Christianity on the other, so I abandoned religion and polish culture in general. I think I had finally become sick of limiting myself in public because of my personal crutch when everyone else I knew was getting ahead. My decision to change wasn't really logical, but I don't believe anger ever is.

The next thing I did was find philosophy. Philosophy (especially political philosophy) pretty much reaffirmed how I felt about religion before I found religion. And even now I'm so in the hole I don't think I can even look at religion with the same fervor as I once did in high school ever again.

So yeah? I once was religious, but I crashed pretty hard.

 

[Grisu]

I was raised "Evangelisch Reformiert" (protestant basically), but I've never been really religious, only a apathetic believer similar to my parents, basically.

Later I stopped believeing became agnostic, though 'officially' I'm still reformed.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I would have thought the same OP question, but in reverse, would have been far, far more interesting.

?atheist become then religious out started anyone Has

Would have been an interesting OP indeed

 

[fishjie]

Epistals to the Romans, first chapter, to start with. Please have an OPEN mind before reading it (again). If your religious beliefs withhold you from concluding it is wicked, than you will not draw the obvious conclusion....

lol dude did you even notice that im the guy who started this thread? if you read my first post, what religious beliefs? but i'll still debate interpretations of passages, but not out for religious reasons, but just because debating this stuff is fun, especially when you can look objectively at it, instead of holding it is infallible truth.

i did not really sense any serious hate in the stuff paul wrote, and i have read the new testemant multiple times. ok, so romans 1 has some stuff about hating on gay people. but compare it with say .......... kings or joshua or deuteronomy or anything in the OT and it PALES in comparison. imo the main thrust of romans is to establish original sin and how the law falls short, how works will not get you into heaven, and why jesus is necessary. its basically defining the core beliefs of christianity. its not really concerned with hate.

edit: whereas i simply could not read the old testemant without sensing the tremendous hate and evil of yahweh. back then i couldnt admit it, but looking back, it was just horrible. what was appalling was how yahweh would kill entire families of people who had disobeyed (often times disobeying the order to slaughter all the women and children of the promised land they were invading). incredible. or how king saul didnt destroy some sheep and lost favor with god, whereas king david sent an innocent man off to die so he could bang his wife, and still had favor with god (if you read some books that look objectively at the bible, they hypothesize that the texts were edited history to make king david look good. some speculate he was the one who hired the assassin to actually kill saul, later killing the assassin when he announced he had completed the job to cover up tracks. of course others say that there is no evidence david existed at all).

so i find it surprising you say paul is full of hate, because i actually had to stop reading the OT at times, and just skip ahead to the NT instead (i used to read the bible linearly from start to finish), just because the NT was overwhelmingly less hateful.

i think the more telling point is that people can read the same passages and come up with completely different interpretations. hence why there are 1000000000000 christian denominations today, each one with members of the congregation who have their own beliefs.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yes, I used to be Christian. Quite happily too.
I was of the variety that can "pray in tongues", I taught myself how when I was about 6.

I lost and regained faith at about the age of 14, and then lost it again about the age of 20-22.

I'm now apostate. I can still make that noise though, the 'speaking in tongues' that was supposed to be a gift from the Holy Ghost. Apparently you don't lose that ability when you're atheist

 

[Stapel]

lol dude did you even notice that im the guy who started this thread?

Nope .

if you read my first post, what religious beliefs? but i'll still debate interpretations of passages, but not out for religious reasons, but just because debating this stuff is fun, especially when you can look objectively at it, instead of holding it is infallible truth.

i did not really sense any serious hate in the stuff paul wrote, and i have read the new testemant multiple times. ok, so romans 1 has some stuff about hating on gay people. but compare it with say .......... kings or joshua or deuteronomy or anything in the OT and it PALES in comparison. imo the main thrust of romans is to establish original sin and how the law falls short, how works will not get you into heaven, and why jesus is necessary. its basically defining the core beliefs of christianity. its not really concerned with hate.

I agree that Paul's stuff pales in comparison to various OT stuff, but that was not my point. The NT is supposed to enlighten the OT. In that context I find Paul's writings off the line.
My opinion is that Paul was a very intelligent, wicked, evil man. If anyone, today, would wright what he has written, he would probably end op in either jail or mental clinic, and rightfully so!

I don't think Paul's epistals define the core beliefs of Christianity. Christianity is possible (and a lot healthier) without Paul's sick stuff.

 

[RedRalph]

What truth would that be?

The truth being that a cosmic Jewish zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree?

That those who do not accept the zombie as master will burn in a place of eternal torment and hellfire while those who did live on in a holy city in the sky

That the earth is only 10000 years old?

That light and darkness were created first, AND THEN the sun and the stars?

That a flood covered the entire earth and wiped out everything, and there was a boat that had two of every animal that repopulated the entire world?

That there was a tower that would reach the sky was being constructed by people, which was then abandoned, because a super omnipotent omniscient being that can read peoples minds

etc etc etc

 

[fishjie]

I don't think Paul's epistals define the core beliefs of Christianity. Christianity is possible (and a lot healthier) without Paul's sick stuff.

well i think most people consider paul the inventor of christianity. like i said in the previous post, romans pretty much spells out the concept of original sin, and why works will not get you into heaven, but jesus will. pauls epistles are pretty much the earliest church documents available, whereas the gospels were written (and edited) much later. and of course, there were many other gospels too, but they never made the cut.

and i dont think paul is wicked or evil. there is a lot of beautiful stuff in his epistles. this verse in corinthians still moves me today:

“Love is patient; love is kind
and envies no one.
Love is never boastful, nor conceited, nor rude;
never selfish, not quick to take offense.
There is nothing love cannot face;
there is no limit to its faith,
its hope, and endurance.
In a word, there are three things
that last forever: faith, hope, and love;
but the greatest of them all is love.”

of course, love is supposed to envy no one, "BUT THE LORD YOUR GOD IS A JEALOUS GOD"

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[Erik Mesoy]

What truth would that be?

The truth being that a cosmic Jewish zombie...
[lots of similar stuff removed]
etc etc etc

It seems to me that you would rather mock strawmen and caricatures than have a serious discussion.

Why?

Do you think it shall be very productive if I begin an argument by stating that atheism is a belief founded only in hatred of the word "Christ" and its derivatives, and insist that atheists are hateful, and further insist that people who are not so cannot be true atheists?

of course, love is supposed to envy no one, "BUT THE LORD YOUR GOD IS A JEALOUS GOD"
<infantile cackling deleted>

I don't think you understand what jealous means. Let me give you two examples of it:
http://www.judgementyard.org/index.php?pageID=22&detail=log&id=84 "How vital it is that men be jealous of their freedom..."
http://www.quotedb.com/quotes/2532 "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel."

pauls epistles are pretty much the earliest church documents available, whereas the gospels were written (and edited) much later.

I'm curious, what's your source for this? Dating of both the epistles and the gospels varies widely depending on the bias of the dater. I've seen the gospels dated to AD 50-85 by "believers" (to use a crude term) and AD 70-110 by "skeptics". Dates for the epistles in question are harder to find, but a quick search suggests that "believers" put them around 60-70 and "skeptics" 60-160 due to large uncertainty.

 

[Stapel]

well i think most people consider paul the inventor of christianity. like i said in the previous post, romans pretty much spells out the concept of original sin, and why works will not get you into heaven, but jesus will. pauls epistles are pretty much the earliest church documents available, whereas the gospels were written (and edited) much later. and of course, there were many other gospels too, but they never made the cut.

Hmmm, Paul is only the inventor of Paulinic Christianity. Since 99% of all Christians are Paulinic Christians, you might be right. However, there are early documents that provide us with evidence that earliest Christians didn't like Paul at all.

and i dont think paul is wicked or evil. there is a lot of beautiful stuff in his epistles. this verse in corinthians still moves me today:

“Love is patient; love is kind
and envies no one.
Love is never boastful, nor conceited, nor rude;
never selfish, not quick to take offense.
There is nothing love cannot face;
there is no limit to its faith,
its hope, and endurance.
In a word, there are three things
that last forever: faith, hope, and love;
but the greatest of them all is love.”

Who tells us he wasn't sarcastic? Given his rants in other parts, not a weird idea....