What do you think?
Rate this book
Perdendo Tempo Com Deus: Por Que Sou Ateu
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ “Os melhores livros sobre Ateísmo são os escritos por Paulo Bittencourt, porque, diferentemente de Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens e Sam Harris, que nunca foram religiosos, ele foi criado na igreja, estudou Teologia e, portanto, fala por experiência.” (D. Barker)
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ “Argumentos tão radicalmente minuciosos, afiados e esmagadores que embasbacam até alguns ateus e os fazem ficar com dó dos crentes em Deus.” (M. Shermer)
Entre argumentos teológicos, filosóficos e históricos, em “Perdendo Tempo Com Deus” Paulo Bittencourt, que foi adventista devoto, ativo na igreja, estudante de Teologia e quase se tornou pastor, revela as razões por que não acredita em seres invisíveis, inclusive os celestiais, e demonstra por a + b que Ateísmo é o único posicionamento intelectualmente honesto.
Você tem fé em Deus? Ela é inabalável? Como você sabe, se não a põe à prova? Faça um teste: leia este livro até ao fim. Se não fizer você duvidar de nenhuma das coisas em que você acredita, nada mais fará. Ficará provado que você realmente é firme na fé.
Temas abordados: Alá, Ateísmo, Bíblia, Ceticismo, Céu, Ciência, Comunismo, Cristianismo, Deus, Diabo, Evolução, Filosofia, Gospel, Humanismo, Igreja Adventista, Batista, Católica, Evangélica, Pentecostal, Universal, Inferno, Islã, Jesus, Judaísmo, Livre Pensamento, Maomé, Protestantismo, Satanás, Socialismo, etc.
Paulo Bittencourt nasceu no Paraná, passou a infância no Rio de Janeiro e estudou Teologia em São Paulo. Perto de se tornar pastor, teve dúvidas, abandonou a faculdade, aventurou-se pela Europa e acabou se radicando na Áustria. O livro “Ética”, de Bento de Espinosa, robusteceu seu ceticismo e o consolidou como livre-pensador. Paulo Bitencourt dedica sua vida a ajudar pessoas a se libertar da religião.
Paulo Bittencourt é autor também dos livros “Liberto da Religião” e “Com Zeus Não Se Brinca”.
“Não quero crer, quero saber.”
— Paulo Bittencourt
Visite: ateismohumanismo . wordpress . com
★ ★ ★ ★ ★ “Argumentos tão radicalmente minuciosos, afiados e esmagadores que embasbacam até alguns ateus e os fazem ficar com dó dos crentes em Deus.” (M. Shermer)
Entre argumentos teológicos, filosóficos e históricos, em “Perdendo Tempo Com Deus” Paulo Bittencourt, que foi adventista devoto, ativo na igreja, estudante de Teologia e quase se tornou pastor, revela as razões por que não acredita em seres invisíveis, inclusive os celestiais, e demonstra por a + b que Ateísmo é o único posicionamento intelectualmente honesto.
Você tem fé em Deus? Ela é inabalável? Como você sabe, se não a põe à prova? Faça um teste: leia este livro até ao fim. Se não fizer você duvidar de nenhuma das coisas em que você acredita, nada mais fará. Ficará provado que você realmente é firme na fé.
Temas abordados: Alá, Ateísmo, Bíblia, Ceticismo, Céu, Ciência, Comunismo, Cristianismo, Deus, Diabo, Evolução, Filosofia, Gospel, Humanismo, Igreja Adventista, Batista, Católica, Evangélica, Pentecostal, Universal, Inferno, Islã, Jesus, Judaísmo, Livre Pensamento, Maomé, Protestantismo, Satanás, Socialismo, etc.
Paulo Bittencourt nasceu no Paraná, passou a infância no Rio de Janeiro e estudou Teologia em São Paulo. Perto de se tornar pastor, teve dúvidas, abandonou a faculdade, aventurou-se pela Europa e acabou se radicando na Áustria. O livro “Ética”, de Bento de Espinosa, robusteceu seu ceticismo e o consolidou como livre-pensador. Paulo Bitencourt dedica sua vida a ajudar pessoas a se libertar da religião.
Paulo Bittencourt é autor também dos livros “Liberto da Religião” e “Com Zeus Não Se Brinca”.
“Não quero crer, quero saber.”
— Paulo Bittencourt
Visite: ateismohumanismo . wordpress . com
Kindle Edition
Published September 30, 2020
22 people are currently reading
67 people want to read
About the author
Paulo Bitencourt
4 books8 followersPaulo Bittencourt, author of the books “Liberated from Religion” and “Wasting Time on God”, was born in Paraná, Brazil, spent his childhood in Rio de Janeiro and studied Theology in São Paulo. Close to becoming a pastor, he had doubts, dropped out of college, ventured through Europe and ended up settling in Austria. The book “Ethics”, by Bento de Espinosa (Baruch Spinoza), strengthened his skepticism and consolidated him as a freethinker. Paulo Bitencourt dedicates his life to helping people liberate themselves from religion.
“I don’t want to believe, I want to know.”
— Paulo Bittencourt
Visit: https://atheism-bittencourt.github.io
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Paulo Bittencourt, autor dos livros “Liberto da Religião”, “Perdendo Tempo Com Deus” e “Com Zeus Não Se Brinca”, nasceu no Paraná, passou a infância no Rio de Janeiro e estudou Teologia em São Paulo. Perto de se tornar pastor, teve dúvidas, abandonou a faculdade, aventurou-se pela Europa e acabou se radicando na Áustria. O livro “Ética”, de Bento de Espinosa, robusteceu seu ceticismo e o consolidou como livre-pensador. Paulo Bitencourt dedica sua vida a ajudar pessoas a se libertar da religião.
Visite: https://ateismo-bittencourt.github.io
“Não quero crer, quero saber.”
— Paulo Bittencourt
“I don’t want to believe, I want to know.”
— Paulo Bittencourt
Visit: https://atheism-bittencourt.github.io
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Paulo Bittencourt, autor dos livros “Liberto da Religião”, “Perdendo Tempo Com Deus” e “Com Zeus Não Se Brinca”, nasceu no Paraná, passou a infância no Rio de Janeiro e estudou Teologia em São Paulo. Perto de se tornar pastor, teve dúvidas, abandonou a faculdade, aventurou-se pela Europa e acabou se radicando na Áustria. O livro “Ética”, de Bento de Espinosa, robusteceu seu ceticismo e o consolidou como livre-pensador. Paulo Bitencourt dedica sua vida a ajudar pessoas a se libertar da religião.
Visite: https://ateismo-bittencourt.github.io
“Não quero crer, quero saber.”
— Paulo Bittencourt
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
May 9, 2024
Sem dúvida se trata de um posicionamento corajoso, honesto e necessário. Achei a leitura muito boa, me diverti em alguns momentos. Já recomendei para amigos interessados em refletir com olhar crítico esse assunto tão pouco debatido e que tem nos causado tanto atraso e sofrimento.
July 3, 2024
I have read all the books considered the best books about Atheism, like the books written by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris, but I must admit that Paulo Bittencourt's books are better. How can you write about how bad the Bible and religions are, if you have never believed the Bible was a sacred book, have never been religious? Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris have never been believers, have never been religious. In contrast, Paulo Bitencourt was raised in the one of most biblicistic religions: the Seventh-day Adventist Church. If they don't know everything what the Bible says, nobody does. Bittencourt even attended a Theology college! I was raised Evangelical myself, and had been having doubts. After reading these tones of unbeatable arguments that Paulo Bittencourt presents so well in “Wasting Time on God”, I feel stupid that I have ever believed all this obvious nonsense about God, Bible, religion, church, etc. That's it. I'm free!
July 3, 2024
Li todos os livros considerados os melhores livros sobre Ateísmo, como os livros escritos por Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens e Sam Harris, mas tenho que admitir que os livros de Paulo Bittencourt são melhores. Como você pode escrever sobre quão ruins a Bíblia e as religiões são, se você nunca acreditou que a Bíblia era um livro sagrado, se você nunca foi religioso? Dawkins, Hitchens e Harris nunca foram crentes, nunca foram religiosos. Em contrapartida, Paulo Bitencourt foi criado numa das religiões mais biblicistas: a Igreja Adventista do Sétimo Dia. Se os adventistas não sabem tudo o que a Bíblia diz, ninguém sabe. Bittencourt até cursou faculdade de Teologia! Eu mesmo fui criado evangélico e tinha dúvidas. Depois de ler essa carrada de imbatíveis argumentos que Paulo Bittencourt tão bem apresenta em “Perdendo Tempo com Deus”, me sinto um verdadeiro idiota por ter acreditado em toda essa óbvia baboseira sobre Deus, Bíblia, religião, igreja, etc. Já deu. Estou livre!
June 23, 2024
Written with no chapters this is a stream of consciousness flow from beginning to end, albeit with the final 10% of the book consisting of Appendixes.
The style makes it difficult to follow a sequence of specific ideas or arguments. And the book reads in places like an angry rant against religious ideas which are ‘nuts’ (23%) ‘stupid’ (37%) “perverse doctrines” (36%) “load of rubbish” and “ridiculous rituals” (91%).
Some of the authors criticisms of specific aspects or manifestations of religion sound justified, but there is the world of difference between saying that representatives of a religion are at fault, and that the religion itself is at fault. These issues were muddled in the long lists of criticisms of people like Hitler ‘who was a Catholic’ (12%). In any case most religions make it abundantly clear that becoming religious doesn’t lead to instant perfection. Becoming perfect is a hard task that takes time, and people fall into sins along the way. So how is citing lists of sinful Christians supposed to disprove Christianity?
At the heart of the author’s thinking seemed to a model of religion and atheism which was arguably inaccurate. He seemed to think that religion cause extremists do commit atrocities like 9/11 (11%). But studies of extremists have not been able to find that link. What they find instead is that it is community engagement with cultural or religious figures (rather than religious observance or talk of heavenly rewards) which is the best indicator of risks for potential extremist behaviour.
The author’s model of religion’s role is also arguably inaccurate. He thinks that ‘historical evidence contradicts the notion that belief in God does good to humanity’ (13%). But if we assume an atheist perspective and think of religion as a natural phenomenon, then why would that natural phenomenon have been selected (in evolutionary terms), unless it was in fact beneficial in some way?
Some of the critiques of religion are critiques of simplistic versions of the religion. For example, the author ciriticises the idea that a Christian could say that suffering is both a punishment for bad people and a trial for good people (23%). But why is that such a difficult idea? After all, humans can use deprivation of food as both a punishment, and as a character building test for military recruits.
The doctrine of original sin is also critiqued because it involves blaming Eve and talking snakes (36%). But Original sin does not have to be understood that way. Rather than reading Genesis literally and seeing Adam and Eve as perfect and as sinning into imperfection, some Christians see the doctrine as suggesting that Adam and Even were imperfect and lost the opportunity to become perfect. What this shows is that if a doctrine is going to be singled out and rejected, then fairness dictates that the range of different ways that the doctrine can be understood should also be evaluated.
In places the author accuses Christians of fallacies in their thinking, as they allegedly commit the Ignorance fallacy by arguing that God exists to explain what they are ignorant of (39%). Whether that is true or not, it is also the case that it is a different fallacy which thinks that it can dismiss a claim by merely citing the alleged psychological reasons for the claim. Trumping a fallacy with a fallacy is not a good argument.
In the middle of the book there is a review of arguments for God and divine attributes. But once again the arguments only engage with specific versions of Christian claims. For example, we are told that if God is atemporal then God cannot exist in the Universe (56%). Okay, but so what? Surely the issue is not whether God is in time (or not), it is whether God can bring about effects which are in time.
Similarly, we are told that God is incorporeal so God extends in all directions, which means that the universe is inside God (56%). Maybe some Christians belief that but other Christians would dispute that divine incorporeality involves extension. They would say that an incorporeal God has zero dimensions so it is just false that a universe must be ‘in’ God. Once again the author has dismissed a Christian doctrine by engaging with just one way of thinking about it.
Another example of engaging with idiosyncratic versions of Christianity arises when the author says that taking medicine causes disharmony for Christians as it causes a clash between their convictions (that God looks after them) and their conduct in taking the medicine (71%). Really? Why is medicine a problem for Christians? Can’t Christians believe that God looks after them via the medicine in the world?
Overall this was an overly difficult read, because of the lack of chapters and section breaks. And the argument against specific doctrines and religious claims all too often reduced to an argument against very specific versions of the doctrines. Is that really a fair way of arguing?
The style makes it difficult to follow a sequence of specific ideas or arguments. And the book reads in places like an angry rant against religious ideas which are ‘nuts’ (23%) ‘stupid’ (37%) “perverse doctrines” (36%) “load of rubbish” and “ridiculous rituals” (91%).
Some of the authors criticisms of specific aspects or manifestations of religion sound justified, but there is the world of difference between saying that representatives of a religion are at fault, and that the religion itself is at fault. These issues were muddled in the long lists of criticisms of people like Hitler ‘who was a Catholic’ (12%). In any case most religions make it abundantly clear that becoming religious doesn’t lead to instant perfection. Becoming perfect is a hard task that takes time, and people fall into sins along the way. So how is citing lists of sinful Christians supposed to disprove Christianity?
At the heart of the author’s thinking seemed to a model of religion and atheism which was arguably inaccurate. He seemed to think that religion cause extremists do commit atrocities like 9/11 (11%). But studies of extremists have not been able to find that link. What they find instead is that it is community engagement with cultural or religious figures (rather than religious observance or talk of heavenly rewards) which is the best indicator of risks for potential extremist behaviour.
The author’s model of religion’s role is also arguably inaccurate. He thinks that ‘historical evidence contradicts the notion that belief in God does good to humanity’ (13%). But if we assume an atheist perspective and think of religion as a natural phenomenon, then why would that natural phenomenon have been selected (in evolutionary terms), unless it was in fact beneficial in some way?
Some of the critiques of religion are critiques of simplistic versions of the religion. For example, the author ciriticises the idea that a Christian could say that suffering is both a punishment for bad people and a trial for good people (23%). But why is that such a difficult idea? After all, humans can use deprivation of food as both a punishment, and as a character building test for military recruits.
The doctrine of original sin is also critiqued because it involves blaming Eve and talking snakes (36%). But Original sin does not have to be understood that way. Rather than reading Genesis literally and seeing Adam and Eve as perfect and as sinning into imperfection, some Christians see the doctrine as suggesting that Adam and Even were imperfect and lost the opportunity to become perfect. What this shows is that if a doctrine is going to be singled out and rejected, then fairness dictates that the range of different ways that the doctrine can be understood should also be evaluated.
In places the author accuses Christians of fallacies in their thinking, as they allegedly commit the Ignorance fallacy by arguing that God exists to explain what they are ignorant of (39%). Whether that is true or not, it is also the case that it is a different fallacy which thinks that it can dismiss a claim by merely citing the alleged psychological reasons for the claim. Trumping a fallacy with a fallacy is not a good argument.
In the middle of the book there is a review of arguments for God and divine attributes. But once again the arguments only engage with specific versions of Christian claims. For example, we are told that if God is atemporal then God cannot exist in the Universe (56%). Okay, but so what? Surely the issue is not whether God is in time (or not), it is whether God can bring about effects which are in time.
Similarly, we are told that God is incorporeal so God extends in all directions, which means that the universe is inside God (56%). Maybe some Christians belief that but other Christians would dispute that divine incorporeality involves extension. They would say that an incorporeal God has zero dimensions so it is just false that a universe must be ‘in’ God. Once again the author has dismissed a Christian doctrine by engaging with just one way of thinking about it.
Another example of engaging with idiosyncratic versions of Christianity arises when the author says that taking medicine causes disharmony for Christians as it causes a clash between their convictions (that God looks after them) and their conduct in taking the medicine (71%). Really? Why is medicine a problem for Christians? Can’t Christians believe that God looks after them via the medicine in the world?
Overall this was an overly difficult read, because of the lack of chapters and section breaks. And the argument against specific doctrines and religious claims all too often reduced to an argument against very specific versions of the doctrines. Is that really a fair way of arguing?
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews