Everybody Is Wrong About God - James A. Lindsay
Shared by:daenigma100
A call to action to address people’s psychological and social motives for a belief in God, rather than debate the existence of God
With every argument for theism long since discredited, the result is that atheism has become little more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs. Thus, engaging in interminable debate with religious believers about the existence of God has become exactly the wrong way for nonbelievers to try to deal with misguided—and often dangerous—belief in a higher power. The key, author James Lindsay argues, is to stop that particular conversation. He demonstrates that whenever people say they believe in “God,” they are really telling us that they have certain psychological and social needs that they do not know how to meet. Lindsay then provides more productive avenues of discussion and action. Once nonbelievers understand this simple point, and drop the very label of atheist, will they be able to change the way we all think about, talk about, and act upon the troublesome notion called “God.”
| Announce URL: | udp://tracker.opentrackr.org:1337/announce |
| This Torrent also has several backup trackers | |
| Tracker: | udp://tracker.opentrackr.org:1337/announce |
| Tracker: | http://tracker1.infohash.org/announce |
| Tracker: | udp://tracker.leechers-paradise.org:6969 |
| Tracker: | udp://tracker.coppersurfer.tk:6969 |
| Tracker: | udp://explodie.org:6969/announce |
| Tracker: | udp://tracker.desu.sh:6969 |
| Tracker: | udp://tracker.tiny-vps.com:6969/announce |
| Tracker: | udp://tracker.vanitycore.co:6969/announce |
| Tracker: | http://tracker.baravik.org:6970/announce |
| Tracker: | http://tracker2.wasabii.com.tw:6969/announce |
| Creation Date: | Tue, 17 Jan 2017 16:14:08 -0500 |
| File Size: | 168.38 MBs |
| Piece Size: | 256 KBs |
| Comment: | Updated by AudioBook Bay |
| Encoding: | UTF-8 |
| Info Hash: | a471927c0ad64d128730d83e3af76102196a0cf7 |
| Torrent Download | Torrent Free Downloads |
| Tips | Sometimes the torrent health info isn’t accurate, so you can download the file and check it out or try the following downloads. |
| Direct Download | Start Direct Download |
| Tips | You could try out alternative bittorrent clients. |
| Secured Download | Download Files Now |
| Ad |
|
This post has 10 comments
January 17th, 2017
Gee, yet ANOTHER book by an athiest who thinks he knows everything. How utterly SHOCKING!
January 17th, 2017
…as opposed to those religious guys that follow a strict ‘live and let live’ rule, huh?
January 18th, 2017
Atheists are not the ones with the audacity to tell you they know the meaning of life, as well as what is going to happen to you when you die.
Anyway thanks for the book, it looks like an interesting approach.
January 25th, 2017
“He demonstrates that whenever people say they believe in “God,” they are really telling us that they have certain psychological and social needs that they do not know how to meet.”
…
Uh, ok then. Pass.
January 31st, 2017
Interesting that the id of this book is non-fiction, spiritual and religious. Should read, anti-spiritual, anti-religious.
January 31st, 2017
The premise of this book stands on a philosophical fallacy called psychological reductionism. The reason this is a fallacy is due to the fact that if the psychology that the author used to explain the beliefs of another can be applied to him as well, making his argument just as invalid. Common mistake made by populist writers doing philosophy without studying philosophy or epistemology.
December 25th, 2019
This is not rocket science.
The growing body of scientific evidence shows clearly that the universe had a beginning and was designed.
Design can only come from a mind.
To disregard the science is up to each individual, to deny the science is merely irrantional.
May 27th, 2020
About the argument that “The growing body of scientific evidence shows clearly that the universe had a beginning and was designed.”, the next question then would then be who created that “designer”, and then who created that creator, and so on and so on. Faith is a personal decision as to where to stop the questioning in that endless recursive quest. Deists choose, for whatever reason (emotional, psychological, political, logical, societal, peer pressure, group acceptance, etc.), stop after the first iteration while atheists choose not to. Agnostics could be at the other end of the spectrum, accepting the infiniteness of the quest, throwing their arms up and accepting the lack of clarity (my case), which is so uncomfortable (or even traumatic) to deists and atheists alike. In the end, there is no real true (or false) answers, just personal beliefs and, as such, tolerance/acceptance in other people’s belief should be the overriding principle here, not to “prove” other’s beliefs wrong (or right).
July 19th, 2021
Responding to the counter-argument by jsmercier:
“…the next question would then be who created that designer, and then who created that creator, and so on and so on…”
This is an oft-repeated argument, but it’s not a very good one. There’s actually no basis to assume an endless regression of causation is an inevitable conclusion. Fundamentally, this is only one of TWO possible scenarios, and the argument simply dismisses the other possibility A Priori.
This is nicely illustrated by visualizing a chain of dominoes as an analogy. Let’s say we observe a chain of dominoes falling down, but the “beginning” end of the chain is too far away to be seen. There is only two (but no less than two) possible scenarios: either the chain of dominoes extends infinitely, or somewhere there is an “initial domino” which is set into motion by a finger. Notice: while each domino begs for the existence of something which preceded it (in most cases another domino) the finger arguably does not. This is because the dominoes are inarguably DETERMINISTIC in nature, while the finger is (at least arguably) not. So essentially, jsmercier is committing a logical fallacy know as “error of category” - assuming two things belong to the same category when this has not been established.
To sum up the situation: We have a strong philosophical basis to assume that any chain of causation may contain TWO possible types of elements: those which are purely deterministic (the dominoes) and those which can exercise some manifestation of a “free will” (the finger). Of course, this assumes at least the PROPOSITIONAL POSSIBILITY that free will may actually exist. But this is undeniably a sound assumption - because the question has not yet been empirically settled! This falls under the heading of “The Hard Question of Consciousness.” No matter how strong one’s opinion on this question may be, it is nevertheless dishonest for anyone to claim it has been settled.
Therefore, the central question is whether consciousness somehow “preceded” the origin of our cosmos (and hence we cannot necessarily assume it to be subject to its physical laws) or whether consciousness is simply an emergent phenomenon which originates within the cosmos - as a direct consequence of its physical laws – and is therefore subject to them, and hence deterministic.
Again, no matter how strongly one might favor a particular answer to this question, any suggestion that the answer is KNOWN is preposterously dishonest. Therefore, any debate of this question should at least start with an acknowledgment that THE DEBATE IS REAL, and both sides of the argument are (at the very least) operating from an intellectually reasonable foundation.
December 5th, 2022
@RussianHacker4hire This is psychotically intellectually dishonest. You don’t get to pretend that non-believers are creating this problem, when the argument originated from theists. Atheists are just following the exact same line of reasoning. If you think it sounds stupid when an atheist says it, then congratulations, you understand the problem. If you don’t, then you’re a blatant hypocrite. Special Pleading is a fallacy. If that’s the only thing that props up your stupid claims, then you have literally nothing.
Add a comment (please log in before commenting)