A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian

by cofty 188 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  EdenOne

  Eden scientist do explain this, if people don't read what the scientist say, because "it aint written in the bible", is that our fault?

  To a point, yes. Scientists don't stress out that point enough, usually because they are already biased about the beliefs of theists. Popular science for the masses also pays a disservice in this regard. Makes reasonable people suspect that there is an atheistic agenda behind evolutionism. And naturally, religious organizations are quick to fuel that notion too. And mediatic superstar scientists like Dawkins, who are great communicators, when they embrace an anti-theistic cruzade, only cause common folk to imagine that every scientist is like him, and that science is all about killing God.

  Eden
• 

  cofty

  Its the job of scientists to do science. Its up to theologians and pastors to deal with the implications of science regarding their beliefs.

  why do theists not celebrate the amazing discoveries of evolution and discuss how they can reconcile their beliefs with reality?
• 

  cantleave

  /\/\/\/\ Indeed cofty
• 

  EdenOne

  why do theists not celebrate the amazing discoveries of evolution and discuss how they can reconcile their beliefs with reality?

  Some theologists actually do just that. However, most theologists don't have degrees in science, so it is up to scientists to teach science to the masses in simple, exact and neutral ways, that people with average intelligence can grasp. When atheism permeates evolutionism, it repels immediatly theists, causing them to reject scientific evidence. Just as science and theism should grow separatedly, also science and atheism should grow separatedly, that is, atheism not attempting to "own" science. I wonder if atheists can ever do that.

  I'll give you an example of the latter: Recently I've read some serious geological research by a scientist [sorry, can't remember the name now] whose findings, properly documented, provide evidence that renders totally plausible the account of the earthquake in Judea at the time of the death of Jesus, as described by the Gospels. On a forum where this was being discussed, every atheist in there jumped on him, basically saying: 'This man isn't a credible scientist because he's a christian theist'. Nevermind the volumes of information that he presented, his career, his doctorships, his academic achievements: He wasn't credible because he was a theist. This is the kind of dogmatism that you wouldn't expect from those who claim to be guided by reason.

  Eden
• 

  tornapart

  @EdenOne You make some great points
• 

  bohm

  Eden: Some theologists actually do just that. However, most theologists don't have degrees in science, so it is up to scientists to teach science to the masses in simple, exact and neutral ways, that people with average intelligence can grasp. When atheism permeates evolutionism, it repels immediatly theists, causing them to reject scientific evidence

  So who deside whats neutral? Is the big bang theory neutral to a religion that teaches the universe had no beginning? is geology neutral to the idea of a global flood or that earth was created 6000 years ago? is evolution neutral to the idea animals was created seperately and did not evolve? Is electromagnetism neutral to the idea Thor cause lightning?

  The job of science is to figure out how the world works. If an idea is not in alignment with how the world seems to work it is exactly the job of science to point that out, just like its the job of science to point out if a political or social idea is misaligned with data.

  When atheism permeates evolutionism, it repels immediatly theists, causing them to reject scientific evidence

  well thats just saying many theists behave rather irrational. How, by the way, does atheism permeate evolutionism? what is evolutionism? is there also such a thing as big-bangism? is it saying some scientists who study evolution are also atheists or is it saying evolution is in contradiction the natural reading of genesis? is the remedy to say scientists who study evolution are not allowed to express their views on god, or that they are not allowed to point out parts of evolution (and geology and cosmology and so on...) are in contradiction with some religions?

  It seems like an entirely empty statement...
• 

  cofty

  Reality does not require the approval of theism.
• 

  Qcmbr

  Eden you sound just like I did when I joined this forum. You seek to personalise an imagined hurt from (unless addressed) generalised statements that do not have a purpose of simple pain - unless you wish to also categorise 'arrogant atheists' as maleovelant sociopaths who merely speak to inflict pain!

  Now get a grip , one on one we'd laugh and talk about sport and share inappropriate jokes about nuns but this is a general public forum where I am not trying to play phatic communication games and have no overt aim to build up a rapport with you. Don't take that harshly, you just aren't on my radar and after this post will barely think of you again. I have no desire to send you squealing off into the darkness with your faith in tatters while I stand proudly , arms akimbo. What I want to do is share the importance of confronting faith based beliefs (religious or not) because they are demonstrably ineffectual means of evaluating reality and more worryingly have been show time and time permit and excuse anti-social behaviour. You personally may never condone genocide (in fact I'll go out on a limb and say of course you don't) but if you subscribe to a faith based belief that does (by indirectly supporting a divinely orchestrated genocidal event in a religious text for example ) then you have undermined your integrity by accepting a lower standard. Faith bypasses our moral and social filters and can be used to extract awful behaviour (the voice said take my son up the hill and kill him, I must obey the voice, the voice said I must circumcise babies etc.) This thread happens to be about a book explicitly about expressing the atheist position hence it is the main focus of my posts.
• 

  alonein321

  I was watching this Q & A by Peter Boghossian on youtube:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zksBMdcCzVU

  Around 17:15 min, he explains that there are difficulty levels when it comes to religions in aplying these techniques. Jehovah's Witnesses, he follows, is the top difficulty level and the group he has the lowest rate of success. He says it would take an entire book dedicated to deconverting Jehovah's Witnesses and people have asked him to do so, but he does not feel qualified for that.

  Please anyone check out his words.

  Maybe our community could offer him some insights or we can share our knowledge between us in trying to apply these techniques on our fellow JWs.