i base this on a most logical argument one that many refused to see. in essence like that staggering number of murdered babies who have now tasted extinction,in those abortion mils,why even bother with such a poor prize. however out of curiosity i wonder how many of those darling infants had to die so this jerk of a God could save the life of that messed up toy?

Have any of you ever heard of a “straw man”? It’s something very easy to do in the realm of debate (quite honestly, atheists are great at it).

Yup, plenty of atheists, including the prominent ones, are good at straw men. However, when you get past the straw men, the solid problems with religion still remain.

Furthermore, if you are going to accuse someone of creating a straw man, you should at least explain why you think a straw man is being made. Now you wrote this:

Irina began to question: “Can’t they tell they are giving themselves away? Adults tell you there are no gremlins or ghosts. They tell you once or twice, and that’s it. But with God, they tell you over and over again.

To be fair to you, Richard Wade’s response did not explicitly note that it is the repetition of the claim that there is no God that strikes you as a red flag. To be fair to Wade, he is absolutely right to reply,

your lack of belief in thousands of gods other than your favorite is proof that they all exist too.

You keep repeating your claim that Christianity is true at least as often as the adults around Irina repeated that there is no God. If one were to follow your reasoning, one could claim that your repetition is a sign that you are trying to reassure yourself in the face of your nagging doubts. Wade is absolutely right: your line of thinking cuts both ways, and invalidates itself accordingly.

1. my theistic beliefs

2. my lack of understanding of atheism

3. my disdain for “Christians” who distort or misrepresent Biblical truths.

the best example i can give of number 3 is jimmy swaggert. he has done more damage to Biblical Christianity, than richard dawkins could ever do. I resent that.

i don’t understand richard dawkins. obviously the title of “the god delusion” doesn’t give me the warm fuzzies, but primarily i just dont understand his perspective. i have never been exposed to more than just a “fleeting moment” of atheistic views.

i believe that your statement of possible “labeling” may be based on my question to richard about the major reason one becomes an atheist. it is probably why richard alerted me to the problem of generalizing. Here is my thought process, and why i think it fits into my initial statement.

In the movie “Expelled”, every atheistic scientist said that the main reason they converted to atheism was darwinism. it surprised me that it was so consistant. thus, the science and nature part of the question.

I have seen the ramifications of the “jimmy swaggert effect” on Christians, thus the reason for the second part. i guess you could say that in a way, I was trying to assess the damage by the inclusion of this part.

I have just asked richard to alert me to any unintentional misstatements, or as you say, straw man, scenarios. I can guarantee that i will make mistakes. i majored in them in school. But i am not here to convert or be converted. In Biblical Christianity, no man can convert another. It is solely the job of God’s Holy Spirit. I am here to understand, care, and share in a manner worthy of my Lord, and that can not be done by offending or even thumping. i certainly don’t want “the god delusion” upside of my head.

hope this explanation is satisfactory. understanding differences is tough enough. trying to do it while jumping over walls, is impossible.

do you think more people become atheists because of what they learn through science and nature, or because of bad experiences with theists, both, or neither? i am not including those who grew up with these beliefs, just those who made their decision on their own, at a later time in life.

Before I answer, here’s my disclaimer: It’s always risky to generalize about atheists.

I have heard and read hundreds of personal accounts of how people became atheists. They are sometimes called “deconversion stories.” There is a large collection of them at a site called Positive Atheism. For those who changed as adults, the process described is often appallingly painful.

I have found no source or study where people’s reasons have been categorized and counted, so we have no statistical information about what are the more common causes of turning away from the religion of one’s upbringing. I can only offer my overall non-scientific impression that there is no particular cause or reason that is definitely more predominant than any other. The bottom line is no single cause is usually enough.

You asked if “people become atheists because of what they learn through science and nature,” and I would say certainly there are many for whom that was a major, though probably not the only influence. Many religious parents hold their breath when their children go off to college because they have seen that exposure to methods of critical thinking, logic, the scientific method, other religious systems, philosophy, and simply meeting people who are different often results in young people losing interest in their family’s religion.

About having bad experiences with theists, there are some horrific tales, but I think that cause is less common and usually not sufficient to be the only one that turns people away from their faith. Experiences of abuse or hypocrisy might be more likely to cause a religious person to switch from one sub-group to another, rather than become an apostate.

What I pick up from all these stories is there usually is a combination of factors, but one ingredient seems to often be in the mix: They often seem to have been born more skeptical than their peers or their siblings. Very often people describe having always been the more questioning, more circumspect one in the family. They often were fully involved in their family’s religious activities, but something never quite soaked in, something always was nagging them deep in their minds. For many though not all, they seem to have a trait built into their personalities that needs more persuasion than simply the preferences of their parents, the assertions of scripture or the reassurances of their pastors.

There are a few other posts here on Friendly Atheist that have gathered comments about how and why people have turned away from the religion of their childhood. Here are one by Hemant and one by Mike Clawson.

i do differentiate between christian faith and christian religion. religion is a man made set of rules designed to guide their followers to the christian faith, by adding man made guidelines and doctrines, even unto becoming apostate. i had to leave the roman catholic church (similar to luther) to become a christian. i believe it is important to analyze the christian faith, not any particular christian religion, to the other components of your observations, to get a true reading of one of the factors involved in your decision. this is not a judgement of your decisions in any way, just a personal recommendation from someone who gets angry when the truth of my faith gets distorted by a man made religions.