A Manual For Creating Atheists

eggman90
To those that had people praying for sick loved ones: where the f**k was your god when your loved one got sick to begin with, why did he allow it, why do you need to pray now? What kind of sick, spiteful, piece of s**t god lets people get terminally ill, then requires that you need to go and pray for help??? Really?

It's the training, dedication, and intelligence of the the medical professional that helps the ill, not some BS prayer. Insanity.

yeah, the success rate is pretty good.

my mother-in-law died at the hospital, getting a routine check up.

she was going to meet us for lunch, after, at the table, just about to sit down, when we got the call.

where the f was your science then?

docs can't save everyone? gee, ya think? why not?

the med profession better get back to wood-shedding their skills.

now it comes down to who's fault? God or the doctors?
she was tao, btw. not christian.

you people want to elevate doctors to the level of God?
kinda got some work to do, eh?

charles1952

As much as many would like to see it, there just isn't absolute conclusive proof of the cause of our existence. There's evidence, but not proof.

There is? I guess that depends on what you accept as evidence for the cause of our existence. I haven't seen any.

If the Jews were God's "Chosen people," He certainly seems to have done a good job in ensuring their survival against incredibly powerful enemies.

A counter argument would ask why he allowed them to suffer so much, if he exists and they are his chosen ones? This gives no weight to the claim itself. There are other ethnic groups that have survived into the modern day and have also suffered, without claims of being chosen. Some much older than the Jews. It is also worth pointing out that the worst attempt at ethnic cleansing in human history, was largely motivated by this same same god, via Martin Luther and Christianity.

The effect of Luther on the German populace and the resulting attitudes, played a significant part in the Holocaust, this is accepted by most historians. Hitler was insane, but the groundwork had been laid for centuries.

And if He seems primitive, what would you do if you were dealing with a primitive people in a primitive time? Introduce the Bill of Rights, the United Nations, Anarcho-capitalism, international trade agreements?

Would you engage them in wholesale slaughter, request animal sacrifices, encourage stonings, slavery etc. just to mention a few. That's to be encouraged, because they are primitive? Genuine moral guidance would be more important for primitive people, would it not?

But, perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "primitive and bumbling idiot."

Someone who's reign is fraught with mistakes. Such as designing a faulty humanity and then having to wipe them out, while blaming them for it. There are many other examples. You wouldn't see having turtle doves slaughtered to appease you, as ignorant or primitive?

Of course, I can never fully understand your thoughts or arguments, but it seems that you're saying. "I can't worship God because I rely on His description in the Bible to show me He is an idiot. However, I don't rely on His description in the Bible because the Bible is false and unbelievable."

Lol. Let me explain in genuine logical terms.

I don't (as opposed to can't) worship the god as described in the bible. I find no good reason to believe he exists, certainly not in the bible which is full of inaccuracies. If he were shown to exist and the bible shown to be true, I would acknowledge this (I would have no choice, it would be a fact), but I still would not worship him. Because he is obviously a cruel and primitive "bumbling idiot". I fail to understand why anyone would worship such a thing, real, imaginary or otherwise. Is that clearer?

If we were looking for someone who exemplified the morals and ideals of this god, we could do no better than acknowledge Stalin as possibly the closest. Although he would be a pale imitation, with nowhere near the same level of pettiness, vanity or narcissistic personality disorder.

Then Jesus came. Seen as God and the Messiah, His message was a different one. Not contradictory, but with a different emphasis and purpose.

No, it was 180 deg. contradictory to many of god's original instructions. You are arguing a special pleading fallacy here. God clearly advises stoning for instance, while Jesus contradicts this. Jesus clearly corrected many of god's original mistakes.

What is also overlooked, is that the story of Jesus exists solely because god required a human/blood sacrifice. Not primitive you say? The reasons for this are somewhat vague and seem to drift further into obscurantism at attempted explanation.

Christians worship God, at least in part, because they don't see Him as a bumbling, primitive, idiot. (And we haven't even started on how a bumbling, primitive, idiot could create and sustain the Universe. After all, our advanced scientists don't know how it happened.)

Then they certainly don't worship the god of the bible, or they haven't read it. Certainly not the old testament. Even if you leave that out, it is difficult to see how torture and human sacrifice could be considered loving. Even more so when considering an omnipotent being, that's the most intelligent plan he has for showing his love for us? To not only torture, but turn things around so that this is our fault also.....? No idiocy there.....?

Evening,

A manual for creating atheists, huh?
It'll have only have three words in it:

"Read the Bible."

-Peace-

Eryiedes
Evening,

A manual for creating atheists, huh?
It'll have only have three words in it:

"Read the Bible."

-Peace-

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum


Wow.
For the first time in my life I actually agree with Penn Gilette on something?
After his 9/11 special, I didn't think something like that was possible.



-Peace-

Eryiedes
Evening,

A manual for creating atheists, huh?
It'll have only have three words in it:

"Read the Bible."

-Peace-

Third time that has been posted, know myself and other read the Bible faithfully, never have known it to create an atheist.

reply to post by Stormdancer777

Third time that has been posted, know myself and other read the Bible faithfully, never have known it to create an atheist.

Now you have. Four fold.

reply to post by Stormdancer777


I don't know about creating atheists, but it certainly can create disbelievers in the Christian religion, what with all the contradictions in it and all.

Krazysh0t
reply to post by Stormdancer777

 

I don't know about creating atheists, but it certainly can create disbelievers in the Christian religion, what with all the contradictions in it and all.

most dont notice, only when pointed out, it wasn't untill I searched outside the bible, however I have reconciled that.

Stormdancer777
Third time that has been posted, know myself and other read the Bible faithfully, never have known it to create an atheist.

No offence but if not for a handful of individuals, EVERY atheist was created by RELIGION.
We are not born with belief in god.
That has to be beaten into you with years of childhood trauma before it takes.
(There are some who will scream foul on this but mental abuse is identical as physical abuse in achieving this end.)
The only way the Bible didn't create an atheist is because the Koran or Talmud beat them to it.

-Peace-

reply to post by Eryiedes

That has to be beaten into you with years of childhood trauma before it takes.
(There are some who will scream foul on this but mental abuse is identical as physical abuse in achieving this end.)

Not all theists were abused in the process of acquiring their beliefs.

Update Article

Atheist readers seem to be taking it quite seriously. The book has been endorsed by Dawkins and other atheist heavy hitters including Michael Shermer, Victor Stenger and Sean Faircloth. One group of London atheists — 600 of them — has asked Boghossian to mentor them via Skype before they hit the streets in search of believers.

“Our aim is to better equip ourselves to have genuinely meaningful conversations with people of faith,” said J. Scott Swanson, a member of the London group. “Things get quickly heated when people feel under attack and conversations just grind to a halt. We want to help change that.”

Boghossian said he is surprised by the immediate success of the book and is hopeful he won’t have to do what he predicts in the book’s acknowledgments — sleep on friends’ couches to hide from angry readers.

“What I hope will happen is that instead of wanting to physically injure me, people will invite me to have a conversation,” he said.
In what is perhaps the biggest difference between his methods and those of other, better-known atheist authors, Boghossian insists that his street epistemologists be, above all, kind, considerate, empathetic and respectful of people of faith..

How is his book doing?

“A Manual for Creating Atheists” sold out its first printing before its Nov. 1 release date and ran through a second printing in just two weeks. It also broke into Amazon’s top 100 overall best-seller list — a milestone usually reserved for better-known atheist authors from much larger publishers.

“And we just had to order more,” Volkan said, noting that the book is on track to be the publisher’s all-time best-seller by the end of the month. “It is a happy problem to have.”

Here is a speech he did on his older book.

reply to post by Grimpachi


That's hilarious. I'm happy for the guy. I'm rather entertained by how two books representing complete opposite ideals both sell like candy.

reply to post by Cogito, Ergo Sum

Dear Cogito, Ergo Sum,

Thank you for your lengthy and serious reply. It was inspirational.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

With respect,
Charles1952

I just came across this interview and it was pretty interesting. It isn’t as long as the previous speech I posted. Both were good.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Dear Grimpachi,

I just don't know. I think I'm giving up on this guy. He said, roughly "I'm trying to get people to base their epistemology on reason and evidence. If they have a way of knowing things through reason and evidence, a natural consequence of this will be that they won't believe in God." But he keeps repeating over and over that he is not trying to get people to become Atheists, people who won't believe in God.

That seems to me like saying "I'm not going to let you eat. A natural consequence of that will be that you die, but I insist I'm not trying to kill you." I expect a little more from a man who has a video stressing the importance of forthright speech.

And, of course, when he talks about reason and evidence, he leaves unsaid which evidence he will allow and which he will declare an illusion. I'm not saying he's dishonest, but I wouldn't play cards with him.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


So encouraging linguistic comprehension is equivalent to starving someone?

I found this it is a radio show with the Author. Enjoy.

Is there a method or manual for creating atheists? Is that even a proper way to phrase our goal(s) as proponents of science and reason? What is the Faith Virus?

In this show, we speak with Dr. Peter Boghossian, Instructor of Philosophy at Portland State University and author of the book, "A Manual For Creating Atheists,"Blog Radio

reply to post by charles1952



I think the underlying theme is once people embrace reason and evidence they will naturaly stop believing in things that are not based in that i.e. religion.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Dear Grimpachi,

You may have tipped me over the edge. The religion threads have been strange for a few days, and one of the themes is that the religious do not accept evidence or reason. Well, there isn't any evidence that can "prove" the existence or non-existence of God. Actually, I have never seen any evidence at all indicating that God doesn't exist, other than we can't find Him. While there is some evidence showing God exists. It's not overwhelmingly powerful, but it's there.

I'm a little surprised that people keep saying that believers don't accept reason. The Church officially accepts reason as a valuable gift from God that man should use, and an amazing majority of philosophers, right back to Socrates, have been believers in God or gods.

Tell you what. What would you think of a thread showing logical, seriously discussed, arguments FOR the existence of God? Not proofs, there's no such thing, just arguments. Would that be of any use, or would it just degenerate into another screaming match?

And if you think it's worthwhile, when should it happen? There have been a lot of religious threads lately. Do you think everybody's burned out for a while?

With respect,
Charles1952