What is Reddit's opinion of
A Manual for Creating Atheists?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
By popularity on Reddit, this product is:
90 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
This is huge even outside of Mormonism and I whole-heartedly agree. As an Atheist myself, I've found that the best argument against any sort of religion is to deconstruct the foundation the whole thing is built on - Faith.
Giving credit where credit is due for this approach - Manual for Creating Atheists
Forgot about this convo until I saw this tab open. Here's a book you might like. I've had decent success with its methods.
I hope that link works, I deleted a lot of what looked like extra crap. The book is called A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian. If you really want to help people find their way out of religion, that's a good place to start.
If you just want to continue being right and feeling smug, by all means carry on. But please understand that you're actively pushing people deeper into their beliefs by treating them poorly.
If you're here, why are your parents still alive?
It's such a basic and deliberate misunderstanding of how time works.
Monkeys are not apes, but they will just say "then how come apes are still here".
Someone who admits to being a creationist is far more likely to also be racist, deliberately ignorant, and untrustworthy. I would re-evaluate your friendship. But if you want to take the plunge and help make one less conservative Christian voter - by all means.
At the end of the day you will end up arguing about facts vs faith. Which is when you will want a copy of this: https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094/ref=asc_df_1939578094/
> She made us write “God’s NOT dead.” on a sheet of paper and called me to the front of the room as an example of a “sinful atheist.”
Singling you out like this gives you cause. Contact the FFRF for advice.
> Also, she’s claiming that American Catholics are horribly oppressed. Considering the the debate is continuing on Tuesday, any good points that I can make?
For the teacher: 1. Do you need to single out and put down people with different beliefs (Atheists, others) to make your case about Catholics? 2. Do you see the irony forcing the class to write "God's NOT dead" after the movie we just watched? (If not spell it out for her). 3. Talk about faith being a problem. Read (https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094 - get the ebook) - or skim a summary of it. 4. Talk about what atheism is. It is just the acknowledgement there is no evidence for God. That is it. It isn't a religion. We don't have a central church. Dismantle her arguments. 5. Find the humor in this. Talk about Kevin Sorbo. Research crazy shit he's said, or talk about how discriminatory the movie is.
You can talk about the role of the Catholic Church in enabling pedophiles, allowing rapists to rape and control nuns, and opposing life saving measures to stop aids. Look up all the awful things Catholics have done. But then that becomes a debate where anything any atheist has done is indicative of all atheists, as if we're a group. Ignoring how much harm and power the church as a central entity is responsible for.
it is false, but not because it doesnt exist but because it's a horrible and degradatory tactic adopted by contemporary atheism. it's pretty well known.
>A Manual for Creating Atheists offers the first-ever guide not for talking people into faith--but for talking them out of it. Peter Boghossian draws on the tools he has developed and used for more than twenty years as a philosopher and educator to teach how to engage the faithful in conversations that will help them value reason and rationality, cast doubt on their religious beliefs, mistrust their faith, abandon superstition and irrationality, and ultimately embrace reason.
> For example, the author tells his subjects to ask a Christian what it would take for him to give up his belief if God. This is meant to, of course, create doubt in the mind of the believer (who is usually a young person who may not have much knowledge and is very impressionable).
https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
It sounds like "street epistemology", a term invented by the philosopher Peter Boghossian. It's based on the Socratic method.
It was first applied to people's religious beliefs. See A Manual for Creating Atheists.
There are street epistemology videos all over Youtube.
>he asked the other person to put a percentage on how sure they were of their belief and what would have to happen to make it 100%.
More like, what would decrease their level of belief.
I recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094, the best approach to helping someone overcome delusional beliefs is to ask strategic questions to prompt them to think critically about the concept of faith, rather than argue about the details of their beliefs. The book gives a good breakdown of why this is, and how to navigate these kinds of conversations.
> Does it offend anyone if I choose to continue to label myself as agnostic because of the social baggage that comes with the label of atheist?
Perhaps some might... but I would also say don't worry about offense. Offense is not in and of itself bad unless that was your intent. If offense was someones goal it makes them kind of a jerk; unintended offense is not an issue (despite the amount of dust people like to kick up about it).
And once again I would focus less on the labels for awhile and more on what you believe and most importantly why you believe it. That foundation will then allow you to weave in terms to best express and communicate your views.
My hope for you is for you to be clear, intelligent, and cogent in your thinking and speech in order to be a proper representative for yourself and for the collective of non-believers.
Here is one book I would recommend that is a great primer on Epistemology and on a technique now being employed known as "Street Epistemology". A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian (the title is more provocative than the subject matter).
Best of luck to you.
OP, every word of your post is screaming "Introduce me to Street Epistemology! Please!". It's a wonderful technique for engaging with such people without any strong confrontation or hurt feelings. I would highly recommend you read the following book: https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
It's a short and fun book and despite the provocative title, it's definitely what you want. Quite cheap too. If you're not much of a reader or don't have the funds, I have the audiobook and can send it to you over PM (I'm sure the author wouldn't mind in such a case (even if the publisher might feel differently ;p)).
It's not even their ignorance per se... it's human ignorance. There's a lot we don't know about the universe. And some people cannot stand not knowing answers to big questions — they'd rather make up an answers than humbly admit "I don't know" (which is ironic given that "humility" is touted as a Christian virtue).
I think you're right in thinking it's for a sense of safety and security... it's a security blanket.
Can I offer a book suggestion to you? It's a short book (and very entertaining), but I think it will make your job in dealing with people like this a pleasure rather than a chore and really satiate your passion for discussing these subjects. I wish it was available for me to read when I was at school. It's called "A Manual For Creating Atheists": https://www.amazon.co.uk/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
There's an audiobook version of it if you're not into reading. If you like I can send you links to the files over a PM.
I agree, to an extent. OP is going about it the wrong way. I don't know if I'd say there's no value in trying to get friends and family to see reason, though.
To OP (/u/VirusMaster3072), I'd recommend reading <em>A Manual for Creating Atheists</em>. It's not perfect, but the strategies it lays out make for a better foundation for discussing religious topics with people of faith. Going back and forth each saying "I'm right" isn't all that productive. The best approach, though the hardest, is through patience and carefully constructed questions. This book lays out very practical strategies for achieving that.
The alternative is nothing more than digging yourselves further into your own ditches until you're so entrenched you can no longer see eye-to-eye.
> "One time she got really pissed at me and ran off before crying"
If you want to handle this in a more tactful/compassionate/productive manner, I'd recommend you read this (short, but extremely entertaining) book: https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
The title is a bit provocative-sounding, but it's really just imparting the reader with ways in which to get people to question what they believe. It's also available on audiobook if you're not much of a bookworm.
Oh I just checked the click through and that's because its an Amazon referral link, they're banned on all of reddit as spam so i have to remove the comment till you edit that out.
this string in the URL:
ref=as_li_ss_tl
A user called "as_li_ss_tl" is getting a cut of sales from anyone who buys after clicking that link.
Here's a non-referral version you could edit in to have your comment restored:
https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094/
Have I ever made someone squirm by holding them to their burden of proof (which they can't meet)? Yes, frequently. But more than often the conversation gets to the point where they keep repeating themselves and strawmanning the atheist position. When that happens, it's your cue to stop the conversation and thank them for their time, because conversations like that lead no where.
As for deconverting someone from their religion? Yes, I can take credit with a few deconversions of people who would often talk religion with me (friends and family members). It's not something you can expect to happen in one or even half a dozen conversations, though. People believe for all sorts of reasons, which each must be discussed. A good shortcut is to ask them to present their very best reason and, if flawed, expose the flaws in it and ask if they concede to it being a flawed argument.
Edit: If you're interested in getting good at talking with theists and holding them to their burden of proof, I highly recommend this book: https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094 (there's an audiobook version if you're not much of a reader).
Are you my dad's secret second family? Haha, I get stuff like this on a regular basis, signed with "Father's teachings." When I bit the bullet and decided not to reply or acknowledge in anyway the last one, it stopped. I'm sure it's not the end, but had a nice break for a few months.
When he met my long-term nevermo SO the first time recently, no text.
When he confronted my exmo brother about putting the cart before the horse since they are living in sin (would normally be an opportunity to blame me), no text.
When I hosted mothers day dinner and dove right in with no prayer, no text.
When I fact checked/corrected them at dinner about the missionary who was present for 3 terrorist attacks, no text.
Plenty of ammunition for when the teachings resume, but silence has been golden!
I would suggest letting them know none of this "is on them." That's quite terrible, coming from a religion that advocates finding lost sheep, it's like, "not my problem, after all I could do, they still left!" It sounds like you aren't up for a discussion (now), as you mentioned respect and not burning any bridges. Just let them know there is no blame or fault in your decisions to take your life in a path that was written by someone else who knows nothing about you and your journey. Be prepared for the objection that "Christ intimately knows you and your journey."
Also, I suggest this book, Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian, if you have not already read it. You can listen to a sample on Amazon. It has excellent suggestions for respectfully handling discussions about faith, and specifically suggests avoiding attacking religion.
A Manual for Creating Atheists, despite the edgy title, is a really good book on how to engage believers through conversation and Socratic questioning instead of through debates. There are a number of good videos out there of skeptics using this technique to great effect.
http://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
I believe that is what they are talking about. I wouldn't recommend it.
In my family, my sister announced many years ago, several topics that were off limits for conversation. These include religion and mean things that she did to me when she was a teenager. Life's easier when we follow these rules.
I see two options here:
He's already admitted that he's unwilling to change his mind and that his faith is more important than truth. He could be telling the truth, which would mean you're wasting your time, or, it's just his mental conditioning coming out and subconsciously some of the stuff is getting through and making him uncomfortable. You need to determine which is the case.
If you want to try to get through to him then I would suggest getting this book. I would also suggest subscribing to a YouTube user called Anthony Magnabosco who puts the books techniques into practice on the street. The book focuses more on epistemology, so you won't have to teach anyone science or formal logic. The book show you how to make people cast doubt on what they think they know (when they actually don't). Once people have doubts then it's usually the beginning of the end for faith.
Street epistemology can help people question their faith. Have you read Peter_Boghossian ?
Yep, this right here. A manual for creating atheists by Peter Boghossian introduced me to this concept in a blunt and frank way. Have not seen faith the same way since.
If you visit her and the second it's brought up you leave (every time), then you can say that you have tried, and feel better about it. Also, you condition her not to bring it up. You might have a rule like you discuss religion on every, say, 10th visit (which will maybe be once every three months depending on how often you visit). Then you can prepare for a discussion at that time. You can note the things she's brought up on the xth visit and rebut them on the (x+10)th visit. She can note the things you've brought up on the xth visit and rebut them on the (x+10)th visit. Think of it as a good way to practice the communication of your atheism. I can recommend: http://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094 as it gives some ways that you might tackle her beliefs. It puts people into different categories and says that you should approach the issue differently depending on how they view their beliefs.
This is the most you should do IMO. I wouldn't blame you if you did less.
Just explain that this is the way things are going to work and if she wants your company then she should hopefully comply. If she doesn't (quite possible considering your post), then her god has become more important than you I'm afraid, but you can stop feeling bad about it as you've given her a chance at hanging out with you.
Question your mothers faith, daily. Give her scenarios that draw her faiths weaknesses into light. Question why she believes, and give counter arguments that faith can't prove.
I'd recommend you look into this book: A Manual for Creating Atheists.
Religion as a whole is hard to destroy, much the same way as bigotry towards one group is hard to destroy. The most consistent way of weeding out harmful beliefs in society is to outlive them. When that fails you confront them about why they believe. The book here tells you how to use the Socratic Method to attack faith which is the foundation of belief. This can be used for religion, anti-science, anti-vac, or any other anti-intellectual argument you can think of.
Why not pick up a copy of Peter Boghossians new book, A Manual for Creating Atheists, and try out some street epistemology?
Why are you so angry?
Here's a book: https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
The thesis of this book is : Don’t attack specific truth claims. Undermine faith and epistemology to create critical thinkers.
https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094/ref=nodl_
You might want to look into street epistemology, which is specifically geared toward making people rethink their religious views in a non-confrontational way. You should check out some of Anthony Magnabosco's videos or the book A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian.
Look up Peter Boghossian ~ A Manual for Creating Atheists Amazon link here. Gives a wonderful insight into how to sow seeds of doubt without causing conflict.
Try the Socratic method, which is asking probing questions without directly contradicting their (invalid or whatever) answers. Instead, you just ask further questions relevant to their answers that delve down deeper into WHY they believe it. If you keep it up for a while, and keep your own wits about you (don't give in to frustration and give up too soon), you can often arrive at a point where they ae beginning to doubt their own words.
Fortunately, there is a book, an app, and a YouTube series of videos all about the Socratic Method:
Book: <em>A Manual for Creating Atheists</em> by Peter Boghossian (Amazon link),
App: <em>Atheos</em> by Peter Boghossian (download link),
YT: <em>Street Epistemology</em> with Anthony Magnabosco (link to YT his channel).
Try all three!
Religion enables otherwise good people to feel good about doing bad things.
Highly recommend
https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
as a way to talk with religious people.
I suggest this book, Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian, if you have not already read it. You can listen to a sample on Amazon.
Before you reject it, it is an excellent book about critical thinking (in this case about religion). There is a section about an interaction he has with a Mormon about to go on a mission. It also is about how faith is not a reliable answer for the why or how you claim to know something.
Other resources:
Have you read "A Manual for Creating Atheists"? It's really good and shows a method that is completely different from debate. The author, Peter Boghossian, illustrates why debates don't work with religious people (they don't believe based on evidence, but on faith) and shows how you can instead target the foundation of their belief and assist them in realizing that it is a flawed system for forming beliefs. The method doesn't actually require you to know anything about arguments in order to demonstrate the flaws.
Here is the link to the book on amazon.
And here is a link to a channel of a guy on youtube who puts it into practice. Have a watch of some of them and see if either party comes away frustrated or worked-up.
You need ~~God~~ Street Epistemology.
Here's a book: https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
a Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/magnabosco210
an app: http://www.atheos-app.com/
The 2^nd & 3^rd resources are based on the first.
Street Epistemology uses the Socratic Method of asking questions rather than making statements. This is why it works - it eliminates the Backfire Effect, the thing that gets in the way of most counter-apologetics.
Here's a couple more YT channels that are centered on the SE methodology:
Cordial Curiosity (Reid Nicewonder)
Sorry no one else in this thread thought to mention S.E. C'mon \/r/atheists, be better, and better-informed, atheists! Have NONE of you have ever heard of SE?
FYI there IS a way to challenge people's religious convictions, but it takes a bit of learning, and practice is a good idea too.
It's called Street Epistemology. There's a book, a mobile phone app, and a lot of videos on Youtube in several channels:
Cordial Curiosity: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiWKxPMKUBFjN3Ny_VxpkYw/videos
Let's Chat: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtShJugohT2eaolubHnIuMg/videos
Anthony Magnabosco: https://www.youtube.com/user/magnabosco210
You should also acquaint yourself with the Backfire Effect. It's what gets in the way of most sincere-but-amateurish attempts to de-convert. The SE method gets around the backfire effect very effectively, IF used properly by someone who has learned the technique.
If you're not serious about challenging your family's beliefs, don't access any of those resources. Otherwise... they actually work better than any other known approach. It helps to have an easy-going personality, too - tho' faking one works.
Sway him away from faith, and the rest will eventually take care of itself: https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
A Manual for Creating Atheists
Self explanatory
https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
One of atheism's greatest allies has quit his job. He is not happy about it, but felt he had no choice, partly due to his own moral convictions (he had to put his money where his mouth was, so to speak), but also because he has been being pressured by his employer, PSU/Portland State University, for several years.
For those unaware of Dr. Boghossian's contributions to the world:
He ~~is~~ was an Associate Professor of Philosophy at PSU for about 10 years. He was never offered tenure, presumably because of his heterodox ideas and publications.
He wrote the book A Manual For creating Atheists
He developed (with help from programmers) the mobile app Atheos which helps one argue with theists.
He was one of the three people who implemented the so-called "Sokal Squared hoax" aka the "grievance studies hoax) (to be clear: it was more an exposé than a hoax) along with Helen Pluckrose and James Lindsay, in which they exposed the poverty of thought and rigor in the Grievance Studies.
With James Lindsay he wrote How to Have Impossible Conversations: A Very Practical Guide, which is an extension of the ideas expressed in A Manual For creating Atheists.
He has appeared in numerous debates, panels, seminars etc. Search Youtube.
I’m sorry that’s you’re going through this. I was in a similar situation with my wife not too long ago :/
From the sound of it, your husband is one of those people who was possibly didn’t reason their way into their faith and is familiar with Mormon apologetics so it is going to be really difficult for you to use reason and facts to help reason him out of his faith delusion because he didn’t use reason in the first place.
Because of this I would HIGHLY suggest that you read A Manual for Creating Atheists by the philosopher Peter Boghossian. https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
It is a fantastic follow up to all of the “new atheist” works by Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Daniel Dennett that is aimed almost specifically at helping people in your situation who have decided to embrace reason and rationality but are struggling to engage with believers about their faith.
The title might sound overwhelming, but don’t let it intimidate you. You do not need to learn counter apologetics and try to debate and reason with your husband. Like you said, he is an attorney and debating with him is likely going to be extremely difficult if not impossible.
A Manual for Creating Atheists is a book that will help you with the seemingly impossible task of engaging with the most devout and closed minded believers about their faith in a non-threatening manner. It will help you help them think critically about and examine the reasons why they believe the things they believe and will help you help them to see the unreliability of faith as an epistemology, and ultimately help them to value reason and rationality.
After the cosmic meltdown she had when I came out as atheist, I felt like our marriage was in limbo and that it was completely hopeless and impossible to talk to my wife about religion, but this book has totally changed that.
After reading the book, I would also highly suggest going on YouTube and searching “street epistemology”. There are several YouTube channels devoted to teaching and demonstrating the conversational method of street epistemology that are very helpful with building your confidence to talk to people and question them about sensitive topics in a non-threatening manner that will plant seeds of doubt.
There is also a street epistemology sub Reddit with a lot of great people who are willing to have street epistemology practice discussions with you about faith to prepare you for your next inevitable conversation about faith with a believer.
I know how stressful this can be so don’t be afraid to message me if you have any questions. Good luck!
https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094 is by far the best book I have read to help me figure out how to communicate with fundamentalists and Republicans.
Street epistemology. Using the Socratic method to help walk them through the steps of critical thinking and become more open minded.
In https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094, the author identifies this as a key point to get people to understand in their embrace of reason. Divorcing morality from faith.
Christians can be deconverted, but it's rarely easy. For one thing, the smarter a person is, the harder it is to convince them that they are wrong - even when they ARE wrong. This is called the Backfire Effect. So first off, I recommend learning about the Backfire Effect (just read that 1 article), followed by a dive into Street Epistemology (SE), as another person suggested.
To learn about SE, watch some Youtube channels of people practicing it. Here are 3 channels:
https://www.youtube.com/user/magnabosco210
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiWKxPMKUBFjN3Ny_VxpkYw/videos
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtShJugohT2eaolubHnIuMg/videos
You could also read the book that kick-started the SE "movement", it's A Manual For Creating Atheists.
You may have taken on a bigger job than you thought. Perseverence might pay off, but it also might not. But I strongly suggest sticking to the SE methods.
Before you talk to your family, I really recommend https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094. Not necessarily to convince them, but for the non-confrontational approach, and the focus that you don't have to justify anything to them - they are the ones who have to justify belief.
I say go easy on them. They are on their way out. Once logical thought and moral autonomy are embraced, it's not a big step to realizing that the church is false. It may take some longer than others, and even if they stay in, they could help change the culture in the church and make somebody's life a little better. If you really want to deconvert them, by the way, confrontation is not the way. Read https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
The book A Manual for Creating Atheists sounds like something you might be into. The book was also followed by How to have Impossible Conversations. Both of these books describe a method of having conversations called Street Epistemology.
The idea behind it is you engage in a conversation with someone, and ask them questions about their beliefs that get them to think critically about them. Once someone thinks critically about their beliefs, they might realize that faith alone is not a reliable reason to believe in something. It's the most effective method I've seen when it comes to getting people to change their minds about irrational beliefs.
Anthony Magnabosco has a YouTube channel with many examples of Street Epistemology in addition to Tutorials and talks that he's done on the topic. I'd check it out if you want to learn more about the subject.
Keep in mind Street Epistemology is about getting other people to reflect on their beliefs, so it's focused on 1-on-1 conversations. It can be difficult with other people around as it makes the conversation partner more self conscious about what they say. The goal of Street Epistemology is not simply to change other people's minds, but to get them to think critically about their beliefs.
> if your ultimate goal is to convince others
If this is your goal, I recommend the approach used in https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
Street epistemology focused on eliciting critical thinking.
With a dose of very non-confrontational discussion/questions about Mormonism-specific truth issues.
r/Stoicism
And weirdly the book that helped me the most was https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094.
Basically, if somebody is going to become more open, focus on critical thinking and working from wherever somebody is at the moment. And focus on examining epistemology rather than religions or beliefs.
https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
Reading this has helped me a lot to think about effective ways to communicate.
I agree with the above. Most ex-moose figure it out on their own. The more you try to show them that their beliefs are wrong the more defensive they get. I suggest you read this https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
When r/atheism forgets all about Street Epistemology, the one method known and shown to work, it forgets it pretty damn thoroughly, eh? At least it does for the first 4 hours...
Street Epistemology (with Anthony Magnabosco)
Street Epistemology (with Tyrone Wells)
<em>A Manual for Creating Atheists</em> by Dr. Peter Boghossian (forget The God Delusion and God Is Not Great; they are unpersuasive to most religious people). This is the book that started the SE phenomenon.
Atheos app The mobile phone version of the above book. 1^st module is free!
Dr. Boghossian (philosophy prof. at PSU) wrote the book and the app. because he recognizes how bloody hard it is to overcome indoctrinated world views.
As u/Supinitup said, YouTube has a lot of videos and there's even a manual, written by the the person who coined the phrase "Street Epistemology".
Yes. Read this book: https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
Tackle the idea of faith as a virtue, or a reliable way of knowing anything to be true.
Read this. It’s the book that started it all
https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
the best way to start is the very book that started this whole movement: A Manual for Creating Atheists
What you'll learn in this book is fundamental and you'll probably need to read it more than once. (I'm reading it the 3rd time by now.)
Then of course the youtube channel of Anthony Magnabosco on which he uploaded hundreds of Videos of him performing this method. He also gives excellent presentations about the topic like this one.
Here is the post for archival purposes:
Author: btccash
Content:
>I got so sick of reading about how Bitcoin is a bubble about to pop. How gold is a better currency. How Bitcoin has no intrinsic value. Etc, etc. I finally decided to start engaging some of these people in a discussion to maybe sway their minds. One of my other interests is Street Epistemology which was a term coined by Peter Boghossian in his book "A Manual for Creating Atheists" https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1512792012 . Regardless of your views on the existence of a god or gods, I would highly recommend this book just for the techniques on how to change someones mind about something.
>In a nutshell, it boils down to Socratic questioning. By asking the right questions in a non-confrontational way you can lead someone to think critically about their conclusions. Typical arguing or stating things as fact will usually get the other person to double down on their previous opinion. In the end, you will be probably agree to disagree and you won't change anyone's mind. Socratic questioning is a much better angle to take. Just read the book. Here is a getting started guide: https://streetepistemology.com/publications/street_epistemology_the_basics
>You can employ Socratic questioning on Facebook, Youtube comments, etc. I hope this will introduce someone to this technique. It can really help to make people think!
>Here's one example:
>Other guy: Bitcoin is backed by nothing. It depends on the greater fool to buy it and it will collapse to zero very soon!
>You: I'm interested to hear more about what you think would make an ideal money. Could you describe what you think would make a great currency?
>Other guy: Ideally, currency needs to be backed by something physical like gold! At least with the US Dollar you have the government standing behind it.
>You: Just so I'm sure I understand your position, you believe that the government should put gold in a vault and each piece of paper or dollar would be backed by a portion of that gold?
>Other guy: Yes, that's what I'm saying. Something of value that's concrete that you can hold in your hand.
>You: Do you believe that our government can be trusted to store the gold?
>Other guy: Yeah. Who else could do it? Of course.
>You: If I could show you an example of a time the goverment decided to liquidate gold in it's vaults and leave it's citizens holding worthless paper, would that change your mind?
>I made that up as a quick example to demonstrate sort of how this works. I'm no expert on this method, it's just an interest of mine. Maybe someone else that's more into Street Epistemology can provide a better example than I. In any case, please consider reading the book and give Socratic questioning a try in order to promote the Bitcoin idealogy.
Feeling pity or wishing you could "force open their eyes" is less than useless -- it's counter-productive.
If you're truly serious about getting through to people and helping them reflect on the reliability of methods used to arrive at irrational beliefs, then I'd recommend you check out the following:
A Manual For Creating Atheists (ignore provocative title (publishers chose it because firebrand atheism sells well))
Atheos (mobile app)
I can only recommend this book. if you know how to talk people out of their faith, you don't have to deal with faith-based bullshit anymore.
I'm not sure how helpful this will be... but I've been learning a lot about Street Epistemology. It's a conversational style based on the socratic method, where instead of trying to convince someone of your view, you ask them about their views.
The idea is, when you push a view on someone else, they get defensive and block you. But when you ask them to talk about their own thoughts/beliefs/views, they open up. At that point, you can ask things like "why?", which ultimately makes them back their dumbass views up. When they can't, they may lose some confidence in that view.
Look into it...
/r/StreetEpistemology
https://smile.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094?sa-no-redirect=1
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLh10RgQgGuM9RFiarmJkQg_yXIhLgauOZ
They have already heard a lot of "arguments" in their "logic" classes, so I always try to find one that they haven't heard yet.
After that, I try to steer the discussion towards faith, as far away from religion as I can think of.
Did you ever see any lecture from Peter Boghossian? because he kinda wrote the book on that.
May I suggest A Manual For Creating Atheists?
Don't talk too much of about history, facts, or counter-apologetics. You do not need to justify yourself to your family. Arguing with uniformed family members rarely leads anywhere useful.
However, if you find that your family is open minded start with epistemology.
Read this book.
Work through this app.
Use your study Mormon history to correct any misconceptions that may arise in the course of discussing epistemology rather than using history as a starting point for disagreement.
And above all remember that it is Mormon believers who are making the truth claims. They have the burden of proof. However, if you start making claims about this or that then you will find that you will have to shoulder the burden of proof, and the discussion can get sided tracked. Watch Matt Dillahunty. He is the master of not letting his debate opponent shift the burden of prove. He doesn't make many claims and he is willing to say "I don't know".
When a believer makes a claim, your first question should be:
>"How do you know that?"
From there you can easily keep the burden of proof where it should be or transition the topic to epistemology when you are ready.
I glanced at the thread, and it seems like you were very unprepared for this sort of discussion. If you just wanted to dispel myths about a secular lifestyle, I would have made that clear from the outset. Frankly, you were unprepared to make arguments supporting atheism as a philosophical position.
Part of the reason you got trolled so hard is that you made assumptions about theists and they noticed. Your own prejudices got in the way. Theists are not stupid; I personally was a theist until late into college, and I learned Christian apologetics in detail. I don't consider myself stupid, and I still believed the Christian side of things. It's not like I've suddenly become smarter as an atheist...I've just abandoned some unjustified beliefs based on new evidence that convinced me those arguments were false.
Unfortunately for you, it seems you aren't familiar with these arguments...you've either only had to deal with the most straightforward of religious beliefs ("I believe because it's so!") or you never really examined your own beliefs. This is OK...you don't need a master's degree in philosophy or natural sciences to be an atheist. If you're going to argue those positions, though, it helps to be prepared for what the opposition is going to bring. You weren't. You naively assumed they wouldn't have good reasons for believing what they believe, and they wielded it against you.
Some general things that could have helped you:
- Asking you random questions that are unrelated to the subject is common and acceptable in an AMA. This is not (necessarily) trolling, and if your original goal was to dispel myths that you are some sort of strange person, answering these in a straightforward manner would have helped, not hurt, your position. Also, people are going to assume when you do an AMA that you have a good understanding of the subject (frankly, and I'm not trying to offend...you don't).
- It's always risky to assume what other people believe. If you aren't sure, ask. There were many "gotcha" moments where people pointed out your own straw-men regarding the Christian worldview. There are many Christians who are highly educated and have a deep understanding of their beliefs, and these beliefs may not conform to the Bible-belt anti-science faith healing shenanigans (stereotypes intended). You confronted their beliefs with an assumption that they lacked reason yet showed an incredible lack of interest and knowledge in science and philosophy. Again, you don't need these things, but if you're going to argue they support your position you should damn well know what they are.
- I found it odd that you came from a position of doxatic closure (in plain terms, close-mindedness). Several times you mentioned that nothing would change your mind. This is a terrible place to begin a debate from, and isn't a very intellectually honest one. You invite comparisons to religion by doing so, because such closure is usually associated with strong dogmatic belief. I recommend saying coming from a position of doxatic openness, as you are more likely to get honest responses and discussions, not to mention it's generally a good idea. One of the key differences between most atheists and theists is around this axis...as an atheist, I am willing and able to adjust my beliefs based on evidence, and theists generally are not. If God were proved by solid, scientific data that could not be explained any other way, I would change my mind. If you're going to have a rational position, you need to be able to accept "Reason 101"...all hypothesis must be falsifiable (in other words, all your beliefs must have criteria that would disprove them, or they cannot be justified beliefs as there would be no way to discern truth from fiction). At one point you tell someone they weren't "devoted" enough to atheism, which is an extremely strange statement, and negates other statements you made about how atheism isn't a religion.
- Finally, you really need to learn some philosophy. I know, I know, for some reason many atheists (especially young atheists) have this thing against philosophy, thinking it's some anti-scientific nonsense about mystical caves and pretending that nothing can be true or known. This couldn't be further from the truth. Philosophy is all about logic and conclusions, and science is heavily based on philosophy. In fact, physics used to be called "natural philosophy", and you could argue that science is a specific form of philosophy in regards to reality. Is there bad philosophy? Absolutely. Is there practically meaningless philosophy? Oh, definitely. The same is true of virtually any area of human knowledge, but if you really want to get involved in learning about atheism you can't really do it without a basis in philosophical thought. The fact is you're using philosophy whether you think you are or not, but without a solid base you were running into issues when people brought up common arguments against your philosophical position. While learning general philosophy will be useful, if you want something specific, I recommend A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian. It really gets to the essence of epistemology and would have greatly helped you in your discussion. It appears you came to the conclusion of atheism because you experienced a situation where you had to deal with a lot of asshole Christians. While this may be your reason, it's not going to be something that will convince anyone of anything. I highly recommend finding out why you believe the way you believe.
Hope that helps. Good luck on your journey.
>How do you handle people who tell you atheism is wrong?
I say something to the effect of
"Please explain to me why you think that atheism is wrong",
and then I rationally explain to them why they are wrong.
.
You want to check out the books and videos from these guys -
- https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
There are lots of entirely secular ways to arrive at morality. The basics appear to be hardwired into most people. The lines of reasoning all arrive at striking similar conclusions (i.e. Slavery is wrong, women are people).
Answer briefly, then put them on defensive. How do they call slavery moral? How do they call 9/11 or the Orlando nightclub shooting or whatever the latest terrorist attack happens to be, moral? There are people who sincerely believe that these are things god wanted. If that is your criteria, and those are your morals, then http://imgur.com/gallery/jEAKxR6
Sorry for the rant. With everything going on in the world today, I just feel like we should have done less to tolerate religion and more to make people responsible.
https://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
It is my sincerely held hope that atheist, with science and reason and clear, easily understood arguments for the children, will one day be considered the cause of the demise of Islam. Not that I expect to live to see that day.
I do try it. Of course it doesn't work on everybody.
http://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
Don't argue. Gentle, Socratic questioning.
Try this technique on her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_UD3AGFG6I
Here's the book mentioned in the first few minutes of that broadcast:
http://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094
If she doesn't change her mind or at least begin to let go of the Watchtower Society fundamentalist, apocalyptic Christian literalism, within a year, I'd suggest you cut your losses & let her try to find a suitable marriage mate among the dwindling resources at her local Jehovah's Witness kingdom hall, instead.
There is a ton of information on all of these, but Peter Boghossian's <em>A Manual for Creating Atheists</em> an excellent single-source book that explores how faulty belief systems are formed.
Logical fallacies are the foundation of almost all religious belief, and the following links are pretty good primers:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
good comments, thoroughly agree. I believe direct confrontation and mocking beliefs only encourages them to go into a 'seige' mentality and double down. Best to be fully respectful of their beliefs and try to find common ground, then encourage the Socratic method (getting them to think about the issues and why things may have happened, which encourages critical thinking - and avoiding simply unloading facts on them etc).
This is mostly the methodolgy that "A Manual for Creating an Atheist" uses. Here is a YouTube vid outlining the method.
Instead of debating, I'd recommend using epistemology.
Watch some of Anthony Magnabosco's videos on street epistemology to get familiar with it. Maybe buy and read A Manual for Creating Atheists.
At least if you wanna have a chance at making your coworker review his beliefs.
Having an honest and productive conversation with the dogmatic is difficult. It is a scenario that should be approached very carefully.
If you want to challenge the religious (or simply irrational) beliefs of others, Peter Boghossian's book <em>A Manual For Creating Atheists</em> is highly recommended.
For a quick taste of his technique, there's a guy on Youtube who interviews strangers using Boghossian's method, called "Street Epistemology". It's a gentle, non-confrontational kind of a Socratic approach to getting others to critically examine "faith" as a valid tool for acquiring knowledge.
Watch his "breakdown" videos, where he shows encounters with religious people and explains what he's doing in an educational way. It's really fascinating how effective the approach can be.
My top two recommends:
Also, I wrote a long essay about epistemological interventions that's stickied up top in /r/StreetEpistemology , detailing many useful techniques for discussing religion with believers.
Seriously consider reading A Manual For Creating Atheists
More education, more peace, greater prosperity, protect freedom of religion.
Also see A Manual for Creating Atheists.
I'm a bot. If you're interested in debating the topic you linked, you might want to check out this rebuttal: None
You can visit rbutr's nexus page to see the full list of known responses to your specific link.
I post whenever I find a link which has been disputed and entered into rbutr's crowdsourced database. The rbutr system accepts responses by all users in order to provide a diverse set of resources for research and discussion.
I'm a big fan of Anthony Magnabosco, who practices Street Epistemology, a technique developed by Peter Boghossian. Peter has a book called "A Manual for Creating Atheists" where he discusses Socratic questioning to get through the shell of believers, and get them to question the validity of their faith as it relates to truth. Anthony has a YouTube channel where he posts his discussions with street preachers, students, and others about their god-beliefs. In the talk he gives linked here, he talks about his methods, and answers a question about his encounters with JWs. He says that JWs are particularly problematic because they tend to arrive in pairs, and just when he makes some progress with one, the other derails the conversation.
In my experience, you have to pick and choose your battles. Sometimes it's going to be a long process. People usually caught up in these types of things have a history of it and breaking that belief or even getting them to look outside of it and consider the fact that they're wrong can be difficult. The socratic method is probably one of the best ways to understand and reveal a person's belief structure without coming across as a jerk.
Anthony Magnabosco has a youtube channel where he investigates people's belief using a socratic method outlined in A Manual For Creating Atheists. It's interesting to watch and see how people respond and react, and he's come across some pretty headstrong, fundamentalist believers, but generally people remain pretty respectful in the conversations. While his channel, and the book, focus on religious belief, the method can be applied to any other topic we skeptics frequently find ourselves in.
You also have to come to terms with you can't win every battle. Plenty of arguments are unwinnable. Learning to recognize and avoid those (if you choose) is important. IMO, remaining respectful, especially in the face of an aggressive argumenter, in front of others will generally end up with a net positive result for you. Close friends and family is a difficult area but ultimately if they are willing to look past beliefs for family there is room to maneuver. Coming from a position of genuine concern with more positive options is a good way to get your foot in the door and nudge it wider.
It's all really a learning process.
I'm currently reading A Manual For Creating Atheists for that exact reason.
If you need help having a conversation with the faithful, try reading A Manual for Creating Atheists and watch videos made by Anthony Magnabosco.
Oh damn that's gotta be rough to see. I really wish I had a way to help you help her.
I'm a bot.
If you're interested in further exploring the topic linked in the previous comment, you might want to check out this response: None
You can visit rbutr's nexus page to see the full list of known responses to that specific link.
I post whenever I find a link which has been disputed and entered into rbutr's crowdsourced database. The rbutr system accepts responses by all users in order to provide a diverse set of resources for research and discussion.
> Your sources for disproof are (1) a URL someone created, and (2) a tumblr someone created.
No, the first was a dictionary. The second was casual uses the dictionary definitions make feasible. They used it just like I did.
>Your account is 34 minutes old and you've said you were a philosopher.
Never did you read me write that I was a philosopher. I wrote that I had a degree in philosophy & religion.
>Tell me how the latter is possible.
An atheist apologist would be one who defends views important to atheism or attacking theism. Richard Carrier is a good example. Or books like A Manual for Creating Atheists.
There's a guy who wrote a book here. It's not expensive and there's a downloadable version. He was being interviewed on some radio show a few weeks ago and many of his arguments and tactics were very good. If you don't mind spending a few bucks it may be worth it.
You might wanna try to read this book by Peter Boghossian>>> http://www.amazon.com/Manual-Creating-Atheists-Peter-Boghossian/dp/1939578094/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1395087030&sr=8-1&keywords=a+guide+to+creating+atheists
If they open the door, you now have license to explain what you (don't) believe and why. A golden opportunity. First, read this book then enjoy yourself at work.
> prostulatize
Just as an FYI, it's "proselytize".
Manuals for conversion to atheism exist.
Some people proselytize for Atheism.
I mean, obviously it's a much newer concept in general, but let's not act like the worst atheists aren't just as annoying as the worst religious people.
Popular alternatives to A Manual for Creating Atheists
The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters
