What made you become an atheist?

[brewer]

I don't consider myself an atheist, however more of an agnostic. I can't say that God exists, but I also can't deny it. Because I really don't know. I'm not all knowing. But I'm curious to hear why you became an atheist, or even why you are an agnostic like myself.

the concept of god(s), then humans being dicks with god(s)

[Atomic Lava]

I don't consider myself an atheist, however more of an agnostic. I can't say that God exists, but I also can't deny it. Because I really don't know. I'm not all knowing. But I'm curious to hear why you became an atheist, or even why you are an agnostic like myself.

You don't "become". Humans are not cartoon Transformers. 

The better way of putting it would be, "What caused you to leave your prior position?".

Humans are always human, we don't magically "become" anything. Humans simply think about things, and change their minds. 

One can eat at a restaurant, and over time get tired of the food. But because you may like that food for a while, does not make you the restaurant itself. It is just the joint you currently like eating at.

What caused me to leave my prior "on" position, regarding god claims?

Specifically the food joint I used to eat at was "Catholic". But one day, working as a laborer at a construction site building homes, a carpenter(ironically) asked me "What if Jesus was just a man?".  That was a long time ago, and I now severely question that such a character existed at all, even just as a man. 

I didn't leave the food joint on the spot. Prior I always found something amiss with the fantastic claims made in the bible and by the Preacher in church, but was too afraid at the time to question. I was more concerned prior, to fitting in and wanting to belong. But something in the way that guy asked me that sparked my inner skepticism. 

It was not an on the spot, "I was wrong". It actually took me almost a decade from that question, to finally saying, "I don't need to eat at any theist food joint, I am now in the "off" position.

FYI, the word "agnostic' was a horribly cobbled together word by Thomas Huxley.  It basically means, "fence sitter" which is misleading. 

"A" in the ancient Greek prefix means "without", and "gnostic" or "gnosis" means "to know". So the word "agnostic" means without knowledge.

The problem with that word, is that it is meaningless until applied to a position. It is falsely used as a stand alone word, when it does not, by itself tell you what you are without knowledge of.

The other thing Huxley didn't take into account, were past claims, current claims, and future possibilities. 

You can look at god vs no god, as like a dimmer switch on a light, either way. You can be more certain, "BRIGHT" in your position, or dimmer "not sure" but lean one way or the other. But there is really only on and off ultimately.

For example. I am CURRENTLY "off" on all past and current claims of god/s so far. I am "technically" "agnostic" about the future, although I still see the god of the gaps answering anything fleetingly unlikely.

It is possible to hold a theist position , say a certain Muslim, or a certain Christian, or a certain Jew. But you can also hold  an agnostic theist position , which is someone who is "on" on god claims, but not certain as to what it's makeup is. 

One can also hold an "agnostic atheist" position. Meaning one can current be "off" but accept the future is not written in stone. 

But I do regardless of position, hate the words "convert, deconvert, and become". The positions humans hold, are merely what they are sold by others, but we are not caterpillars morphing into butterflies. Our labels as a species are mere positions, not our physical DNA.

You seemed to veer from the topic at hand.

[onlinebiker]

All are born atheist.

Any religion you pick up aling the way is just geographic contamination.

That is - you are most likely to pick up the religion of those around you.

[downbeatplumb]

I don't consider myself an atheist, however more of an agnostic. I can't say that God exists, but I also can't deny it. Because I really don't know. I'm not all knowing. But I'm curious to hear why you became an atheist, or even why you are an agnostic like myself.

You are an atheist. 

What has happened here is that you misunderstand what that means.

---

Birth.

Ditto. Never for one moment believed.

[Succubus]

I don't consider myself an atheist, however more of an agnostic. I can't say that God exists, but I also can't deny it. Because I really don't know. I'm not all knowing. But I'm curious to hear why you became an atheist, or even why you are an agnostic like myself.

Unless you can name the god you believe in you are not an agnostic you're an atheist. It's that simple.

I didn't become an atheist I always was an atheist.

[Atomic Lava]

I don't consider myself an atheist, however more of an agnostic. I can't say that God exists, but I also can't deny it. Because I really don't know. I'm not all knowing. But I'm curious to hear why you became an atheist, or even why you are an agnostic like myself.

Unless you can name the god you believe in you are not an agnostic you're an atheist. It's that simple.

I didn't become an atheist I always was an atheist.

Fair enough

[Simon Moon]

I don't consider myself an atheist, however more of an agnostic. I can't say that God exists, but I also can't deny it. Because I really don't know. I'm not all knowing. But I'm curious to hear why you became an atheist, or even why you are an agnostic like myself.

So, as a follow up to my post #19, let me ask you a question. This will relate to belief, not knowledge.

Given that 'belief' is defined by cognitive scientists and philosophers of mind as, the psychological state in which one accepts a premise or proposition as being true. In other words, if one accepts a premise or proposition as being true, they can be said to believe said premise or proposition.

Also, given that belief is a binary mental state*, i.e., one either accepts a premise or proposition as being true, or they don't accept it as being true, do you accept the premise that a god exists as being true?

*I have yet to have someone coherently explain how one could possibly be in some middle ground between accepting a premise as being true, and not accepting it as being true, simultaneously.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

You don't "become". Humans are not cartoon Transformers. 

The better way of putting it would be, "What caused you to leave your prior position?".

Humans are always human, we don't magically "become" anything. Humans simply think about things, and change their minds. 

One can eat at a restaurant, and over time get tired of the food. But because you may like that food for a while, does not make you the restaurant itself. It is just the joint you currently like eating at.

What caused me to leave my prior "on" position, regarding god claims?

Specifically the food joint I used to eat at was "Catholic". But one day, working as a laborer at a construction site building homes, a carpenter(ironically) asked me "What if Jesus was just a man?".  That was a long time ago, and I now severely question that such a character existed at all, even just as a man. 

I didn't leave the food joint on the spot. Prior I always found something amiss with the fantastic claims made in the bible and by the Preacher in church, but was too afraid at the time to question. I was more concerned prior, to fitting in and wanting to belong. But something in the way that guy asked me that sparked my inner skepticism. 

It was not an on the spot, "I was wrong". It actually took me almost a decade from that question, to finally saying, "I don't need to eat at any theist food joint, I am now in the "off" position.

FYI, the word "agnostic' was a horribly cobbled together word by Thomas Huxley.  It basically means, "fence sitter" which is misleading. 

"A" in the ancient Greek prefix means "without", and "gnostic" or "gnosis" means "to know". So the word "agnostic" means without knowledge.

The problem with that word, is that it is meaningless until applied to a position. It is falsely used as a stand alone word, when it does not, by itself tell you what you are without knowledge of.

The other thing Huxley didn't take into account, were past claims, current claims, and future possibilities. 

You can look at god vs no god, as like a dimmer switch on a light, either way. You can be more certain, "BRIGHT" in your position, or dimmer "not sure" but lean one way or the other. But there is really only on and off ultimately.

For example. I am CURRENTLY "off" on all past and current claims of god/s so far. I am "technically" "agnostic" about the future, although I still see the god of the gaps answering anything fleetingly unlikely.

It is possible to hold a theist position , say a certain Muslim, or a certain Christian, or a certain Jew. But you can also hold  an agnostic theist position , which is someone who is "on" on god claims, but not certain as to what it's makeup is. 

One can also hold an "agnostic atheist" position. Meaning one can current be "off" but accept the future is not written in stone. 

But I do regardless of position, hate the words "convert, deconvert, and become". The positions humans hold, are merely what they are sold by others, but we are not caterpillars morphing into butterflies. Our labels as a species are mere positions, not our physical DNA.

You seemed to veer from the topic at hand.

Get used to it.

Boru

[no one]

I took a left turn at Albuquerque, and then I couldn't find my way out.
I stayed for the baby and kitten recipes. Also, brutalizing the little old ladies gives me a woody.

[Rahn127]

"When did you start not holding an irrational theistic belief in a god ?"

Might as well ask when did I start not wearing any invisible clothes ?