When did you realise that you were atheist

equivariant

I'm new here so apologies if this has already been done.

I can't remember a specific incident that convinced me to be atheist. I believe that as soon as I started to think seriously about this issue it seemed obvious that atheism was/is the only sensible option.

However, I wonder if that is the most common experience. I would be particularly interested to hear of anyone who was a theist and realised *as an adult* that atheism is a more rational choice. What convinced you? Note, I am not talking about your leaving a particular religion. I am specifically interested in your reasons for ceasing to believe in god. (I imagine, for example, that there are many disillusioned former Catholics who would cite the Ryan report as their reason for leaving the church, but who still believe in god)

randypriest

I am a logical, college educated person who thinks it appropriate to question and query an antiquated doctrine for which there is no proof. It was a natural progression rather than a single "moment of realisation" event. I would imagine it would be the same for most athiests.

Galvasean

Natural progression for me. I don't like believing in things that don't have any real hard evidence so I discarded belief in Gods shortly before Bigfoot and Nessie.
Started doubting as a child. Became 'agnostic' around 12. Became an 'out' atheist when I was 19 IIRC.

herya

I was a freethinker child always but the wake up moment was my First Communion - everyone was saying something's going to happen and it didn't. I didn't exactly expect Jesus to talk to me but I expected some change within me.

When it didn't happen I merrily discarded the notion of religion (which never seemed to make sense anyway but I was willing to give it a chance) and happily went my separate way.

CerebralCortex

Personally I would describe the path to atheism as one in which you start tailoring or truncating parts of what your told to believe when they don't fit with reason until you're left with atheism. I was doing that from a young age but never really comitted to calling myself an atheist until about 2 years ago.

ChocolateSauce

Age 8, in the backseat of the car as we drove past the place where the Harcourt LUAS stop now is.

Osgoodisgood

Always. I've never been a believer in any kind of supernatural hocus pocus. I can remember being 5 or 6 and wondering what made people I liked believe such strange stuff.

Catari Jaguar

Refusing to recite the lines/ vows during my confirmation. I didn't agree so wouldn't say it.

Dave!

Started doubting when I was about 15 or so, and after a couple of years I was pretty much done

Turtwig

I was always someone who admired everything, had a deep personal relationship with god while I was younger, accepted evolution with ease, found out in fifth class that supposedly animals have no souls (and therefore could not be saved) whether that was true or not was irrelevant it is what I regard as a tipping point that led me to question everything ( I gave the local pp a headache:P) and one thing led to another ...by secondary school theism was gone forever..

Now here I am, still amazed by everything in this world, haven't lost any of the admiration for it - if anything it has increased
Just wanna learn and experience as much as I can before I say
"Kudos, wonderful world"

Ickle Magoo

I've never been able to get my head around God & religion. My Dad is agnostic and wanted reasons as to why I wasn't interested in attending a Sunday School or church service and after a few chats with him about my doubts and questions about the logic behind theism, my days of dabbling in religion were over by the time I was 5 or 6.

Zombrex

It was a gradual experience. I certainly remember believing in supernatural concepts and in god.

Probably the single most important even was my grandmothers death when I was 11. Dealing with it had a profound effect on me.

I remember really wishing that she would be ok but slowly realising that it didn't matter what I wished for, she was going to be ok or not ok irrespective of how I wanted her to be. It was the back and forth between accepting this and retreating to a view of the world where I was in control and she would be ok if I wanted her to be, lead to a profound realisation that this is what I was doing. It didn't take much to jump from that to seeing that everyone else around me were doing the same thing, just using religion as the authority and justification for this.

Another profound time was learning about other religions in RE class in secondary school, seeing how humans all believed in fundamental agents that gave meaning and control to their lives, yet were vastly different in their details and descriptions. This was justified by my RE teacher (a Christian) by saying that they all had a fundamental truth that God existed, but I came to a different conclusion based on my experiences of my grandmothers death, that we all have a fundamental instinct to create and believe in human like agents that control our lives and that we can understand.

Corkfeen

It was a friday morning and I had a choice theism or pizza hut.
But really it was a gradual thing. Was an agnostic for my first year of secondary school and an atheist after that.

stevejazzx

It's funny but death never influenced me or was never a factor.
I remember my beloved grandmother dying but she was quite old.
It was the obvious falsity of it (religion) that slowly made me realize that society does not want people to really think for themselves. The big revelation (NPI) came from reading the bible itself. It was so full of logical absurdities that they immediatley undermined any of the 'good bits'. I remember thinking "isn't it more likely that this is myth that actual truth and they are teaching purely becasue they think it is good for socieities to have constraints". I was impressively young when I made these startling conclusions, even if I do say so myself. So young in fact that I remember nervously stumbling through my latter teen years in fearful expectation of finding an obvious antidote to my suspicions, something that was going to shatter my world view. It just never came.

Zillah

Christianity failed to ever get its claws into me properly. My parents mostly just play along out of habit and as such never strongly indoctrinated me. I went along with it all but I think it would be fair to say I never believed in a God, meaning I was essentially an implicit atheist. I had no real conception of what a confirmation was when I was going through it, but I understood that my relations would be giving me money for some reason and that was just fine.

I never prayed unless I was made to, I never listened in mass unless something special was happening, and I never spoke to God unless I wanted something. As I got older my atheism became distinctly more explicit, largely due to seeing the broader picture.

Oh also as my faith in/respect for the average human being waned in a general sense I became all the more confident in deciding that even though that man up there seemed big, and important, and wore fancy clothes and had lots of people respecting him, he could still be an irrational idiot and that I shouldn't let the showmanship deceive me.

From there it was a rollercoaster of disdain until I reach my current position: Angry internet nerd who is embarrassed that his species still practices religion. Seriously, one of my big fears in life is that another intelligent species will encounter us, come down to say hello and have some moron say something about God or praying or something like that. It's like if a relation got too drunk at a party and makes a fool of you in front of your new friends.

That's right religious people, you embarrass me, much as a drunken buffoon would.

Húrin

Like most Irish people of my age I was raised in a nominally religious family so I was never instructed or indoctrinated in any way. I was just faintly aware of the Jesus story. In my teens I developed into the rational person that I continue to be. At the time I became an outspoken atheist. It seemed so obvious that atheism was the only rational worldview, that there was "no evidence" for religious beliefs, and the other stereotypical assertions.

As my teens drew to a close it began to dawn on me that most of my peers were also atheists. I also began to learn more history. In other words, I found that in the same way that my grandparent's generation were mostly Catholics, my generation were mostly atheists. I judged it erroneous to think that my generation were smarter, more independently thinking or more special than the previous generations so I concluded that our atheism was no more "rational" than my grandparents' Catholicism.

It became clear to me that my previous beliefs were not necessarily reflections of truth but more akin to cultural programming. So this called atheism into question. I began to read about the beliefs of Descartes, Newton and others who demonstrated that religion was not the preserve of fools and conformists.

So I became an agnostic theist.

Out of curiosity I began to read the Bible and seek out Christians who took it seriously. Thus I began to visit a local bapist church. This revolutionised my view on the whole thing. My understanding of Christianity became much more advanced, and my impression of these welcoming people was mostly positive.

By now I can see that religious people are not batty and that many have very good reasons for belief. I think that the evidence is not as lacking as many atheists casually believe. Many of these people are also scientists and doctors which kind of demolished the religion vs science/reason dichotomy for me.

Often I have wished to join their ranks as I no longer find the naturalist worldview to be that convincing, and the humanist worldview is barely credible at all to me, especially after reading Straw Dogs by John Gray.

However, my dearest friends are typical of my generation: atheists. I can't bring myself, at least not yet, to draw a line between me and them. I don't want to see them as unsaved... it would be hard for me.

That is a brazenly emotional reason but that's where I am at the moment.

rainbow kirby

I've never really been the religious type, always griped about religion class in school and bitched and moaned about my mum dragging me to mass on Sundays. I first started to really doubt Catholicism when I was about 9 years old, and was pretty certain that I didn't believe in any god at the age of 12.

I questioned my beliefs several times in my teens, and always came back to the same atheist point of view. I just don't see anything that would suggest to me that a god/gods exist. I cannot see anything in organised religion that would attract me, and plenty that turns me right off - particularly the status of women and the LGBT community.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

I judged it erroneous to think that my generation were smarter, more independently thinking or more special than the previous generations so I concluded that our atheism was no more "rational" than my grandparents' Catholicism.

I find this to be a rather ironic thing to say. Something is either rational or irrational, context is irrelevant. The fact that your generation had a great deal of atheists says nothing about the strength of the position.

I'm just baffled as to the relevance of this generational comparison you're making.

Many of these people are also scientists and doctors which kind of demolished the religion vs science/reason dichotomy for me.

Bear in mind a scientist is only a scientist when he's doing science. After all, you'll rarely find the following in the conclusions section of an experiment's report: "Results inconclusive as God may be interfering with the process." Religious people can make good scientists but only through some form of compartmentalisation.

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

I find this to be a rather ironic thing to say. Something is either rational or irrational, context is irrelevant. The fact that your generation had a great deal of atheists says nothing about the strength of the position.

I'm just baffled as to the relevance of this generational comparison you're making.

I agree that the rationality of something is not relevant to context. However I believe that most if not all people have an imperfect sense of reason. Someone of my generation like me might assert that atheism is more rational, and someone of my grandparents' generation might assert that theism is more rational. Both individuals views are determined by their environment. It struck me as a good reason to question my assumption that my atheism was the most rational possible position.

Religious people can make good scientists but only through some form of compartmentalisation.

See this is where I disagree because this claim is based on your doctrine that there is an inherent conflict between religion and science. However I don't accept the claim that religious scientists "compartmentalise" any more than atheist scientists. Scientists who are Christian are always Christians, at home, work and church. Likewise, atheist scientists are atheists all the time. None of them find a conflict between their worldview and their profession.

ChocolateSauce

Zillah wrote: »

That's right religious people, you embarrass me, much as a drunken buffoon would.

Except a drunken buffoon will be sober in the morning.

ChocolateSauce

Húrin wrote: »

See this is where I disagree because this claim is based on your doctrine that there is an inherent conflict between religion and science. However I don't accept the claim that religious scientists "compartmentalise" any more than atheist scientists. Scientists who are Christian are always Christians, at home, work and church. Likewise, atheist scientists are atheists all the time. None of them find a conflict between their worldview and their profession.

But neither an atheist scientist nor a theist scientist lets god interfere with their work, which means that one of them is compartmentalising.

Húrin

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

But neither an atheist scientist nor a theist scientist lets god interfere with their work, which means that one of them is compartmentalising.

I'm not sure how a theistic scientist doesn't let God interfere with their work. If God is omnipotent there's not much that any scientist can do if God feels like interfering.

bleg

1st year secondary school. I remember asking the teacher if we could have a debate on the truth of a God. I think it was the Confirmation that drove me away from Christianity and the realisation of other religions and "Gods" that led to my lack of belief.

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

I'm not sure how a theistic scientist doesn't let God interfere with their work. If God is omnipotent there's not much that any scientist can do if God feels like interfering.

Well, that's the point, isn't it? Every experiment begins with the usually undeclared assumption that supernatural entities are not invisibly interfering with the experiment.

A theist, depending on the experiment, has to put his belief in God, the soul, miracles, prayer etc to a special corner of their brain, otherwise they can't conduct science. For example, if a scientist genuinely believes in God and prayer, then surely he should be making statistical modifications to the results based upon the effectiveness of the staff praying for the solution they want, or passing around a memo asking everyone to not pray during the experiment as it may interfere with the results.

Clearly that doesn't happen.

While I think it's not fair to refer to it as a doctrine, I do believe science and religion are opposed. Religion is the ultimate expression of faith, science is the ultimate expression of scepticism. Faith and scepticism are inescapably opposed.

ChocolateSauce

Húrin wrote: »

I'm not sure how a theistic scientist doesn't let God interfere with their work. If God is omnipotent there's not much that any scientist can do if God feels like interfering.

You're seriously going to argue semantics instead of address the point?

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

However I don't accept the claim that religious scientists "compartmentalise" any more than atheist scientists. Scientists who are Christian are always Christians, at home, work and church. Likewise, atheist scientists are atheists all the time. None of them find a conflict between their worldview and their profession.

But at some point they must compartmentalise because their faith and the work are based on two fundamentally different philosophical positions.

When working a scientist, if they understand what they are doing and why they are doing it, they surely recognise the need for the scientific method to determine what is an accurate description of the world. There are so many safe guards in science to prevent personal interpretation and bias from clouding conclusions it would be hard for a scientist to not recognise this.

But then they turn to their faith and reach conclusions based on all the methods science has just spent a lot of time trying to remove from the equation, such as personal interpretation and testimony.

At some point the religious scientist must look at all this and rationalise that yes I need to do that to determine X about the universe, but I don't need to do all that to determine Y about the universe (ie his faith).

This is ultimately compartmentalising.

ShooterSF

While growing up my dad brought me to mass but later I found out that was just to satisfy my grandmother and as I got older he stopped bringing me but I blindly believed in a kind of personal god that I could ask for things from (like a lot of Irish catholics).
I never really questioned it as a teenager, I had bigger issues and anyway my god was a non-interfering type that I only ever dealt with when I needed something. I only went to mass for weddings and funerals. It was only when I was 19 or 20 and an older friend told me he didn't believe in god that I realised I had never questioned my belief.
I still didn't really read much about it and still *wished* for things here and there . It was only really when a relative took their life that I realised I had no belief in it anymore. I sat in a church for the first time since I had started to doubt things and it was like watching a magic trick knowing how it was done. I seen family soak up false comfort and made the decision that I wasn't falling for it. About 6 months later I started to read up on atheists views of religious claims and copped that they made the most sense. I laugh today at how naive my views were and I kind of wish I was one of those cool kids that independantly copped it at the age of 12!

The Mad Hatter

I suppose there are three things:

First, sitting in a staggeringly boring mass in the Friary in Sligo, I looked up at the crucifix (about 45 minutes in) and the thought just popped into my head "Why should I believe any of this stuff? People have only told me it's true - I haven't seen any proof for myself." I was about eleven, I'd say. (Actually, I'm suddenly tempted to walk into Sligo Friary, find the senile old priest who delivered this sermon, and tell him this story...)

Second, during the run-up to confirmation, I realised that although the ceremony was all about being old enough to declare independently that I believed in god and all that nonsense, I genuinely had no choice (as far as twelve-year-olds have choices) about whether to go through with it.

Third, the term atheism was introduced to me by a friend when I was about thirteen. Shortly afterwards, I started applying it to myself (in secret).

Dades

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

Shortly afterwards, I started applying it to myself (in secret).

God was still watching you! :pac:

Galvasean

Dades wrote: »

God was still watching you! :pac:

Get one of these bad boys and he won't be able to read your thoughts:

The Mad Hatter

Dades wrote: »

God was still watching you! :pac:

Haha!

Yeah, I mean I didn't actually tell anyone until a few years afterwards.

equivariant

It seems to me from the few replies that we have so far that very few people convert to atheism in adulthood. This would indicate that the real battle (I do believe it is a battle, although a non violent one, of course) is to be fought in our schools. While books such as "The God Delusion" and TV shows like "The Root of all Evil" are good and broaden the parameters of public debate, they will probably not convince many people to abandon theism.

The most important thing that organisations such as Atheist Ireland can do, at least IMO, is to campaign to remove the Church from our education system.

Handsome Bob

I started doubting aged 19 when my Godmother died. Last year I gave up entirely after the local parish's attitude towards the suicide of my brother's best mate. I don't have a chip on my shoulder about it or anything, I just can't reconcile what I believe with religion anymore.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Became cynical from around 12/13. Then at around 16(it was fifth year physics doing planets/light) I realised the universe was way to big for other intelligent not to be prominent or even mentioned in the bible. Good thing I didn't know much about scientology.

Seachmall

I would be particularly interested to hear of anyone who was a theist and realised *as an adult* that atheism is a more rational choice.

Not sure if I fall into this category but here's my story.

I got into a debate about religion trying to dispel those damn atheist claims when I was 13ish. Everyone was going through an atheist/rebel/punk phase except for me. They were trying to apply logic to religion, can you believe that?!! Madness. Anyway, I started to read up on concepts to counter their claims and then I became agnostic ["It will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to Infidelity." - Abraham Lincoln].

It was only when I found some atheist essays online it suddenly hit me, there is probably [<< that was a big keyword for me] no god. I got really upset, took a shower and went to bed. I woke up, looked out my window and got a sudden interest in nature that I never had. The only was I can describe it is, you know how 'Born Again Christians' describe the holy-spirit coming over them? That's what I experienced.

Galvasean

Seachmall wrote:

I woke up, looked out my window and got a sudden interest in nature that I never had.

Interestingly, since becoming an atheist I too have found my interest in nature has grown. As a child I was always interested in such things, but now knowing that everything in the natural world came about naturally (no way!!!!), it seems much more interesting than when I thought it all came about by magic.

kiffer

Seachmall wrote: »

The only was I can describe it is, you know how 'Born Again Christians' describe the holy-spirit coming over them? That's what I experienced.

Read in best narky nun voice: That was Satan rejoicing at you fall from grace...

bnt

Chalk up another person who was "being atheist" long before I knew there was a word for it. I was taken to Catholic church as a kid, but I'm not convinced that I ever Believed-with-a-Capital-B.

Besides, can you really call a kid a true Believer in anything? Kids say - and believe - the darnedest things.

Turtwig

Galvasean wrote: »

Interestingly, since becoming an atheist I too have found my interest in nature has grown. As a child I was always interested in such things, but now knowing that everything in the natural world came about naturally (no way!!!!), it seems much more interesting than when I thought it all came about by magic.

It's incredible really and alot of believers believe we lack the eyes to see beauty: If only they knew what we saw ....

fitz0

I was actually a pretty strong believer up until I was about 17. I thought I understood it, it's ironic that I know 10 times as much about my former religion since I abandoned it.

Just before my LC year I started thinking about the omnipotence of god. If he made man in his image, then why was there greed, murder, etc etc. If he could see everything that would happen then surely that's just cruel, but if he couldn't then he wasn't all powerful. And if god wasn't what I was told he was then what else was false? Not a brilliant arguement but it started the ball rolling.

I didn't become an out and out atheist until college, where I met other open atheists. Being from a small enough town I'd never met an overt atheist before.

Max Power1

equivariant wrote: »

It seems to me from the few replies that we have so far that very few people convert to atheism in adulthood. This would indicate that the real battle (I do believe it is a battle, although a non violent one, of course) is to be fought in our schools. While books such as "The God Delusion" and TV shows like "The Root of all Evil" are good and broaden the parameters of public debate, they will probably not convince many people to abandon theism.

The most important thing that organisations such as Atheist Ireland can do, at least IMO, is to campaign to remove the Church from our education system.

^THIS^ should have been done away with long ago tbh

For me it was in my first communion, i remember looking around in the church and thinking riiiiiiiight, are all these people really believing this tripe?

Húrin

Zillah wrote: »

Well, that's the point, isn't it? Every experiment begins with the usually undeclared assumption that supernatural entities are not invisibly interfering with the experiment.

A theist, depending on the experiment, has to put his belief in God, the soul, miracles, prayer etc to a special corner of their brain, otherwise they can't conduct science. For example, if a scientist genuinely believes in God and prayer, then surely he should be making statistical modifications to the results based upon the effectiveness of the staff praying for the solution they want, or passing around a memo asking everyone to not pray during the experiment as it may interfere with the results.

Why should a scientist who is a Christian (I say this because "theistic scientist" is too broad to easily talk about, and Christians are who you are probably thinking about) do that? Newton didn't do it, did he?

Where does it say in the Christians' holy book that one should do that? As I recall, the Bible describes God as being a separate entity to the universe, that he created to be governed by laws.

While I think it's not fair to refer to it as a doctrine, I do believe science and religion are opposed. Religion is the ultimate expression of faith, science is the ultimate expression of scepticism. Faith and scepticism are inescapably opposed.

Of course it's as good as a doctrine. You declare it categorically, and it is a statement that only appears in atheist polemics.

Wicknight wrote: »

But at some point they must compartmentalise because their faith and the work are based on two fundamentally different philosophical positions.

When working a scientist, if they understand what they are doing and why they are doing it, they surely recognise the need for the scientific method to determine what is an accurate description of the world. There are so many safe guards in science to prevent personal interpretation and bias from clouding conclusions it would be hard for a scientist to not recognise this.

But then they turn to their faith and reach conclusions based on all the methods science has just spent a lot of time trying to remove from the equation, such as personal interpretation and testimony.

At some point the religious scientist must look at all this and rationalise that yes I need to do that to determine X about the universe, but I don't need to do all that to determine Y about the universe (ie his faith).

This is ultimately compartmentalising.

Then it is also compartmentalising when an atheist scientist forms opinions without using the scientific method. You're not going to suggest that all atheists are rational and scientific about every topic are you?

Turtwig

Húrin wrote: »

Why should a scientist who is a Christian (I say this because "theistic scientist" is too broad to easily talk about, and Christians are who you are probably thinking about) do that? Newton didn't do it, did he?

Actually he did, we just were just talking about it on the Creationist thread a few mins ago

equivariant

Malty_T wrote: »

It's incredible really and alot of believers believe we lack the eyes to see beauty: If only they knew what we saw ....

true. I think that religious belief makes it more difficult to appreciate beauty in nature.

Húrin

Malty_T wrote: »

Actually he did, we just were just talking about it on the Creationist thread a few mins ago

so how can you agree with the laws he formulated?

Darlughda

There is part of me always atheist.

because of the wit and the humour. Atheists are always my no.1 choice of fun company on a night out.

But I reserve the right to claim my tradition and my faith when the **** I want. Last thing I need is some nutter recruiting me to their cause, regardless of persuasive argument, blind faith, correct and convincing evidence or whatever you are having yourself.

Yours, refusing to be tied down to labels like this ****.

ChocolateSauce

Galvasean wrote: »

Interestingly, since becoming an atheist I too have found my interest in nature has grown. As a child I was always interested in such things, but now knowing that everything in the natural world came about naturally (no way!!!!), it seems much more interesting than when I thought it all came about by magic.

"Don't pray in my science class and I won't think in your church!"

Yours, refusing to be tied down to labels like this ****.

So you're a spritely young goth then?

Turtwig

Húrin wrote: »

so how can you agree with the laws he formulated?

????

Newton made a modification described by Zillah to a result based on the white light - which didn't hold up to his very own experiment. Why would that make me dismiss his law of gravity - which held up to his own experiment?

DublinWriter

I was 12 and had just come out of the Confirmation process.

My late-Mum was a devout Catholic and my Dad was a Communist/Atheist.

I guess the only way to put it is the mumbo-jumbo failed to ring true anymore.

Years later our local Parish Preist (lovely guy) died of a heart-attach induced by sniffing amyl-nitrate in a gay sauna club in Dublin city-centre.

People are slowly beginning to think for themselves. My middle-aged taxi driver in Brussels today was Iranian and escaped after the Islamic revolution there in 1979. He said that only crazy people think that a god wills the sun to rise every morning and was a fan of Dawkins.

It's those little islands of sanity that give me hope for mankind.

Seachmall

Malty_T wrote: »

It's incredible really and alot of believers believe we lack the eyes to see beauty: If only they knew what we saw ....

"Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?" - Douglas Adams

Zillah

Húrin wrote: »

Why should a scientist who is a Christian (I say this because "theistic scientist" is too broad to easily talk about, and Christians are who you are probably thinking about) do that? Newton didn't do it, did he?

Where does it say in the Christians' holy book that one should do that? As I recall, the Bible describes God as being a separate entity to the universe, that he created to be governed by laws.

Look, really, this is a very simple point.

Scientists A and B are doing an experiment. They're both Christians who believe in the power of prayer. They're about to start an experiment and within this experiment there is a preferred result. Do you think Scientist A reminds himself that he shouldn't pray during the experiment because it would probably throw the results off? Do you think he would remind Scientist B that he also shouldn't pray?

Obviously it sounds silly, but if there was a chance that Scientist B would do something else that would ruin the experiment you can bet your ass he'd be warned against it.

But of course Scientist A does not send a "Please don't pray" memo around the lab, instead he compartmentalises his beliefs, he locks away his belief in prayer and doesn't let it interfere with the experiment, because doing otherwise would be ridiculous and he knows it.

Of course it's as good as a doctrine. You declare it categorically, and it is a statement that only appears in atheist polemics.

Is there any way I can express this belief that will result in an actual dialogue with you rather than another irrelevant ad hominem?

Hell you can save us the time and rephrase it yourself to your own tastes as long as the core message survives.

Then it is also compartmentalising when an atheist scientist forms opinions without using the scientific method. You're not going to suggest that all atheists are rational and scientific about every topic are you?

Opinions don't require the scientific method because they're opinions...rather than models of the natural world. I can't speak for all atheists but whenever I come to a conclusion about a claim about the natural world ("how old is this fossil?" rather than "What is love?") I will try to be as rational and scientific as I can.


For an obviously intelligent person you have some seriously broken ways of thinking. You've had your nose buried in too many theistic scrap books my friend.