What is Reddit's opinion of
A Manual for Creating Atheists?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
11 reviews of this product found across Reddit:
> I'll happily accept the tool that will get that job done the fastest.
In my opinion your sledgehammer will just drive the nails in deeper. When people feel attacked their views grow more entrenched. On top of that, bystanders see your aggressive demeanor and only feel sympathy for the believer.
Slow, methodical, insidious civility works wonders. Tease them out, turn it into questions of epistemology, get them to look more closely at fallacies like the argument from ignorance, and interesting things can happen in time.
"What do you mean by 'God'? What basis do you have for these claims you've made? Let's look at this more closely...." Slowly, slowly. Calling them stupid or insane shuts down their mind and gets them in full battle mode. This isn't about you feeling you've smacked someone down--it's about persuading people.
/r/streetepistemology
And BTW, your Amazon link can be reduced to https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LKBT0MC
It's unclear what you're after. Take for example the following position:
> There is perhaps no greater contribution one could make to contain and perhaps even cure faith than removing the exemption that prohibits classifying religious delusions as mental illness. The removal of religious exemptions from the DSM would enable academicians and clinicians to bring considerable resources to bear on the problem of treating faith, as well as on the ethical issues surrounding faith-based interventions. In the long term, once these treatments and this body of research is refined, results could then be used to inform public health policies designed to contain and ultimately eradicate faith. (A Manual for Creating Atheists, KL 3551–55)
That's from Peter Boghossian and there's a subreddit named after his stuff: r/StreetEpistemology. Do you think that should be applied to all religion? I myself think it's a bit extreme.
A rather different option is to look at those groups which greatly punish you if you decide to leave. That doesn't apply to a great swath of religion (especially in the West), but it often does apply to what many people mean when they use the word 'cult'. But this property doesn't show up anywhere in the definition of 'cult' you provided in the OP.
I personally think you need rather more interesting definitions in order to justify much of any actions. If you don't, you risk implicitly depending on what certain people associate with 'religion' or 'cult', without spelling it out.
> However you are comparing a statement made by a single person speaking about his own perspective, with the institutions and proclamations of reality and very specific claims by religions.
If everyone had ignored Weinberg, I would agree with you. But I've seen atheists parrot the line time and time and time and time again. We also have claims like this, which follow suit:
> metalhead82: I do actually think there’s evidence throughout history that there have been more deaths because of religion than for any other cause.
+
> Freyr95: As for religion being dangerous, yes it is. We can say this with certainty, every single time modern day religions have gained some inkling of power, they have stripped away rights from human beings and tried to force their religion on everyone. … > > With that said though, ideally I would want religion wiped out. Genuinely I would love for us to spend billions on wiping it out for good.... but.... [snip]
+
> There is perhaps no greater contribution one could make to contain and perhaps even cure faith than removing the exemption that prohibits classifying religious delusions as mental illness. The removal of religious exemptions from the DSM would enable academicians and clinicians to bring considerable resources to bear on the problem of treating faith, as well as on the ethical issues surrounding faith-based interventions. In the long term, once these treatments and this body of research is refined, results could then be used to inform public health policies designed to contain and ultimately eradicate faith. (A Manual for Creating Atheists, KL 3551–55)
But hey, maybe it's still ridiculous to compare these things to what religions have managed.
To "win" the debate, the morality argument is unrelated to truth value, and science has not established whether the universe ever came into existence. Boom. So what? To actually change his mind, even an iota, check out Street Epistemology, or Manual for Creating Atheists. Their approaches are similar.
I'm not sure if I can commit to that. However, if you haven't already maybe check out A Manual for Creating Atheists, or watch some of the videos on Anthony Magnabosco's channel for some tips on a softer, more persuasive approach to these kinds of interactions.
https://www.youtube.com/user/magnabosco210
r/StreetEpistemology
Based on the book A Manual for Creating Atheists by Peter Boghossian
So HB2 is in violation of Title VII then?
All beside the point of my initial comment on this thread however... the point is to seek out why /u/federalfarmer2016 sees it so diametrically opposed to the way you see it. While there are trolls, I don't read her comments as trolling. She's not making those comments because she thinks she's wrong. Something is making her think she is right. If she is in fact, wrong, facts about this issue at hand won't likely sway her... you have to get her to realize whatever contradiction exists on her own. The Socratic Method's useful. Digressing though...
This is the point of the article! Why are people so diametrically opposed that they can't even agree on what are facts.
Have you read The Righteous Mind or A Manual for Creating Atheists (poorly named... should be called practical applications of epistemology)?
Peter Boghossian would have relished the opportunity to practice some gentle Socratic questioning.
Peter Boghossian defined it best. Pretending to know something you don't know. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00LKBT0MC/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
I read this and now I'm a Street Epistemologist. I recommend it strongly to have meaningful discussions.
I do not have faith and simply cannot assuage how a rational human being can have faith.
Popular alternatives to A Manual for Creating Atheists
A Manual for Creating Atheists
The Death of Expertise: The Campaign against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters
