Just for the record, I find apologetics.com's choice of promoting the book "The Making of an Atheist" on its website to be quite disappointing. In my experience, this website has always been a great avenue for dialog between intelligent Christians and non-Christians who have put a great deal of thought into their philosophies and who seek to learn from each other.

To promote a book that is at best a pathetic and transparent attempt to paint all atheists as morally depraved people who probably had bad relationships with their fathers doesn't seem to fit in with either the spirit or the sophistication of this place.

I mean, seriously - to put a 9-person list of "atheists who lost their fathers" or who had "weak" fathers on a page and suggest that this is evidence of anything, let alone evidence that there is some kind of psychological issue that leads to atheism itself is scholarship worthy of The National Star and bigotry on a par with David Duke. I suspect that most of the Christians I correspond with on this site are smart enough to recognize that. I'm disappointed that the sponsors, apparently, are not.

Thanks for the opportunity to vent.

To all,

Actually, I became a kind of believer in 2002 so that I may justify somehow my hatred of gays. Yes, it's true. I was disgusted by gays and I wanted to find arguments against homosexuality. So I turned to religion. At the time, I was a believer for no other reason. And I was a bad believer to boot since I knew next to nothing about the Bible and theology and I did not go to Church except for special events.

Today, I see that as one of the worst parts of my lifespan. It is a shame to me.

I looked up this book on amazon a few days ago when I first saw the ad. I'm not sure what to think. There appears to be no connection between the title of the book and the chapter titles -- one of the two was poorly named. Specifically, there is nothing in the chapter titles which makes any reference to morality. This could be the fault of the author or the publisher -- I know that publishers often choose the title of books, especially for new(er) authors.

Assuming for the moment that the book's title IS appropriate, I fail to see what the intended purpose of the book could be. Who is its intended audience? Certainly not atheists -- why would an atheist read a book with a title that implies: "You are an atheist because you are immoral"? Unless, that is, the atheist also enjoys sticking needles through his hand!

What about Christians as an intended audience? This doesn't make sense either. What could it possibly accomplish -- convince Christians that all atheists have rejected God simply because they are immoral?

I have no doubt that there are some people who reject God in order to justify some incipient evil. And I have no doubt there are some people who seek God in order to justify some incipient evil. Find a belief, however sane or weird it may be, and you are sure to find adherents!

As for this site endorsing it -- I'd want to hear from Harry before saying anything more. I don't understand how internet advertising works; I don't know how much input a site has over what is advertised. I recall a couple years ago, there were some advertisements which were clearly not endorsed by Harry. Whether this is the same as that, I have no clue.

I will say, however, that an advertisement such as this is indeed counterproductive to the mission of apologetics.com, regardless of whether the book is poorly titled or the advertisement was not specifically chosen by Harry.

This does not seem to be a horrible goal.

Certainly anything that challenges the party line put up by atheists that atheist = objective fair minded intellectual and theist = emotional, irrational, arrogant, obscurantist, anti-science is something worthwhile.

It probably does tend to strike a nerve amongst atheists though so I can understand why you and Sound don't like the book. Anything that challenges the party rhetoric.

Random,

Wow! We have a party line? I didn´t even know we were a party! Your insight atheism is... bewildering.

Andrew.

Random, you so vividly display your colors on this board. I thank you for that, because there is no mistaking on either side.

So when I release my new book "The Making of a Christian...How Mental Illness Leads to Christian Belief", I will be sure to dismiss any complaints you might have regarding a perceived lack of fairness or scholarship on my part as simply sour grapes on your part.

Gotta go - I'm compiling a list of mentally ill people who are also Christian. I'll only need about 10 or so to prove my premise.

Don't worry.

I doubt I'll have to complain about your lack of scholarship at all. After all, its not like you have any evidence or reasoning to refute what I've said even here. No, all you do is insult me, then act as though that proves your point.

I know you are intelligent. Why you resort to such cheap rhetoric when it comes to religion and atheism I don't understand.



If you don't like the turn of phrase, then feel free to ignore it, but at least try to deal with point that I did present.

Atheism thrives on casting itself as being the "intellectual", "open minded", "thoughtful", "tolerant" belief while denigrating all religious folks as being "emotional", "anti-intellectual", "intolerant" and "hateful".

Anything that challenges this stereotyping, at least to me, is a good thing.

That's because you don't understand that cheap rhetoric on my part is always in response to cheap rhetoric on yours.

You know, stuff like "atheist party lines". I deal with the individuals in this forum as individuals and I refrain from disparaging Christians with generalizations, the way you do with regard to skeptics on a regular basis in your posts.

I have a right to complain about a book that does it, and I have a right to complain when you do it.

How odd. So instead of exposing my "cheap rhetoric" for what it is, soundly refuting it with reason and evidence... you just respond with your own cheap rhetoric.

I at least take the time to respond to what you say. I examine your arguments, and I find them wanting.

You have never done the same to mine, and I think any objective viewer can see that.



You certainly have the right to complain. I have never said otherwise. But if you want to say that this book unfairly generalizes atheists, please provide evidence and reasoning that it does so. So far what I've gotten is that you disagree with the premise of the book, not because you have any evidence that's its wrong, but simpyl because it goes against the generalization of atheists that you happen to like.

Random,

I haven´t noticed any atheists on this board denigrate theists in that way, so I´m not sure where you get your definition from.

Andrew.