Book Recommendation: The New Atheism A Survival Guide By: Graham Veale

[AngelFrog]

This summary of the arguments that dominate the current scene of thought unravels the philosophies behind modern popular and academic culture. Veale, a high school teacher, uses these arguments to motivate readers to stop and to think about their own direction and purpose, and ultimately, through consideration of the crucial questions, to find the vital answers.

Highly recommended reading. Takes on what is often the arguments that atheists tend to bring to forums like ours. I'm hoping to get a copy of this into our local library's collection so that more will be available through inter-library loan services nation wide.

There's a "Look Inside" feature at that Amazon link as well.

 

[ColinCat]

I think learning about the opposition, their arguments and their stances is a great thing to do.

 

[ColinCat]

Not that I'm saying this is a good book lol. I'll have to check it out

 

[AngelFrog]

I believe you'll find it is well worth your time. Atheists are becoming more vocal and are forming in groups even to quash Christians inalienable guarantee of religious freedom. This book helps provide a look at their agenda and to assess a rebuttal to their offense.

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

This book helps provide a look at their agenda and to assess a rebuttal to their offense.

Fighting agenda with agenda, then?

After reading the synopsis and some reviews, this book does look insightful. Thanks for the mention, AngelFrog!

 

[ColinCat]

While it is nice to know the arguments of the opposition... The fact that books like this are written just highlights the fact that there is no actual evidence to present. Because surely the presentation of sound evidence would the ultimate counter to any atheist argument and the argument of any other religion.

Until then I suppose there will always be books written about how to argue with people rather than providing evidence to present to them.

 

[Red_Tory]

While it is nice to know the arguments of the opposition... The fact that books like this are written just highlights the fact that there is no actual evidence to present... Until then I suppose there will always be books written about how to argue with people rather than providing evidence to present to them.

Er, no.

- Classic arguments have been made in the past;
- "New Atheists" Dawkins et. al. write ridiculous and ill-informed rebuttals of said arguments in top-selling books;
- Other authors correct the "New Atheists'" egregious errors by writing their own books.


So if we go with, say, "Argument A," the fact that an author writes a book criticising Dawkins' rebuttal of Argument A doesn't mean that Argument A was never made in the first place.

Example: The God Delusion on Aquinas' Five Ways. I'd venture to say that only somebody who has never bothered to read the content in question could provide those summaries and attempt those refutations. The fact that somebody else wrote a book calling him out on it doesn't mean the arguments weren't made in the first place.

 

[Red_Tory]

Oh, and don't create a false dichotomy between "sound evidence" and "no evidence."

 

[ColinCat]

Oh, and don't create a false dichotomy between "sound evidence" and "no evidence."

When did I do that?

 

[Red_Tory]

...books like this are written just highlights the fact that there is no actual evidence to present. Because surely the presentation of sound evidence would the ultimate counter to any atheist argument and the argument of any other religion.

"Because" indicates an if-then relationship between the two sentences, and it seems to me as though a dichotomy between the two is the only real way to make one follow logically from the other. Other than that, the first sentence doesn't follow from the second. "There is no sound evidence" does not equate to "there is no actual evidence to present." Forgive me, though, since I'm probably splitting hairs here...


That books like this are written just highlights the fact that 'New Atheism's' critiques of classical arguments are misguided or downright dishonest. It does not indicate that there is no actual argument to present. Sorry if I seem a tad high-strung about the whole thing, but it kind of irks me when the claims made in their works are given any real credence.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Veale isn't a scholar but he IS a theology graduate of Queen’s University Belfast which means he's achieved the M.Div. level of competency... something he's been teaching for the last fifteen years demonstrating that he has a good grasp of the material.

I would read this book and from what I can tell it fills an important role in educating and buffering the general audience with respect to the false assertions and tactics of the "new atheists."

I believe you'll find it is well worth your time. Atheists are becoming more vocal and are forming in groups even to quash Christians inalienable guarantee of religious freedom. This book helps provide a look at their agenda and to assess a rebuttal to their offense.

 

[ColinCat]

"Because" indicates an if-then relationship between the two sentences, and it seems to me as though a dichotomy between the two is the only real way to make one follow logically from the other. Other than that, the first sentence doesn't follow from the second. "There is no sound evidence" does not equate to "there is no actual evidence to present." Forgive me, though, since I'm probably splitting hairs here...


That books like this are written just highlights the fact that 'New Atheism's' critiques of classical arguments are misguided or downright dishonest. It does not indicate that there is no actual argument to present. Sorry if I seem a tad high-strung about the whole thing, but it kind of irks me when the claims made in their works are given any real credence.

Maybe I need to apologise, I don't know too much about this new atheism. I didn't realise there could be types of atheism because all it is is the non believe in a deity lol

Maybe I'm an old atheist lol

 

[AngelFrog]

Fighting agenda with agenda, then?

After reading the synopsis and some reviews, this book does look insightful. Thanks for the mention, AngelFrog!

My pleasure.

Veale isn't a scholar but he IS a theology graduate of Queen’s University Belfast which means he's achieved the M.Div. level of competency... something he's been teaching for the last fifteen years demonstrating that he has a good grasp of the material.

I would read this book and from what I can tell it fills an important role in educating and buffering the general audience with respect to the false assertions and tactics of the "new atheists."

I think it is worth the time. We see the tactics of the new atheists in groups like, Freedom From Religion Foundation. Most vocal against Christians while arguing their stance is derived from a Constitutional perspective out of respect for all people and separation of church and state.
In truth they're anti-Christian. We know that because they dare not attack Muslims or any other faith in their pursuit of that professed (false) perspective.

 

[ColinCat]

My pleasure.


I think it is worth the time. We see the tactics of the new atheists in groups like, Freedom From Religion Foundation. Most vocal against Christians while arguing their stance is derived from a Constitutional perspective out of respect for all people and separation of church and state.
In truth they're anti-Christian. We know that because they dare not attack Muslims or any other faith in their pursuit of that professed (false) perspective.

That's why I liked Christopher Hitchens. He would openly attack Islam and their representatives as well as Christianity.

But your right. A lot of effort seems to be against Christianity in particular. Maybe because that's the religion they are most familiar with considering they were born and raised in Christian countries.

Just like there are a lot of people who speak exclusively against Islam but leave Christianity alone... Because they aren't as familiar with it.

Not defending anyone BTW.. Just giving a point of view.

 

[AngelFrog]

Hitchens was well spoken though he was owned more than once in his debates. What is ironic is that his brother is a theist, a conservative Anglican. They had one debate against each other and regarding God and politics. Peter Hitchens remarked he hoped it would be the first and last.
It was.

 

[ColinCat]

Yeah Ive seen Hitchens lose the odd few. I remember his brother converting as well, I also caught their debate on YouTube. I enjoyed it

 

[Siberian_Khatru]

Hitchens was well spoken though he was owned more than once in his debates. What is ironic is that his brother is a theist, a conservative Anglican. They had one debate against each other and regarding God and politics. Peter Hitchens remarked he hoped it would be the first and last.
It was.

That was quite a debate. C. Hitchens was well spoken, albeit verbose.