Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

The God Haters: A Preliminary Review


StJeffTheIncomprehensible

Recommended Posts

I thought this might be of interest to some of you. A fellow named Don Boys (Ph.D., as he is fond of reminding his readers) has written a book called The God Haters. Evidently this guy served in the Indiana House of Reps., but his main focus seems to be spreading the love of Jesus by taking on God Haters like Ehrman, Dawkins, Hitchens, Ingersoll, Dennett, Harris. He also takes on evilutionists, sodomites, educated people, all the standard fundie boogeymen.

 

You can download an 80 pg. excerpt of his book for free, and it's a real hoot! I've only read the first 15 pages or so, but it has me laughing to tears. Here's a great little paragraph:

 

Bible readers must start with the supposition that it is true. After all, we do that in daily life. We assume that the information on medicine bottles is correct. We assume that directional signs are true. We assume that signs on restrooms are true. Why not assume that the Bible is true? Of course, critics must find mistakes or admit that there is a God to whom they will give an accounting (p. 11).

 

 

Wow.

 

Some other things to look out for:

 

In the age-old tradition of good Baptist homiletics, he loves alliteration. This may get tiring to some readers, as some pages of the book almost read like sermon outlines.

 

If you appreciate logic and reason, you may have difficulty with the haughty ignorance parading in every line.

 

DR. Boys (Ph.D., "earned" from "Heritage Baptist University") finds delight in coming up with (what he thinks are) clever insults. So do I. But some readers may wish for more substance in a book supposedly written to stop the mouths of the atheists and put their logical arguments to rest.

 

Anyway, enjoy. And feel free to share your thoughts.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link Jeff, but it looks as though the paragraph you quoted will sum up the book. 

 

As to that paragraph:

 

I can follow the restroom sign and see whether it's pointing to a restroom.  I can follow a road sign, and if it doesn't lead where it's supposed to, I may conclude someone turned around the sign. 

 

This is obvious, of course.  And it's obvious that, on the other hand, there isn't any way to test Bible claims when the biblicist retains escape hatches like "it's a metaphor" or "you just didn't have enough faith" or "God is just telling you, not yet," or "you haven't examined the complex context and layers of macrorhetoric and microrhetoric closely enough..."

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any asshole can write a book.

 

It takes a special kind of asshole to write a good one.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Furball

I am not sure why he doesn't understand the very bible he claims to read. The bible makes it clear that god hated humans first. It also states that once you convert to christ-insanity, you make yourself an enemy to your fellow man. The bible proclaims an us vs. them mentality. The people listed above like ehrman etc. have done nothing more than expose christ-insanity and its god as fake. Christians are at the top of the food chain as to ignorance. Until they bring actual evidence to prove their magical thinking, their arguments and debates are without merit and are meaningless garbage. -Cat

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bible readers must start with the supposition that it is true. After all, we do that in daily life. We assume that the information on medicine bottles is correct. We assume that directional signs are true. We assume that signs on restrooms are true. Why not assume that the Bible is true? Of course, critics must find mistakes or admit that there is a God to whom they will give an accounting (p. 11).

 

By that "logic" we should assume that the Koran, Book of Mormon and even Harry Potter are true. If it's written, then who are we to question it?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the link Jeff, but it looks as though the paragraph you quoted will sum up the book. 

 

As to that paragraph:

 

I can follow the restroom sign and see whether it's pointing to a restroom.  I can follow a road sign, and if it doesn't lead where it's supposed to, I may conclude someone turned around the sign. 

 

This is obvious, of course.  And it's obvious that, on the other hand, there isn't any way to test Bible claims when the biblicist retains escape hatches like "it's a metaphor" or "you just didn't have enough faith" or "God is just telling you, not yet," or "you haven't examined the complex context and layers of macrorhetoric and microrhetoric closely enough..."

 

Yes! The book is a remarkable display of every hermeneutical escape hatch known to humankind--and them some. I guess he learned these tricks while earning his "Ph.D."

 

Any asshole can write a book.

 

It takes a special kind of asshole to write a good one.

 

Ha! FFW, why dost thou kick against the pricks?

 

I am not sure why he doesn't understand the very bible he claims to read. The bible makes it clear that god hated humans first. It also states that once you convert to christ-insanity, you make yourself an enemy to your fellow man. The bible proclaims an us vs. them mentality. The people listed above like ehrman etc. have done nothing more than expose christ-insanity and its god as fake. Christians are at the top of the food chain as to ignorance. Until they bring actual evidence to prove their magical thinking, their arguments and debates are without merit and are meaningless garbage. -Cat

 

Tell me about it. But it is funny meaningless garbage, and I'm always up for a good laugh!

 

 

Bible readers must start with the supposition that it is true. After all, we do that in daily life. We assume that the information on medicine bottles is correct. We assume that directional signs are true. We assume that signs on restrooms are true. Why not assume that the Bible is true? Of course, critics must find mistakes or admit that there is a God to whom they will give an accounting (p. 11).

 

By that "logic" we should assume that the Koran, Book of Mormon and even Harry Potter are true. If it's written, then who are we to question it?

 

 

Exactly. Of course, god didn't write those other books. Only the KJV bible. It says so right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Jeff,

 

This guy ASSUMES a lot. Third or fourth paragraph heading is "GOD HATERS LOOK fOR REASONS TO HATE THE BIBLE". He couldn't be more incorrect if he tried, at least from my standpoint. I was actually trying to become a better Xtian when all of these lies and misinformation started seeping out of that leather bound book.

 

Seems like his goal is to corral us all together and slap a label on us.

 

He really hasn't taken into account of ex-xtians that much at that point, has he?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Narrow, myopic and shallow.  Ironhorse, and those infected with similar religious faith, will eat it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

By that "logic" we should assume that the Koran, Book of Mormon and even Harry Potter are true. If it's written, then who are we to question it?

 

 

The Christian says:  "I believe the Bible, because it is the first scripture that I read."  In Judaism, there is a custom for people to whisper the word of the religion into the ear of a newborn baby as the very first words of language that they hear -- the shema yisrael.  Humans hate having unsettled opinions, and they take the settlement of opinion as the sole object of inquiry.  The think that the rule "First in Time" is a better method than the scientific method in order to develop an opinion.  They fasten like lightning upon whatever alternative comes first, they hold to it to the bitter end, whatever happens, without an instant's irresolution.  You gotta admire this method for its strength, simplicity, and directness.  "We cling tenaciously, not merely to believing, but to believing just what we do believe."

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Bible readers must start with the supposition that it is true. After all, we do that in daily life. We assume that the information on medicine bottles is correct. We assume that directional signs are true. We assume that signs on restrooms are true. Why not assume that the Bible is true? Of course, critics must find mistakes or admit that there is a God to whom they will give an accounting (p. 11).

 

By that "logic" we should assume that the Koran, Book of Mormon and even Harry Potter are true. If it's written, then who are we to question it?

 

 

Don't forget the Cthulu cycle.  Of course that's true.  Obvious.  Just got to read it  It speaks or itself through its' own internal consistency...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sad that there is no honest attempt to understand people who don't believe. I don't see how it could be anything other then pure propaganda.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Jeff,

 

This guy ASSUMES a lot. Third or fourth paragraph heading is "GOD HATERS LOOK fOR REASONS TO HATE THE BIBLE". He couldn't be more incorrect if he tried, at least from my standpoint. I was actually trying to become a better Xtian when all of these lies and misinformation started seeping out of that leather bound book.

 

Seems like his goal is to corral us all together and slap a label on us.

 

He really hasn't taken into account of ex-xtians that much at that point, has he?

 

I think the thing he assumes the most about is that people, for instance myself hate god or the thought of god or the bible or even the people that follow this ridiculous nonsense. I do not hate any of that. It makes me sad that we are on large so primitive still and that so many deluded people wander around spouting god nonsense rather than help further us as a race.

I am equally sadned by people like this author exploiting "god" for his own gain at the expense of the weak minded.

 

He can label anything he wants and I will continue to see him as a joke.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sad that there is no honest attempt to understand people who don't believe. I don't see how it could be anything other then pure propaganda.

 

The sad thing is how many actually still believe in these ancient superstitions and gods that came from mans imagination and lonelyness to begin with.

 

Show me a god and I will show you nothing more than a man staring back at you.

 

we should be putting our honest attempts into understanding each other better and dig a very old grave for god thoughts and bury them all.

 

it will only be when religion has gone the way of dust and cave men that our race will truly start to excel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sad that there is no honest attempt to understand people who don't believe. I don't see how it could be anything other then pure propaganda.

 

For the thoroughly indoctrinated, it's not so much a matter of honesty as it is capability. They are incapable of conceiving that nonbelievers could possibly be right, so they have no choice but to rationalize us in some way that conforms to their worldview.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bible readers must start with the supposition that it is true. After all, we do that in daily life. We assume that the information on medicine bottles is correct. We assume that directional signs are true. We assume that signs on restrooms are true. Why not assume that the Bible is true? Of course, critics must find mistakes or admit that there is a God to whom they will give an accounting (p. 11).

 

Just because people do this, doesn't mean it's how it should be done. If people just assumed everything they've been told is true and didn't bother to question it we'd still be burning to death everyone accused of being a witch.

 

And since anything in writing must be assumed to be true:

 

God wants Don Boys to send me lots of money.

 

So it is written. So it must be assumed. Nobody can prove God doesn't want him to send me money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's sad that there is no honest attempt to understand people who don't believe. I don't see how it could be anything other then pure propaganda.

 

For the thoroughly indoctrinated, it's not so much a matter of honesty as it is capability. They are incapable of conceiving that nonbelievers could possibly be right, so they have no choice but to rationalize us in some way that conforms to their worldview.

 

 

They aren't capable of believing there can be such a thing as a non-believer. They think the fact that god exists is so obviously true that everyone is just denying reality. Look at the wording the Bible uses. "Every tongue shall confess." It doesn't say, "Everyone will come to know." The wording "confess" confers the idea that you are lying when you deny gods. As though you will admit to this lie one day and confess the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Bible readers must start with the supposition that it is true. After all, we do that in daily life. We assume that the information on medicine bottles is correct. We assume that directional signs are true. We assume that signs on restrooms are true. Why not assume that the Bible is true? Of course, critics must find mistakes or admit that there is a God to whom they will give an accounting (p. 11).

Just because people do this, doesn't mean it's how it should be done. If people just assumed everything they've been told is true and didn't bother to question it we'd still be burning to death everyone accused of being a witch.

 

And since anything in writing must be assumed to be true:

 

God wants Don Boys to send me lots of money.

 

So it is written. So it must be assumed. Nobody can prove God doesn't want him to send me money.

 

 

can they prove he does?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Bible readers must start with the supposition that it is true. After all, we do that in daily life. We assume that the information on medicine bottles is correct. We assume that directional signs are true. We assume that signs on restrooms are true. Why not assume that the Bible is true? Of course, critics must find mistakes or admit that there is a God to whom they will give an accounting (p. 11).

Just because people do this, doesn't mean it's how it should be done. If people just assumed everything they've been told is true and didn't bother to question it we'd still be burning to death everyone accused of being a witch.

 

And since anything in writing must be assumed to be true:

 

God wants Don Boys to send me lots of money.

 

So it is written. So it must be assumed. Nobody can prove God doesn't want him to send me money.

 

 

can they prove he does?

 

 

Don't have to by Don Boys' logic. We're supposed to just assume it. If it's written, we must assume it's true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

It's sad that there is no honest attempt to understand people who don't believe. I don't see how it could be anything other then pure propaganda.

 

For the thoroughly indoctrinated, it's not so much a matter of honesty as it is capability. They are incapable of conceiving that nonbelievers could possibly be right, so they have no choice but to rationalize us in some way that conforms to their worldview.

 

 

They aren't capable of believing there can be such a thing as a non-believer. They think the fact that god exists is so obviously true that everyone is just denying reality. Look at the wording the Bible uses. "Every tongue shall confess." It doesn't say, "Everyone will come to know." The wording "confess" confers the idea that you are lying when you deny gods. As though you will admit to this lie one day and confess the truth.

 

 

That would certainly describe some Christians' view, but not all. Keep in mind that "confess" can also refer to people simply admitting that they were mistaken. When I was a thoroughly indoctrinated believer, I accepted the fact that some people don't believe, but I was convinced that they were deceived by the devil. Of course, I also thought there were some who were just being dishonest because they didn't want to submit to God, but I didn't discount the likelihood that some were being honest (sincerely mistaken) in their disbelief. However, I could not fathom in the least that they may actually be correct!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

It's sad that there is no honest attempt to understand people who don't believe. I don't see how it could be anything other then pure propaganda.

 

For the thoroughly indoctrinated, it's not so much a matter of honesty as it is capability. They are incapable of conceiving that nonbelievers could possibly be right, so they have no choice but to rationalize us in some way that conforms to their worldview.

 

 

They aren't capable of believing there can be such a thing as a non-believer. They think the fact that god exists is so obviously true that everyone is just denying reality. Look at the wording the Bible uses. "Every tongue shall confess." It doesn't say, "Everyone will come to know." The wording "confess" confers the idea that you are lying when you deny gods. As though you will admit to this lie one day and confess the truth.

 

 

That would certainly describe some Christians' view, but not all. Keep in mind that "confess" can also refer to people simply admitting that they were mistaken. When I was a thoroughly indoctrinated believer, I accepted the fact that some people don't believe, but I was convinced that they were deceived by the devil. Of course, I also thought there were some who were just being dishonest because they didn't want to submit to God, but I didn't discount the likelihood that some were being honest (sincerely mistaken) in their disbelief. However, I could not fathom in the least that they may actually be correct!

 

 

I'm not sure how the original author intended "confess" to be interpreted, but I know many Christians who interpret it to mean that "everybody knows and some just won't admit it." I've heard a pastor give a whole sermon on that one phrase before. He also believed there is no such thing as true atheism. Atheists are sinners who are trying hard to convince themselves that they won't be punished for their sins.

 

It always bothered me because I thought that it's nonsense to claim you know for sure what someone else believes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's sad that there is no honest attempt to understand people who don't believe. I don't see how it could be anything other then pure propaganda.

 

 

For the thoroughly indoctrinated, it's not so much a matter of honesty as it is capability. They are incapable of conceiving that nonbelievers could possibly be right, so they have no choice but to rationalize us in some way that conforms to their worldview.

The notion that an atheist disbelieves not out of reason but out of hate (ie the god haters) is frustratingly slanderous. You would think there might be some genuine interest in crossing bridges and really understanding how a person who does not believe feels and thinks if only to get along better or maybe just out of curiosity but I guess there is no genuine interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ I wonder some of the slanders from Christians is actually projection of their own inner struggles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

^ I wonder some of the slanders from Christians is actually projection of their own inner struggles

Yeah, totally. I see a lot of projection. Maybe they think what motivates them is the same as what motivates us, only they are in denial of their own hate. I read a portion of this book and it was outrageously hateful and then in one place the author states he loves us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

^ I wonder some of the slanders from Christians is actually projection of their own inner struggles

Yeah, totally. I see a lot of projection. Maybe they think what motivates them is the same as what motivates us, only they are in denial of their own hate. I read a portion of this book and it was outrageously hateful and then in one place the author states he loves us.

 

 

That's an interesting hypothesis. I suspect that there probably is some truth to it. In fact, it seems to me that at least the vast majority of people who leave Christianity and later return to it must not have really evaluated the religion with critical thinking and education, so they very well may have had a period where something drove them to simply be angry at a god they believed existed, and when they return they paint a picture of nonbelievers that fits their own experience, which is indeed projecting their personal experience onto others.

 

Some others are just reacting from their inability to fathom anyone truly not believing, so with them it's more of simple confusion than projection. And, of course, when they see nonbelievers get frustrated at being harassed by Christians, they erroneously chalk it up to anger at their god. It can't possibly be their own fault for being bullies for spreading the love of Christ, so it just has to be that we're stiffnecked people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.