How I Lost My Faith: A thread for atheist testimony

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been an atheist since my second earliest memory of church, around age 4 or 5. I remember asking my parents about god back then and it seemed like such a farce. My parents are devout Christians and good people but their religiosity didn’t rub off. However I am planning to raise my children with some church upbringing because I have witnessed that teens raised as agnostic/atheist are more likely to be caught up in fundamentalist or new age cults.

That's interesting. Can you tell us more?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was an atheist who lost faith, and then found faith, after many years.

I think faith or lack of faith can ebb and flow.

I think so, too.

I disagree.

Once you look objectively and see there is no evidence for god (by the definitions of god most used) there really is no ebb or flow.

It's actually wonderful, liberating, and permanent - at least until some evidence arises.

There was definitely ebb and flow in my case too, so that makes three of us on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Raised catholic but not intensely more so big holidays and such.

I got really into renaissance history and modern world history and wow the catholic church has done some messed up things! Mainly to oppress folks and/or for the money.

So after that took a course on comparative religions and did some of my own reading and decided while organized religion has had some important benefits throughout time, there is a lot more it’s done that is messed up in my opinion.

Then got into space stuff and geez the universe is so crazy big out there and we are such a small speck… I just think humans invented god to help bring purpose to stuff we can’t explain yet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was an atheist who lost faith, and then found faith, after many years.

I think faith or lack of faith can ebb and flow.

I think so, too.

I disagree.

Once you look objectively and see there is no evidence for god (by the definitions of god most used) there really is no ebb or flow.

It's actually wonderful, liberating, and permanent - at least until some evidence arises.

There was definitely ebb and flow in my case too, so that makes three of us on this thread.

What evidence did you find that made you “ebb and flow” back to faith?

Forgive my presumption, but I assume you mean you fought between your acknowledgment that there is insufficient evidence and some other emotion? Is that accurate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was an atheist who lost faith, and then found faith, after many years.

I think faith or lack of faith can ebb and flow.

I think so, too.

I disagree.

Once you look objectively and see there is no evidence for god (by the definitions of god most used) there really is no ebb or flow.

It's actually wonderful, liberating, and permanent - at least until some evidence arises.

There was definitely ebb and flow in my case too, so that makes three of us on this thread.

What evidence did you find that made you “ebb and flow” back to faith?

Forgive my presumption, but I assume you mean you fought between your acknowledgment that there is insufficient evidence and some other emotion? Is that accurate?

Science requires proof, religious belief requires faith. Scientists don't try to prove or disprove God's existence because they know there isn't an experiment that can ever detect God.

Evidence does not reduce to scientific evidence alone. Evidence is any kind of fact, proof or argumentation that supports an idea. There are many theological evidences and logical proofs. Whether or not you find them convincing is a different matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was an atheist who lost faith, and then found faith, after many years.

I think faith or lack of faith can ebb and flow.

I think so, too.

I disagree.

Once you look objectively and see there is no evidence for god (by the definitions of god most used) there really is no ebb or flow.

It's actually wonderful, liberating, and permanent - at least until some evidence arises.

There was definitely ebb and flow in my case too, so that makes three of us on this thread.

What evidence did you find that made you “ebb and flow” back to faith?

Forgive my presumption, but I assume you mean you fought between your acknowledgment that there is insufficient evidence and some other emotion? Is that accurate?

Science requires proof, religious belief requires faith. Scientists don't try to prove or disprove God's existence because they know there isn't an experiment that can ever detect God.

Evidence does not reduce to scientific evidence alone. Evidence is any kind of fact, proof or argumentation that supports an idea. There are many theological evidences and logical proofs. Whether or not you find them convincing is a different matter.

That doesn’t answer the question of what evidence?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was an atheist who lost faith, and then found faith, after many years.

I think faith or lack of faith can ebb and flow.

I think so, too.

I disagree.

Once you look objectively and see there is no evidence for god (by the definitions of god most used) there really is no ebb or flow.

It's actually wonderful, liberating, and permanent - at least until some evidence arises.

There was definitely ebb and flow in my case too, so that makes three of us on this thread.

What evidence did you find that made you “ebb and flow” back to faith?

Forgive my presumption, but I assume you mean you fought between your acknowledgment that there is insufficient evidence and some other emotion? Is that accurate?

Science requires proof, religious belief requires faith. Scientists don't try to prove or disprove God's existence because they know there isn't an experiment that can ever detect God.

Evidence does not reduce to scientific evidence alone. Evidence is any kind of fact, proof or argumentation that supports an idea. There are many theological evidences and logical proofs. Whether or not you find them convincing is a different matter.

That doesn’t answer the question of what evidence?

I know a Christian who says the order of the universe points to a creator. Order doesn’t occur randomly. God is eternal and always been here, and He created the universe. He believes that a higher power had to set off events to cause the big bang. He believes that because all the major world religions think Jesus was a holy man or prophet, Jesus was really the holy man that He says He was.
He believes that the Bible is very historically accurate and he’s not wrong about that. The Bible is very historically accurate regarding geography, etc. There are finds of buildings or pottery or other evidence that proves something from the Bible quite often.

When someone questions him, he asks them to prove if the reality their eyes are seeing is accurate. People usually abruptly stop challenging him then.

Nobody can prove or disprove God, but everyone who believes in God has their own evidence or reasons.

I do find that the world around me in nature is amazingly ordered after he pointed that out. I don’t think that occurs randomly and on it’s own, either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He believes that because all the major world religions think Jesus was a holy man or prophet, Jesus was really the holy man that He says He was.
He believes that the Bible is very historically accurate and he’s not wrong about that. The Bible is very historically accurate regarding geography, etc. There are finds of buildings or pottery or other evidence that proves something from the Bible quite often.

Just to correct a couple of the many errors in this nonsense, there are many major religions that do not regard Jesus as a prophet or holy man -Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism etc etc.
And as an ancient historian, I can tell you that your understanding of the historical nature of the Bible is profoundly naive. There are some elements that reflect genuine historical events, but we believe that many of the elements are later interpolations or myths that have no historical basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was an atheist who lost faith, and then found faith, after many years.

I think faith or lack of faith can ebb and flow.

I think so, too.

I disagree.

Once you look objectively and see there is no evidence for god (by the definitions of god most used) there really is no ebb or flow.

It's actually wonderful, liberating, and permanent - at least until some evidence arises.

There was definitely ebb and flow in my case too, so that makes three of us on this thread.

What evidence did you find that made you “ebb and flow” back to faith?

Forgive my presumption, but I assume you mean you fought between your acknowledgment that there is insufficient evidence and some other emotion? Is that accurate?

Science requires proof, religious belief requires faith. Scientists don't try to prove or disprove God's existence because they know there isn't an experiment that can ever detect God.

Evidence does not reduce to scientific evidence alone. Evidence is any kind of fact, proof or argumentation that supports an idea. There are many theological evidences and logical proofs. Whether or not you find them convincing is a different matter.

That doesn’t answer the question of what evidence?

I know a Christian who says the order of the universe points to a creator. Order doesn’t occur randomly. God is eternal and always been here, and He created the universe. He believes that a higher power had to set off events to cause the big bang. He believes that because all the major world religions think Jesus was a holy man or prophet, Jesus was really the holy man that He says He was.
He believes that the Bible is very historically accurate and he’s not wrong about that. The Bible is very historically accurate regarding geography, etc. There are finds of buildings or pottery or other evidence that proves something from the Bible quite often.

When someone questions him, he asks them to prove if the reality their eyes are seeing is accurate. People usually abruptly stop challenging him then.

Nobody can prove or disprove God, but everyone who believes in God has their own evidence or reasons.

I do find that the world around me in nature is amazingly ordered after he pointed that out. I don’t think that occurs randomly and on it’s own, either.

The human mind seeks out order. An example is that we see faces everywhere, like the bathroom floor tile while taking a dump. I can't remember what the psychological term for this is, but it begins in infancy. Babies (and humans in general) recognize the basic form of human faces: head, eyes, nose, mouth. It is a survival adaptation. Seeking order (and believing it exists or was created by some...one?..thing?) is another example of a suvival adaptation. Most of us humans would go insane if we understood the true nature of the world and the true meaning of life (spoiler: there is none and you have to choose your own adventure). Enter religion, faith and God and, just like that, your life has meaning and purpose.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was an atheist who lost faith, and then found faith, after many years.

I think faith or lack of faith can ebb and flow.

I think so, too.

I disagree.

Once you look objectively and see there is no evidence for god (by the definitions of god most used) there really is no ebb or flow.

It's actually wonderful, liberating, and permanent - at least until some evidence arises.

There was definitely ebb and flow in my case too, so that makes three of us on this thread.

What evidence did you find that made you “ebb and flow” back to faith?

Forgive my presumption, but I assume you mean you fought between your acknowledgment that there is insufficient evidence and some other emotion? Is that accurate?

Science requires proof, religious belief requires faith. Scientists don't try to prove or disprove God's existence because they know there isn't an experiment that can ever detect God.

Evidence does not reduce to scientific evidence alone. Evidence is any kind of fact, proof or argumentation that supports an idea. There are many theological evidences and logical proofs. Whether or not you find them convincing is a different matter.

That doesn’t answer the question of what evidence?

I know a Christian who says the order of the universe points to a creator. Order doesn’t occur randomly. God is eternal and always been here, and He created the universe. He believes that a higher power had to set off events to cause the big bang. He believes that because all the major world religions think Jesus was a holy man or prophet, Jesus was really the holy man that He says He was.
He believes that the Bible is very historically accurate and he’s not wrong about that. The Bible is very historically accurate regarding geography, etc. There are finds of buildings or pottery or other evidence that proves something from the Bible quite often.

When someone questions him, he asks them to prove if the reality their eyes are seeing is accurate. People usually abruptly stop challenging him then.

Nobody can prove or disprove God, but everyone who believes in God has their own evidence or reasons.

I do find that the world around me in nature is amazingly ordered after he pointed that out. I don’t think that occurs randomly and on it’s own, either.

Thanks for your preaching, but it is off topic. The PP was asked what evidence caused them to ebb and flow. Please don't respond for them and try and respect the topic.

[Anonymous]

I was raised catholic in the 60s and 70s, church every Sunday and religious instruction on Saturday morning. I realized very early it was all just people trying to make sense of their place in the world. As a young child, I read a lot of fairy tales and myths and realized that the bible was just my culture's fairy tales and myths.

My church had one stained glass window that had a devil, huge purple wings outstretched, with a woman in front of him kneeling and praying in fear. I stared at it during mass, the stuff of my nightmares.

My childhood jewish friend later told me that all of the dead men on the crosses in my house freaked her out. My son, not raised with any of this imagery saw my sister's church calendar that had a picture of Abraham about to kill his son. "What is that man doing to that boy" he asked in horror. Some of the imagery in the catholic church is really horrific.

[Anonymous]

While I was already on my way towards atheism by this point (logically bible stories didn't make sense and silly made-up rules in the Catholic church I was raised in), the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami was the absolute end of any belief in God for me. Other man-made horrors could be explained away by the "God gave us free will" that seemed like a cop-out, but okay I could make some sense of that. Then this natural earth-made tragedy, that ended the lives of over 200,000 people, including the story of an orphanage where all the children died, sealed it for me. How could an all-powerful, loving God allow that to happen on the earth he supposedly created for us to inhabit?

I was done.

[Anonymous]

Raised Catholic. I went to church every week and Catholic education classes. I felt early on that a lot of it was for show. Like...noticing contradictions in the beliefs of my parents and others in my family where they'd believe/follow parts of Catholicism, but not others. Does that still make us Catholic? Or are we something else entirely, I wondered. Parents still very strongly insisted that we were Catholic.

As I grew older, I could really see the heavy weight of Catholic guilt on my parents. It felt like they were going through the motions because it's what they "should do" and it was tradition and what their parents would've wanted them to do. Not doing it would fail their ancestors in some way.

As I learned more about Catholicism and history, it just felt like a giant religion machine. Scales tipped for me when I visited Vatican City and saw the opulence and grandeur. I had never felt less Catholic and I let it all go.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He believes that because all the major world religions think Jesus was a holy man or prophet, Jesus was really the holy man that He says He was.
He believes that the Bible is very historically accurate and he’s not wrong about that. The Bible is very historically accurate regarding geography, etc. There are finds of buildings or pottery or other evidence that proves something from the Bible quite often.

Just to correct a couple of the many errors in this nonsense, there are many major religions that do not regard Jesus as a prophet or holy man -Buddhism, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism etc etc.
And as an ancient historian, I can tell you that your understanding of the historical nature of the Bible is profoundly naive. There are some elements that reflect genuine historical events, but we believe that many of the elements are later interpolations or myths that have no historical basis.

In comparison to other ancient manuscripts, the New Testament boasts a very short time interval between the original composition and the the earliest availiable copy's inception. This brevity in time not only reveals the reliability of the New Testament manuscripts but also gives credence to the assertion that the manuscripts availiable today are virtually identical to the original composition. Moreover, the short gap between the period of time that the actual events of the New Testament took place (from John the Baptist to the apostle John in Revelation) and the period of time of the original composition of the New Testament prevents distortions or fables from being inserted into the storyline of the New Testament.

https://ics.uci.edu/~asuncion/transmission_accuracy.htm

Modern archaeology has helped us realize that the Bible is historically accurate even in the smallest of details. There have been thousands of archaeological discoveries in the past century that support every book of the Bible. Here are just a few examples:

(examples at link)

https://www.thedestinlog.com/story/lifestyle/faith/2017/06/15/have-you-wondered-is-bible-historically-accurate/985681007/

I am frequently asked about the historical accuracy of the four Gospels. Over the years, skeptics have said they are not history but a legendary account to appease a group desiring it to be real. My research finds this assessment remarkably wrong.

From a 21st-century perspective, where writing is far more prolific than in the 1st century and many times with a specific agenda, it is not surprising some would be suspicious of the accuracy of the Gospels and other writings in the New Testament.

But we must be careful when we evaluate writings from the 1st century using our 21st-century state of mind. Doing this is called Presentism. And when we use Presentism, we can distort the truth.

Instead, we need to insert historical context into our evaluation. The 1st century was a different time, and writing history was less about agenda and more about getting the facts right. While all books, even from the 1st century, include agenda, but to a lesser degree than today in the 1st century.

Accuracy of New Testament

https://brucelhartman.com/accuracy-of-new-testament/

I don’t know who you are speaking for, but many legitimate scholars disagree with you.

The New Testament has been found to be about 99.5% accurate.

People do not have to believe the bible, they can absolutely state they don’t believe the Bible and they do not believe in God. They can have their own opinion, but not their own facts.

Respectfully saying “I don’t believe” isn’t attacking other people’s beliefs.

Well those are definitely some highly academic links...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was an atheist who lost faith, and then found faith, after many years.

I think faith or lack of faith can ebb and flow.

I think so, too.

I disagree.

Once you look objectively and see there is no evidence for god (by the definitions of god most used) there really is no ebb or flow.

It's actually wonderful, liberating, and permanent - at least until some evidence arises.

There was definitely ebb and flow in my case too, so that makes three of us on this thread.

What evidence did you find that made you “ebb and flow” back to faith?

Forgive my presumption, but I assume you mean you fought between your acknowledgment that there is insufficient evidence and some other emotion? Is that accurate?

Science requires proof, religious belief requires faith. Scientists don't try to prove or disprove God's existence because they know there isn't an experiment that can ever detect God.

Evidence does not reduce to scientific evidence alone. Evidence is any kind of fact, proof or argumentation that supports an idea. There are many theological evidences and logical proofs. Whether or not you find them convincing is a different matter.

That doesn’t answer the question of what evidence?

I know a Christian who says the order of the universe points to a creator. Order doesn’t occur randomly. God is eternal and always been here, and He created the universe. He believes that a higher power had to set off events to cause the big bang. He believes that because all the major world religions think Jesus was a holy man or prophet, Jesus was really the holy man that He says He was.
He believes that the Bible is very historically accurate and he’s not wrong about that. The Bible is very historically accurate regarding geography, etc. There are finds of buildings or pottery or other evidence that proves something from the Bible quite often.

When someone questions him, he asks them to prove if the reality their eyes are seeing is accurate. People usually abruptly stop challenging him then.

Nobody can prove or disprove God, but everyone who believes in God has their own evidence or reasons.

I do find that the world around me in nature is amazingly ordered after he pointed that out. I don’t think that occurs randomly and on it’s own, either.

Thanks for your preaching, but it is off topic. The PP was asked what evidence caused them to ebb and flow. Please don't respond for them and try and respect the topic.

The topic is how a person became an atheist or lost their faith- not how all religion is horrible and there isn’t any evidence for God.