New Book: The Making of an Atheist - Has anyone read it?

[Arizona Atheist]

I'm just curious if anyone has read a new book by James Spiegel called The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief. It's a well-written book but I do not agree in the slightest with the guy's arguments because there are many studies that simply fly in the face of this cherry-picked selection of atheists and theists by the author. What are everyone elses' opinions? For anyone not familiar with the book here is it's website: http://themakingofanatheist.com/

[jimbo]

Arizona,

I looked at the web page for the book and the description that the author gives for his work indicates to me that the author is angry at having his cherished beliefs challenged and is fighting back by tar-and-feathering all atheists. I have not read the book--this is just my personal impression from the web site. Here is part of what he writes:

"Christian apologists, from Dinesh D’Souza to Ravi Zacharias, have been quick to respond to the new atheists, revealing holes in their arguments and showing why theistic belief, and the Christian worldview in particular, is reasonable. In fact, the evidence for God is overwhelming, confirming the Apostle Paul’s point in Romans 1 that the reality of God is 'clearly seen, being understood from what has been made so that men are without excuse' (Rom. 1:20, NIV). "

The evidence for the Christian god is overwhelming? I guess that is why we are still arguing about this particular god 2000 to 3000 years later.

"So if the evidence for God is so plain to see, then why are there atheists? That is the question that prompted The Making of an Atheist. The answer I propose turns the tables on the new atheists, as I show that unbelief is a psychological projection, a cognitive disorder arising from willful resistance to the evidence for God. In short, it is atheists who are the delusional ones."

Yeah, that's the ticket, it is all just psychological projection!

I would like to read this book now for its entertainment value, but I don't want to actually pay for it and reward the author for resorting to character assassination.

Cheers,

Jimbo

[Seasanctuary]

Is the author smart enough to tell the difference between belief and obedience?

[Steve007]

The evidence for the Christian god is overwhelming? I guess that is why we are still arguing about this particular god 2000 to 3000 years later.

People still argue about evolution. Does that mean the evidence for either side is not overwhelming?

[Meta Knight]

People still argue about evolution. Does that mean the evidence for either side is not overwhelming?

Not to mention that internet atheists love to say "there's no evidence for God's existence."

[Steve007]

I'm just curious if anyone has read a new book by James Spiegel called The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief. It's a well-written book but I do not agree in the slightest with the guy's arguments because there are many studies that simply fly in the face of this cherry-picked selection of atheists and theists by the author. What are everyone elses' opinions? For anyone not familiar with the book here is it's website: http://themakingofanatheist.com/

I've seen it and flipped thru it but I wasn't sure that I actually wanted to buy it. It's a pretty small book if I remember correctly. From the link you provided, I thought this part was interesting:

Unlike Dawkins and his ilk, I give an account as to how the delusion occurs, showing that atheistic rejection of God is precipitated by immoral indulgences, usually combined with some deep psychological disturbances, such as a broken relationship with one’s father. I also show how atheists suffer from what I call “paradigm-induced blindness,” as their worldview inhibits their ability to recognize the reality of God manifest in creation. These and other factors I discuss are among the various dimensions of sin’s corrupting influence on the mind.

[Jaecp]

Not to mention that internet atheists love to say "there's no evidence for God's existence."

I'm sure you could provide scads that stand up to scrutiny

[Tassman]

I'm just curious if anyone has read a new book by James Spiegel called The Making of an Atheist: How Immorality Leads to Unbelief. It's a well-written book but I do not agree in the slightest with the guy's arguments because there are many studies that simply fly in the face of this cherry-picked selection of atheists and theists by the author. What are everyone elses' opinions? For anyone not familiar with the book here is it's website: http://themakingofanatheist.com/

From the Link: “So if the evidence for God is so plain to see, then why are there atheists? That is the question that prompted The Making of an Atheist.”

Because the evidence for god is NOT “so plain to see” as the very “new atheists” Spiegel is denigrating have made abundantly clear in books and debates with his heroes such as the opportunistic apologist Dinesh D’Souza.

From the Link: “The answer I propose turns the tables on the new atheists, as I show that unbelief is a psychological projection, a cognitive disorder arising from willful resistance to the evidence for God. In short, it is atheists who are the delusional ones.”

The author is trained in biology add philosophy, NOT psychology, according to the blurb in the link, so he is out of his depth discussing “psychological projection”. It is he, in fact, who is projecting.

I will give this little effort a big miss. It is yet another attempt to make the delusional feel secure about their delusions.

[SlapShot]

James S. Spiegel said:

showing that atheistic rejection of God is precipitated by immoral indulgences, usually combined with some deep psychological disturbances, such as a broken relationship with one’s father.

How many times have we heard this crap?! We became atheists because we wanted to sin, or we had a bad relationship with our fathers on Earth so we hate our heavenly father.

From the online reviews of the book I've read it's filled with logic fallacies from front to back. It's the same old tired crap we've all heard for years. Ad homs and ad hoc.

Google up some reviews for yourself.

[Tassman]

People still argue about evolution. Does that mean the evidence for either side is not overwhelming?

No they don’t. There is no serious argument about ‘evolution’ except for that deceitfully manufactured by the likes of the Discovery Institute as a part of the deliberate “Teach the Controversy” fiction. (see Wedge Strategy). There is overwhelming evidence that supports ‘evolution’. . Scientists may continue to argue about small details, but overall it is proven as one of the most successful scientific theories ever.

Conversely, so-called ‘intelligent design’ lacks endorsement by a single major association of science professionals anywhere in the world. It is NOT true science because it does not follow the scientific method. It does not have a research program capable of producing true 'scientific theories' that can be tested, replicated or provide predictions. It exists to diminish 'evolutionary theory', which it perceives as a threat. It's real damage-control stuff, i.e. promote religion at any cost and to hell with 'truth'. .

[Carpedm9587]

Not to mention that internet atheists love to say "there's no evidence for God's existence."

There is no "compelling" evidence - but then that's just a fancy way of saying there is not enough evidence to convince me!

[Carpedm9587]

No they don’t. There is no serious argument about ‘evolution’ except for that deceitfully manufactured by the likes of the Discovery Institute as a part of the deliberate “Teach the Controversy” fiction. (see Wedge Strategy). There is overwhelming evidence that supports ‘evolution’. . Scientists may continue to argue about small details, but overall it is proven as one of the most successful scientific theories ever.

Conversely, so-called ‘intelligent design’ lacks endorsement by a single major association of science professionals anywhere in the world. It is NOT true science because it does not follow the scientific method. It does not have a research program capable of producing true 'scientific theories' that can be tested, replicated or provide predictions. It exists to diminish 'evolutionary theory', which it perceives as a threat. It's real damage-control stuff, i.e. promote religion at any cost and to hell with 'truth'. .

This, at the end, is one of the key pieces of evidence for naturalism, IMO. When something is true, there is a tendency to unity around it. The pattern is evident: an initial proposition is made and is usually rejected or even ridiculed. However, as the proposition is tested and evidence begins to mount, opinion begins to converge. This has happened for many scientific proposals.

When a proposition is not based on what is real, there is no objective anchor on which opinions can converge. This leaves individuals and groups free to spin off and diverge. That is exactly the pattern we see in religions. I don't know of any religion that has not constantly spun off more and more "sects" each with a claim to knowing "THE truth." Christianity itself is now broken into some 2,000 such sects and the splits continue over difference in moral codes, theology, and authority.

That is a VERY compelling pattern. It is not, by itself, proof that there is no god. But it is a strong indicator that the religions of man are created BY man, and are not rooted in an actual supreme being.

Michel

[Tassman]

This, at the end, is one of the key pieces of evidence for naturalism, IMO. When something is true, there is a tendency to unity around it. The pattern is evident: an initial proposition is made and is usually rejected or even ridiculed. However, as the proposition is tested and evidence begins to mount, opinion begins to converge. This has happened for many scientific proposals.

When a proposition is not based on what is real, there is no objective anchor on which opinions can converge. This leaves individuals and groups free to spin off and diverge. That is exactly the pattern we see in religions. I don't know of any religion that has not constantly spun off more and more "sects" each with a claim to knowing "THE truth." Christianity itself is now broken into some 2,000 such sects and the splits continue over difference in moral codes, theology, and authority.

That is a VERY compelling pattern. It is not, by itself, proof that there is no god. But it is a strong indicator that the religions of man are created BY man, and are not rooted in an actual supreme being.

Michel

Yes it is. And not to mention the differing ‘revelations’ by god of THE truth in areas formerly isolated by sea or large land mass as per the Americas, Australia, or Asia and South-East Asia. Again it is not, by itself, proof that there is no god, but if there were one true god one would expect to see him revealed consistently over the entire planet. We don’t. There are as many 'gods' and 'divine revelations' as there are cultures and they too spin off more and more "sects" each with a claim to knowing "THE truth.

[Zombie]

This, at the end, is one of the key pieces of evidence for naturalism, IMO. When something is true, there is a tendency to unity around it. The pattern is evident: an initial proposition is made and is usually rejected or even ridiculed. However, as the proposition is tested and evidence begins to mount, opinion begins to converge. This has happened for many scientific proposals.

When a proposition is not based on what is real, there is no objective anchor on which opinions can converge. This leaves individuals and groups free to spin off and diverge. That is exactly the pattern we see in religions. I don't know of any religion that has not constantly spun off more and more "sects" each with a claim to knowing "THE truth." Christianity itself is now broken into some 2,000 such sects and the splits continue over difference in moral codes, theology, and authority.

That is a VERY compelling pattern. It is not, by itself, proof that there is no god. But it is a strong indicator that the religions of man are created BY man, and are not rooted in an actual supreme being.

Michel

not to mention one a scientific proposal is 'validated' people tend to use it to produce 'stuff'.
products. this is a very materialist view granted, but once evolution is hammered down and the mechanism better understood - someone is gonna put two and two together and interject that technology into the marketplace. big pharma? big oil?
perhaps we could even clean up our mess on this planet with engineered microbes that devour plastic and leave orrganic compounds as waste...that could be useful.

on the other hand, what kind of technologies is ID promoting? none that i have seen.

but, i think religion will be vindicated somewhat when we discover more about the workings of the mind and as well as forays into virtual reality, as entertainment, perhaps.

[Arizona Atheist]

The author is trained in biology add philosophy, NOT psychology, according to the blurb in the link...

This was very surprising to me since he has actually studied biology and yet in his book argues that there aren't any transitional fossils. Surely in his training he learned of several! It made me wonder if he is just blinded by his beliefs or if he didn't learn anything while studying biology.

When a proposition is not based on what is real, there is no objective anchor on which opinions can converge. This leaves individuals and groups free to spin off and diverge. That is exactly the pattern we see in religions. I don't know of any religion that has not constantly spun off more and more "sects" each with a claim to knowing "THE truth." Christianity itself is now broken into some 2,000 such sects and the splits continue over difference in moral codes, theology, and authority.

That is a VERY compelling pattern. It is not, by itself, proof that there is no god. But it is a strong indicator that the religions of man are created BY man, and are not rooted in an actual supreme being.

This is a very good point; one that I haven't heard before but it sure is something to think about.

Not to mention that internet atheists love to say "there's no evidence for God's existence."

Well, I'd have to agree with the atheists regarding this statement. There are no factual, logical arguments for any god's existence so I see no problem with summing it up by saying there is no evidence. Though, I don't understand the moniker "internet atheists". There are many well versed atheists on the internet who make the same claim and have good reasons for doing so.