Writing the atheist character

[veinglory]

I think it would be useful to discuss thoughts relating to the writing atheist characters.

My first point would be that an atheist character is not necessary 'lost' his or her faith. Atheist characters are as diverse as religious characters. Many people have been atheist life long and were never raised to be religious or in a religious tradition, others have lapsed or drifted away without some specific reason, or left a church for reasons of logic and preference. I seem to see a lot of characters that are atheist from some deep angst despair, rather than simply becuse of who they are and how they see the world.

Secondly, a character can be part of a culture without be a believer and this does not mean they are foolish or hypocirtical. For example a person may be cultural Jewish but religiously atheist.

Basically as with any character, a religious character is utterly idiosyncratic and it is worth considering whether you are really writing a character, or a stereotype (as with writing a character fo any religion, race, nationality, gender etc).

[zornhau]

Atheists usually have internally consistent world views that you can't break with the standard logic/rhetorical tricks that theists use to validate their own beliefs:
Theist: "Gosh, but the world is like... let me randomly pick an image... yes, a watch. Doesn't the complexity imply a... what's the word?...Yes... Watchmaker?"

Atheist: "But by that analogy, the Watchmaker would be more complex than the watch, rather implying an even more complex Watchmaker-Maker. I prefer the simpler explanation of just the watch."
This goes further:
Large Angelic-Looking Being: "Bow down before the Might of Jehova!"
Atheist With Large Handgun: (BOOM!) "Make my day, alien-imposter-punk!"

[Queen of Swords]

I seem to see a lot of characters that are atheist from some deep angst despair, rather than simply becuse of who they are and how they see the world.

I can't stand the character who's religious until a loved one dies, at which point they drop to their knees, scream "Noooooooo" at the sky and are an atheist from that moment on. I've met a few people who seem to take this seriously and believe that atheists have some deep trauma in the past that's caused the atheism.

Secondly, a character can be part of a culture without be a believer and this does not mean they are foolish or hypocirtical.

QFT.

I'm a atheist, but I was a Christian for years, and I enjoy singing Christmas carols (not to mention giving gifts, painting cards and putting up decorations). Heck, one of my favorite musicals is Jesus Christ Superstar.

[Albedo]

The worst atheist caricature I've ever read was the MC of a Dean Koontz short story, who is bitter and twisted and hates God because his son died. But eventually he realises his son is sending messages from beyond the grave and his faith is restored. I was always annoyed by the religious smugness burbling away under Koontz's writing, but that story just took the cake with its ludicrous strawman of an atheist. No more Koontz for me.

Here's an interesting page on Hollywood atheists. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HollywoodAtheist)

[Albedo]

Jesus Christ Superstar.

...is essentially a secular depiction of the last days of Christ. I've heard that some Christians actually dislike it because it underplays Christ's divinity (and makes Judas the protagonist). My Mum was punished by her Anglican high school because she dared to write a report on it when it premiered back in the day.

[Ruv Draba]

Okay, there are no stereotypical atheist characters, but are there archetypes? Put another way, do atheists in stories hold symbolic mythic roles?

[Higgins]

Okay, there are no stereotypical atheist characters, but are there archetypes? Put another way, do atheists in stories hold symbolic mythic roles?

For some reason (like many things these days) this reminds me of
my inability to get what Ian Hacking is trying to say.

For example (and this is a kind of weird archtype) Ian thinks that it is possible that the earliest tale of which we have exact preserved verbatim knowledge (it is embedded in some giant, ancient Vedic cycle) is this:
A king is possessed by the god Kali and she forces him to gamble away his kingdom so that one of her faithful followers can have his way with the King's betrothed. The king becomes a begger and Kali releases him, but his vast experience with gambling enables him to win back his kingdom and his beloved.

A lot of archtypes here and the Hero who loses everthing and gets it back because the experience of losing is good training...seems to be a strange parallel to an atheist view of fate. Though what you could say is that an atheist character might not have to lose everything in order to think through a better way of gambling.

PS. The source is somewhere in Hacking's first book on probability.

[veinglory]

The atheist view of fate?

Atheism is not a uniform doctrine so I don't see how it could have a view of anything, really. That is probably my main point.

The atheist view of.... reads to me about as sensibly as the 'brunette's view of....' or the 'person who likes anchivies view of...' Unless the attached issue is, for example, hair color or anchovies it doesn't follow.

Knowing a character is atheist doesn't, in itself, tell you anything about the character other than their lack of theism. For active beliefs you would need to know what doctrines and philsophies they do believe in.

[Higgins]

The atheist view of fate?

Atheism is not a uniform doctrine so I don't see how it could have a view of anything, really. That is probably my main point.

The atheist view of.... reads to me about as sensibly as the 'brunette's view of....'

Well...I said an Atheist view of fate. Frankly, a tall brunette view of fate sounds far more interesting.

Anyway, suppose we approached archtypical (note that notion of "archtypical" was part of the basis of my post) atheism from a view where the gods are more like personified aspects of the real world.

The hero ends up being possessed by the goddess of destruction (kali), but this very experience itself enables him to win in the end.

In a less polytheistic/proto-atheistic view the story is a play on the perfectly ordinary thought process that suggests it might be wiser to think things over rather than be forced to learn everything the hard way at the hands of petty dieties.

[veinglory]

I guess I just don't follow a thought process that a story in which gods literally exist could be an atheist archetypes. I am an theist, and a mythology enthusiast (especially archetypes as used in psychoanalysis), but it didn't occur to me at all that you were using a context where the gods were reifications of parts of the real world.

...Or that there is an atheist view of fate that could be referred to. i.e. 'Which view of fate?' 'An atheist view of fate' 'Oh, yes, that one'. Ergo, I still don't see how that is an atheist view of fate. I am not being awkward, I genuinely did not make any of the key assumptions you seemed to be assuming (i.e. didn't specify) in giving your example, so it didn't make very much sense to me at all.

I think there is a lot of overgeneralising with atheist characters. Not just that they are lapsed religious types but also that there are shared assumptions between, for example, the secular humanist, the radical materialist, the hyper-agnostic etc etc just because they don't have a literal belief in deity.

For example I am an atheist and a determinist, but most atheists are not determinists. My beliefs come from what I do believe in, not what I don't believe in. So I apprach characterisation the same way. Ergo I do not think there is an atheist archetype either in the literal (current recognised arhetypes) or potential sense. I could not even easily align atheism with specific existing archetypes.

[zornhau]

The atheist view of fate?

The atheist view of.... reads to me about as sensibly as the 'brunette's view of....' or the 'person who likes anchivies view of...' Unless the attached issue is, for example, hair color or anchovies it doesn't follow.


Ah, this is another one for the original topic:

An atheist is usually some other kind of "-ist" whose "-ism" implies a worldview without a deity in it.

So, for example, I am a Materialist Rationalist, therefore I am an Atheist. As a Materialist Rationalist, I do have a view on Fate (the summary of which is unprintable), but it comes from my rationalism rather than my atheism.

[Ageless Stranger]

Writing about atheist characters is just like writing about anyone else really.
Atheism isn't really a defining trait, it's just title denoting that you don't believe in a certain idea. That's always weirded me out. We don't have a word for people who don't believe in Father Christmas or Astrology.

[Higgins]

I guess I just don't follow a thought process that a story in which gods literally exist could be an atheist archetypes.

If you are an atheist (and I guess I am nominally: I definitely think there are no godlike entities, but it is as trivial as saying there are no french fries in paradise -- in fact -- "No french fries in Paradise" probably has a more earnest and genuine content than many religious propositions, so calling me an atheist is like calling an oil refinery a place of refinement)
then a story where gods literally exist must be purely figurative and therefore potentially archetypical in terms of one's orientation toward fate, loss, recovery, reason and experience, not to mention sex and gambling.

[veinglory]

But that would be how it would be archetypal to an atheist, not how it would be archetypally representative of an atheist--which was the issue raised.

[Higgins]

Writing about atheist characters is just like writing about anyone else really.
Atheism isn't really a defining trait, it's just title denoting that you don't believe in a certain idea. That's always weirded me out. We don't have a word for people who don't believe in Father Christmas or Astrology.

Hmmm...I don't know. Suppose I wrote a story about two Archbishops. Both are up to be Cardinals and one of them is an atheist. To resolve the who-gets to be Cardinal dispute, the two archbishops agree to play dangerous games involving physical violence and large machines involved in cultivating a golf course reserved for prelates as a tremendous hurricane closes in.
If I do the interior monologues of the Archbishoprical contestants, will it matter which is an atheist?

[Zoombie]

What Ageless said: I don't go around thinking "Grrr, gar, I hate god."

Well, sometimes I have long and one sided debates with God, that mostly consist of a very bored me laying in bed, having a long winded talk with something that probably doesn't exist.

Hmm...<thinks> "The Atheist who Talks To God" is a nice title...for what though...

Anywho, uh...mostly, I spend my day thinking about food, girls, my family, what I'm writing and so on.

Though there is a five second period when I do think "grr, I hate god."

Its when my extended family gets together for meals, right...well, most of my extended family is Christian, so we have to say Grace. And I, who don't eat a lot before dinner because it tastes amazing and I want to EAT IT, are like...grr, I want food. But nope, Grace first.

<sigh>

You never know how annoying that is till it comes back. But, because I always think, "Why aren't they thanking, you know, the people who actually cooked the food...", I make sure to thank the people actually responsible quite often.

Though I do have to edit "Goddamn" out of my language when I visit my extended family.

Uh, this is getting off topic.

So, yes, atheists are as diverse and bizarre as, well, anyone is.

[Higgins]

But that would be how it would be archetypal to an atheist, not how it would be archetypally representative of an atheist--which was the issue raised.

Surely, if we can present the internal archetypical dynamics of a character, we have produced a potentially archetypical representation of a character.

[veinglory]

I think archetypes are meant to capture a broadly based and shared symbolism in a culture, and the identoty should be emergent, not assigned.

I don't think the character you mention would be broadly recognised as archetypally atheist by and culture that I am aware of. Not least because I am not sure acrhetypal atheism exists.

I think the first, and oft repeated, theme of this thread is that archetypal athiesm is a fallacy.

[Higgins]

I think archetypes are meant to capture a broadly based and shared symbolism in a culture, and the identoty should be emergent, not assigned.

I don't think the character you mention would be broadly recognised as archetypally atheist by and culture that I am aware of. Not least because I am not sure acrhetypal atheism exists.

I think the first, and oft repeated, theme of this thread is that archetypal athiesm is a fallacy.

It would seem by your definition of an archetype (culturally broadly based and shared, but not assigned) all archetypes are fallacies when viewed by people who supposedly can be potentially assigned to be instances of that potential archtype.

Suppose I say "X is a typical femme fatale"...but we have a femme fatale subforum where it is widely believed that "Femme fatale" is just a momentary role in somebody else's life. All femmes fatales are actually different and there is no one single femme fatale attitude about anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femme_fatale

[zornhau]

It would seem by your definition of an archetype (culturally broadly based and shared, but not assigned) all archetypes are fallacies when viewed by people who supposedly can be potentially assigned to be instances of that potential archtype.

Suppose I say "X is a typical femme fatale"...but we have a femme fatale subforum where it is widely believed that "Femme fatale" is just a momentary role in somebody else's life. All femmes fatales are actually different and there is no one single femme fatale attitude about anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Femme_fatale

Well put, but...

"Femme fatale", like "Soldier" and "Cowboy", as a literary character implies a particular role.

"Atheist" is a bit different because it implies a particular philosophical position, rather than a role.

[veinglory]

I view archetypes from a psychological point of view, as temperment and life-goal types. thus they are not fallacies if they are a general type in the world. For example the wise man, the teacher, the mother, the lover, the prince.

Again, words should be used in the way most people use them. I would argue the core meaning of archetypes is 'person' types (specifically a psychoanalytical these). These types are used in writing because character types should echo person types.

Personality is not fixed, but neither is it transitory. Something doesn't have to be perminant to avoid being a fallacy. But it does have to both be known to a culture and capture something about reality --to be a real archetype as opposed to the myth or collective delusion (e.g. a stereotype versus pure bigotry).

Thus I would say the wise old man/crone is an archetype, old men/women are often wise. The athiest is a fallacy in that I cannot complete the sentence 'atheists often' with anything other than 'don't beleive in god'. I do not feel they are, even probabilistically, a 'type'.

[Ruv Draba]

I think the first, and oft repeated, theme of this thread is that archetypal athiesm is a fallacy.Granted, but so what? An archetypal knight, pirate or ballerina is a fallacy too... because profession does not connote personality.

The topic is literature and not life, and literary symbols tend to cluster into archetypes.

Are atheists excluded for some reason? Or is perhaps atheism used as garnish on other archetypes?

[zornhau]

Granted, but so what? An archetypal knight, pirate or ballerina is a fallacy too... because profession does not connote personality.

The topic is literature and not life, and literary symbols tend to cluster into archetypes.

Are atheists excluded for some reason? Or is perhaps atheism used as garnish on other archetypes?

But knights, pirates and ballerinas are defined by their vocations. Even though their personalities will be diverse, certain sorts of people will be better at these than others, and the vocations and their socioeconomic contexts themselves shape and filter the personalities.*

*E.g. you can have an archetypal knight (his name was Sir William the Marshal) because active knights have to train from an early age, practically live on their horses, must be brave and tough, move around at least for the early stages of their career, and if successful settle down as landowners.

A typical atheist (1) doesn't believe in god, and (2) is a rationalist of some sort. Unlike, e.g. "knight", this doesn't imply a personality or a lifestyle.

Since atheism is neither a lifestyle nor a vocation, it's an attribute rather than an identity - as Ruv put it: "[a]....garnish on other archetypes" .

So, for the benefit of those trying to characterise atheists, could we agree with the following?
Q: What is the archetypal atheist?
A: There is no archetypal atheist, because atheism describes a world view that can be held by all sorts of different kinds of people for all sorts of reasons. It is an attribute rather than an identity.

[zornhau]

I think that atheism can sometimes be an important part of a character's identity. It depends on how they came to be an atheist and how their atheism is viewed by the people around them.

Someone who was brought up in a strict religious household and community, and who with a tremendous effort rebelled against that, might see atheism as being at the core of how they define themselves. If they continue to live in an area where atheists are feared or hated, then their atheism will cause conflicts that have a big effect on their daily lives. A writer would have to pay attention to such a character's atheism, because it will be a major motivator of the character's actions, and also will greatly affect how other people treat the character.

But a character who grew up in an atheistic or tepidly religious household, and who lives in a place like England or some parts of the US where atheism is no big deal, may not have any conflicts, internal or external, due to their atheism. No conflicts, no drama, nothing much to write about. Maybe the writer could just mention it in passing, or maybe wouldn't need to mention it at all.

So how about:
Q: What kind of atheists would have a combative attitude to religion?
A: Typically, ones who have recently "broken out" of a religious background, or feel persecuted, pestered or simply overridden by religious people - for example, even an apathetic atheist might become angry at attempts to "save" his or her children, or if public policy were determined by a religious agenda, or influenced by unelected religious figures. Also, if social institutions are bound up with religion, then an atheist can feel unustly excluded, and become combative.

Remember, to an atheist, God isn't real, so knowledge or relationship to God is not a source of any sort of mandate or moral justification. To empathise with this, substitute "consulting the Tarot" and "New Age Astrologist" in the following sentence and see how you feel: "The President spent the morning praying in the company of his Pastor."

[Higgins]

Granted, but so what? An archetypal knight, pirate or ballerina is a fallacy too... because profession does not connote personality.

The topic is literature and not life, and literary symbols tend to cluster into archetypes.

Are atheists excluded for some reason? Or is perhaps atheism used as garnish on other archetypes?

To me, "atheist" seems to be more of an ascribed role -- just like Femme fatale -- because we don't need to know (in literary terms) what the inner motivation is or what the particular atheistic or femme fatalistic mental structure is and in that way...as a literary object...an atheist is far more like a femme fatale than she is like a cowboy. With a cowboy you get all kinds of assumptions, even as to costume and demeanor (look at the "cowboy" narrator in The Big Lebowski!). Now if the film were narrated by a femme fatale or an atheist...we would be very puzzled if they wore a cowboy costume. In fact it might seem more like the surreal world of Repo Man than a pretty astute Coen brothers reading of the world of the early 1990s.

http://www.coenbrothers.net/interviewlebow.html

[Higgins]

Thus I would say the wise old man/crone is an archetype, old men/women are often wise. The athiest is a fallacy in that I cannot complete the sentence 'atheists often' with anything other than 'don't beleive in god'. I do not feel they are, even probabilistically, a 'type'.

I can give it a shot, "Like the femme fatale, the literary atheist has an ascribed role in other people's lives that has nothing to do with their
philosophically based motivation or lack of philosophically based motivation."

[zornhau]

I can give it a shot, "Like the femme fatale, the literary atheist has an ascribed role in other people's lives that has nothing to do with their
philosophically based motivation or lack of philosophically based motivation."

That's fine for describing how atheists are characterised in other people's fiction. However, this thread is about how non-atheists can to characterise realistic atheists!

What we seem to have is the sort of material one would put into the intro for an FAQ:
The archetypcal literary and dramatic depictions of atheists are in fact no more than stereotypes. Real atheists behave in a variety of ways, and may not choose to broadcast their atheism.
Please can we move on to something else non-atheists may not get? For example: Do atheists hate religious people? Are atheists ashamed of their lack of faith? What would it take to convert an atheist? Aren't atheists just angry at God?

It would be nice to have a thread - or FAQ - to which we could point theists when they hop over the wall and ask about how to make their characters believable.

[veinglory]

I would like to pick up on your point that athiests often are not overt. When I am at a meeting that is led in prayer I do not rant or run off. In fact I act pretty much like everyone who is praying, although I am not. I am just being polite. So it would be quite possible to write a non-POV character where the reader simply would not know if they were atheist or not.

[Albedo]

Do atheists hate religious people?
Some atheists make a habit of looking down on the religious. Most of us just want everyone to get along. :( I don't think there's anyone beyond a few bitter souls who actually hate the religious. Hating religion is another thing though.
Are atheists ashamed of their lack of faith?No.
What would it take to convert an atheist?Put six or more zeroes on the end and I'll convert to anything you want. ;)
Aren't atheists just angry at God?No. You can't get angry at something that doesn't exist.

[veinglory]

I would second that. I am at most slightly irritated every time I am obliged to observe a pointless religious rite, and I don't hate any person anywhere. I dare say there are atheists (/characters) who are more angry about things, but I bet it gets tiring.

[JimmyB27]

I would second that. I am at most slightly irritated every time I am obliged to observe a pointless religious rite, and I don't hate any person anywhere. I dare say there are atheists (/characters) who are more angry about things, but I bet it gets tiring.
Not been asked to observe a pointless religious rite since I was a kid, but I do get angry at certain religious people. Like the ones pushing 'Intelligent Design' into schools, to be taught as an alternative to Evolutionary Theory.

Are atheists ashamed of their lack of faith?
Not even remotely - why would I be?

What would it take to convert an atheist?
Give me some real evidence, and I'll think about it.

Aren't atheists just angry at God?
Just as angry as Christians are at Allah, or Buddha.

[SPMiller]

I admit I personally do cleave to certain negative stereotypes of "the atheist", so if you're looking for evidence that stereotypes have a basis in reality, look to me. I almost didn't post this information about myself, but I figured that it'd be useful to theists wanting to create believable atheistic characters. So here we go...

I consider theists to be lesser minds. That doesn't necessarily make theists dull, and I don't necessarily avoid socializing with them. After all, I'm related to, have made friends with, and have dated theists. But they have a fundamentally-different and thoroughly-deluded worldview most likely (but not always) resulting from a relative deficit of intelligence. Either that or they simply lack sufficient education or experience to understand that there are logical, rational explanations for the way things work.

I do not dislike any particular religion more than any other. All religions are equally incorrect in my view. This is why, for example, specifically anti-Christian atheists irritate me. They should apply their fervor in equal measure toward all theistic delusions, if at all. I personally am not a politically-active atheist--after all, almost no politicians are atheists, and that's actually illegal in my home state.

That said, I'm certainly not angry at any deities, because they'd have to exist to be targets of my anger, wouldn't they? And I'm not ashamed of my lack of belief. Just because I'm a member of perhaps the most hated minority in my country doesn't mean I should be ashamed. Rather I'm proud of the personal courage required for me to profess a lack of belief, and I greatly respect those atheists who came before me in even more hostile times.

It's impossible to convert me to a religion as a direct result of the way I view our universe. If you were to provide hard evidence that deities exist, theistic belief would no longer be religious and I'd be all too happy to jump onto the god-fearing bandwagon. But until then, no dice.

Regarding religious holidays, I often observe with family as a result of social obligations. That is to say, my relatives are mostly religious, and I therefore have little choice but to observe these holidays without appearing unduly hateful and antisocial. It's a pragmatic decision I've made to appease family, and I consider it unfortunate but necessary.

[t0neg0d]

Question--

When you say 'God is not real', does this encompass any form of spiritual power? i.e. ghosts, presences, life-force, etc? The reason I ask is... if there was a belief in such thing, wouldn't that cross over into agnostic? or no?

The statements that I find useful for defining an atheistic character so far are:


What I believe defines me, what I do not believe does not.
Atheism for the individual is defined by the circumstances that lead to the adoption of the title.


Now, a couple other questions that would help sum everything up (for me at least) would be:


If point one is accurate, why is so much time spent discussing the differences from religion (especially in a very condescending way, focusing on what an atheist does NOT believe in)? Before you take offense to this, let me direct you at some of the initial responses to this very thread. These responses were not prompted by an antagonist.
If point one is accurate, why is there even an A/NT forum (the forum is just an example... replace with title, etc if it will explain better)? If it is completely varied from person to person and not a belief system, why bother to separate yourselves this way?


Thanks in advance... this thread will be very useful in this type of character definition.

[t0neg0d]

I admit I personally do cleave to certain negative stereotypes of "the atheist", so if you're looking for evidence that stereotypes have a basis in reality, look to me. I almost didn't post this information about myself, but I figured that it'd be useful to theists wanting to create believable atheistic characters. So here we go...

I consider theists to be lesser minds. That doesn't necessarily make theists dull, and I don't necessarily avoid socializing with them. After all, I'm related to, have made friends with, and have dated theists. But they have a fundamentally-different and thoroughly-deluded worldview most likely (but not always) resulting from a relative deficit of intelligence. Either that or they simply lack sufficient education or experience to understand that there are logical, rational explanations for the way things work.

I do not dislike any particular religion more than any other. All religions are equally incorrect in my view. This is why, for example, specifically anti-Christian atheists irritate me. They should apply their fervor in equal measure toward all theistic delusions, if at all. I personally am not a politically-active atheist--after all, almost no politicians are atheists, and that's actually illegal in my home state.

That said, I'm certainly not angry at any deities, because they'd have to exist to be targets of my anger, wouldn't they? And I'm not ashamed of my lack of belief. Just because I'm a member of perhaps the most hated minority in my country doesn't mean I should be ashamed. Rather I'm proud of the personal courage required for me to profess a lack of belief, and I greatly respect those atheists who came before me in even more hostile times.

It's impossible to convert me to a religion as a direct result of the way I view our universe. If you were to provide hard evidence that deities exist, theistic belief would no longer be religious and I'd be all too happy to jump onto the god-fearing bandwagon. But until then, no dice.

Regarding religious holidays, I often observe with family as a result of social obligations. That is to say, my relatives are mostly religious, and I therefore have little choice but to observe these holidays without appearing unduly hateful and antisocial. It's a pragmatic decision I've made to appease family, and I consider it unfortunate but necessary.

Not to be offensive, but how does this define an Atheist in the least? You have defined a bigot--nothing more. And the sad fact is, that a bigot is usually the 'lesser-mind' =(

If I am wrong, I certainly do apologize. But it is no different than saying that someone who is gay is a 'lesser-mind'.

I guess I have trouble believing that this is relevant to Atheism. At least I certainly hope that it is not relevant.

Not been asked to observe a pointless religious rite since I was a kid, but I do get angry at certain religious people. Like the ones pushing 'Intelligent Design' into schools, to be taught as an alternative to Evolutionary Theory.

Out of curiosity, why does one theory hold a higher place for you than another theory? I have no issue with evolution being taught to my children in the least. I do, however, have an issue with any "theory" being taught exclusively. I ask this for the sake of the topic of the thread, not to start a sideline discussion.

[SPMiller]

Not to be offensive, but how does this define an Atheist in the least? You have defined a bigot--nothing more. And the sad fact is, that a bigot is usually the 'lesser-mind' =(

If I am wrong, I certainly do apologize. But it is no different than saying that someone who is gay is a 'lesser-mind'.

I guess I have trouble believing that this is relevant to Atheism. At least I certainly hope that it is not relevant.I don't mind being called a bigot. Sticks and stones, you know. Little of what I posted should be conflated with my lack of belief. I was simply supplying information that may at some point help someone to create an atheist character like me--a snapshot of what one atheist (though certainly not all atheists) is like.

And for your information, equating homosexuality with religious belief in the context of your argument would appear to be logically fallacious, and is especially amusing when one considers that many of those who oppose homosexual rights are self-professed theists.

[t0neg0d]

I don't mind being called a bigot. Sticks and stones, you know. Little of what I posted should be conflated with my lack of belief. I was simply supplying information that may at some point help someone to create an atheist character like me--a snapshot of what one atheist (though certainly not all atheists) is like.

And for your information, equating homosexuality with religious belief in the context of your argument would appear to be logically fallacious, and is especially amusing when one considers that many of those who oppose homosexual rights are self-professed theists.

My point being, this bit of information does not defined you as an atheist, it defines 'other' characteristics of your personality. Which you pointed out here. Unless, of course, this is the reason you call yourself atheist?

Back to the question I originally posted:

Question--

When you say 'God is not real', does this encompass any form of spiritual power? i.e. ghosts, presences, life-force, etc? The reason I ask is... if there was a belief in such thing, wouldn't that cross over into agnostic? or no?

The statements that I find useful for defining an atheistic character so far are:

1. What I believe defines me, what I do not believe does not.
2. Atheism for the individual is defined by the circumstances that lead to the adoption of the title.


Now, a couple other questions that would help sum everything up (for me at least) would be:

1. If point one is accurate, why is so much time spent discussing the differences from religion (especially in a very condescending way, focusing on what an atheist does NOT believe in)? Before you take offense to this, let me direct you at some of the initial responses to this very thread. These responses were not prompted by an antagonist.
2. If point one is accurate, why is there even an A/NT forum (the forum is just an example... replace with title, etc if it will explain better)? If it is completely varied from person to person and not a belief system, why bother to separate yourselves this way?


Thanks in advance... this thread will be very useful in this type of character definition.

[SPMiller]

My point being, this bit of information does not defined you as an atheist, it defines 'other' characteristics of your personality. Which you pointed out here. Unless, of course, this is the reason you call yourself atheist?Indeed. I suppose I should have begun my post with the contention that atheism doesn't necessarily imply anything in particular about an individual's personality.

[t0neg0d]

Indeed. I suppose I should have begun my post with the contention that atheism doesn't necessarily imply anything in particular about an individual's personality.

This statement helps a ton in trying to portray an Atheistic character, thank you--or realizing that defining a character as Atheist is semi-pointless as it does not help define the character at all.

So, if this is accurate, perhaps people telling what led them to adopting Atheism to begin with would be more helpful from a writers perspective?

[SPMiller]

And since you seem to really want my input on this matter...

When you say 'God is not real', does this encompass any form of spiritual power? i.e. ghosts, presences, life-force, etc? The reason I ask is... if there was a belief in such thing, wouldn't that cross over into agnostic? or no?I'm not sure what you mean by spiritual power, but if you believe ghosts/presences/life-forces/etc. exist only as because they derive from some deity, then yes, such a belief in spiritual powers would have theistic implications.

But I think there are others who would argue that magic and religion aren't necessarily related. For example, if you were to conceive of magic as some extra physical force inherent in the workings of our universe, then it wouldn't need to have anything to do with a God or gods.

I personally believe in neither gods nor magic.

The statements that I find useful for defining an atheistic character so far are:

1. What I believe defines me, what I do not believe does not.
2. Atheism for the individual is defined by the circumstances that lead to the adoption of the title.I'm not sure I can agree with either of these arguments in any meaningful sense. Depending on how you define define in this context (heh), belief (and the lack thereof) may either say nothing or everything about a person/character. But I would never say belief means something while the lack of belief doesn't. For any given individual, the two are interrelated.

I'm also not sure just what you mean by #2. It doesn't make much sense to me. It seems to suggest that there must be circumstances leading to lack-of-belief, when in my view it can be as simple as having a worldview that doesn't allow for deities.

Now, a couple other questions that would help sum everything up (for me at least) would be:

1. If point one is accurate, why is so much time spent discussing the differences from religion (especially in a very condescending way, focusing on what an atheist does NOT believe in)? Before you take offense to this, let me direct you at some of the initial responses to this very thread. These responses were not prompted by an antagonist.
2. If point one is accurate, why is there even an A/NT forum (the forum is just an example... replace with title, etc if it will explain better)? If it is completely varied from person to person and not a belief system, why bother to separate yourselves this way?#1: point one is not accurate.

#2: see #1.

[veinglory]

I'll start with point 2)

There is a 'Get with the genre: Religion: atheism and non-theistic' forum because some people writing material for this m,arket wanted to chat. I fear they have, for the most part, given up the attempt of on-topic discussion some time ago.

As for 1) we keep coming back to religion largely because religion is normative in this culture and so it take effort and thought to depart from it, even in opting out. Many of us probably spend more time being 'not religious' (when invited to be) than being atheist.

[veinglory]

... perhaps people telling what led them to adopting Atheism to begin with would be more helpful from a writers perspective?

I never adopted athiesm. That is one of those erronious assumption that has already been raised several times. Atheists cannot be assumed to be lasped beleivers. Atheists do not need reasons to be atheist. Athiesm is the null hypothesis.

If we could ditch those assumptions, or at least leave them at the door, the tone in the forum might move away from endless justifications of atheist belief and more to discussion about the atheist experience or even just from that point of view and about other topics.

[SPMiller]

This statement helps a ton in trying to portray an Atheistic character, thank you--or realizing that defining a character as Atheist is semi-pointless as it does not help define the character at all.

So, if this is accurate, perhaps people telling what led them to adopting Atheism to begin with would be more helpful from a writers perspective?Again, it may be helpful to tell readers that information, but only under a few restrictions as follows:

1) the recognizance that it may not be events that caused a loss of belief so much as a differing worldview;
2) it is relevant to the plot; and
3) it is also relevant to the character.

Atheism says a lot about someone's belief in deities, and that very well may have implications about related beliefs, but it may not say much about their personality. I don't know if that makes sense...

[t0neg0d]

And since you seem to really want my input on this matter...

I'm not sure what you mean by spiritual power, but if you believe ghosts/presences/life-forces/etc. exist only as because they derive from some deity, then yes, such a belief in spiritual powers would have theistic implications.

But I think there are others who would argue that magic and religion aren't necessarily related. For example, if you were to conceive of magic as some extra physical force inherent in the workings of our universe, then it wouldn't need to have anything to do with a God or gods.

I personally believe in neither gods nor magic.

I'm not sure I can agree with either of these arguments in any meaningful sense. Depending on how you define define in this context (heh), belief (and the lack thereof) may either say nothing or everything about a person/character. But I would never say belief means something while the lack of belief doesn't. For any given individual, the two are interrelated.

I'm also not sure just what you mean by #2. It doesn't make much sense to me. It seems to suggest that there must be circumstances leading to lack-of-belief, when in my view it can be as simple as having a worldview that doesn't allow for deities.

#1: point one is not accurate.

#2: see #1.

I should have prefaced this with--These are not my thoughts... they were summing up what has been said on the topic so far.

And this just confuses me all the more. I have heard from some:

What I believe defines me, not what I don't believe.

And then I hear from others:

What I believe doesn't matter, it's what I don't believe.

So, which is it? Or is this not a defining attribute of Atheism? Getting more and more confused. :D

Actually... I should be a bit more specific. This is what I would consider a basis to make decisions off of (VERY relevant to a character)

[SPMiller]

I should have prefaced this with--These are not my thoughts... they were summing up what has been said on the topic so far.

And this just confuses me all the more. I have heard from some:

What I believe defines me, not what I don't believe.

And then I hear from others:

What I believe doesn't matter, it's what I don't believe.

So, which is it? Or is this not a defining attribute of Atheism? Getting more and more confused. :D

Actually... I should be a bit more specific. This is what I would consider a basis to make decisions off of (VERY relevant to a character)Yeah, I'll admit I'm getting confused myself. As far as I know, the definition of atheism is right there in the word itself: inadherence to theistic systems of belief. Whether you want to say an atheist actively denies god(s) or passively considers the question meaningless is, to me, a frivolous distinction at best. Some may do the former, and others the latter.

[veinglory]

So, which is it? Or is this not a defining attribute of Atheism?

Perhaps we just all see it differently? After all there is no need of, reason for or mechanism for generating a doctrine of atheism. Thus so long as a character does not beleive in God you can't do it 'wrong'. And I could argue a case for atheists that do believe in god/s, as well.

[t0neg0d]

Yeah, I'll admit I'm getting confused myself. As far as I know, the definition of atheism is right there in the word itself: inadherence to theistic systems of belief. Whether you want to say an atheist actively denies god(s) or passively considers the question meaningless is, to me, a frivolous distinction at best. Some may do the former, and others the latter.

Lol... I thought this exact thing and was politely told that the definition of atheism in the dictionary was wrong. >.< ... one of the reasons I was so excited to see this thread started. But it seems to hold a completely different meaning from person to person and I feel like I am trying to nail Jello to a wall in defining an atheistic character. Point-in-case: the post where someone said how offended they were at Clive Barker's (I think it was) portrayal of an Atheist.

At this point, I am seriously considering changing the character to agnostic because it is easier to define and contains definable attributes.

[Williebee]

This is off topic, somewhat, but:

IMO Your beliefs (what you do AND do not believe to be true) do play a part in defining you. Even more important is how you act on, and because of, those beliefs.

i.e. A brick is a formed shape, created through fire and forms and raw materials. But what you do with it, decides what it is/how it interacts with the world. Is it a paperweight, a crucial piece of a wall, or a weapon?

The same is true of the characters in a story, and that is what decides if they are archetypal or not.

So no, I don't think you can, honestly, use "He/She's an athiest." as an archetype in most, if not any, fictional genre.

[veinglory]

-----

[Higgins]

I should have prefaced this with--These are not my thoughts... they were summing up what has been said on the topic so far.

And this just confuses me all the more. I have heard from some:

What I believe defines me, not what I don't believe.

And then I hear from others:

What I believe doesn't matter, it's what I don't believe.

So, which is it? Or is this not a defining attribute of Atheism? Getting more and more confused. :D

Actually... I should be a bit more specific. This is what I would consider a basis to make decisions off of (VERY relevant to a character)

This is where the analogy of the femme fatale comes in handy. You could say the femme fatale is only a construct for plot purposes. For example, does she have to believe in leading astray or is straying actually going somewhere? After all one man's straying is another man's happy fling. And its the same with "disbelief"...If I think the world is complete as it is and requires no gods...is that disbelief? Is it atheism or is it the femme fatale with just the femme and no fatale? In allegorical terms.

Or to put it another way...without the fatale a femme fatale is just a beautiful woman and without the theistic version of things an atheist is just a person who does some basic thinking things over.

[SPMiller]

Perhaps we just all see it differently? After all there is no need of, reason for or mechanism for generating a doctrine of atheism. Thus so long as a character does not beleive in God you can't do it 'wrong'. And I could argue a case for atheists that do believe in god/s, as well.I'd like to see your argument, in a PM if you'd rather not derail this thread. I see atheism as being lack of belief in any higher power. Is it as simple as defining atheism is an individual's lack of belief in the prevailing religious climate of her society?

[t0neg0d]

This is where the analogy of the femme fatale comes in handy. You could say the femme fatale is only a construct for plot purposes. For example, does she have to believe in leading astray or is straying actually going somewhere? After all one man's straying is another man's happy fling. And its the same with "disbelief"...If I think the world is complete as it is and requires no gods...is that disbelief? Is it atheism or is it the femme fatale with just the femme and no fatale? In allegorical terms.

Or to put it another way...without the fatale a femme fatale is just a beautiful woman and without the theistic version of things an atheist is just a person who does some basic thinking things over.

I think our beliefs tend to make us respond in certain ways. A belief in God or lack of belief in God, could play a significant roll in this for a character (could... not saying it does... this is literature we are talking about). But since the Atheistic view changes from person to person, it seems a safer bet to go with a character that can be defined easier.

I am still very interested in seeing this thread play out to a conclusion, and would be even more interested if someone is willing to stick their neck out and put it into FAQ format. :D

[t0neg0d]

I'd like to see your argument, in a PM if you'd rather not derail this thread. I see atheism as being lack of belief in any higher power. Is it as simple as defining atheism is an individual's lack of belief in the prevailing religious climate of her society?

I second this... I would be VERY interested in hearing this view as well. It sounds Agnostic at this point.

[zornhau]

So, reading over the above, I get:
Q: Do atheists hate religious people?
A: That usually depends on how religious people have treated them in the past. Persecution can breed hate, for religious individuals or religious groups as a whole, but many atheists have theist friends.

Q: Do atheists look down on theists?
A: That depends on (1) the type of atheist, and (2) the type of religious person.
For example, a rationalist atheist might look down on theists who claim that their belief is entirely logical because - from the rationalist-atheist POV - belief without evidence is not logical. However, they might respect a theist with a logical belief system based on a "their leap of faith."
Conversely, a liberal atheist might believe that all opinions are equally valid and worthy of respect.

Q: Do atheists always protest during religious rituals?
A: No. Most atheists don't go out to pick fights, and also respect other people's space, if only for pragmatic reasons. At other people's religious events, atheist tend to bow their heads in low key fashion, or even join in, depending on how they see the politics of participation.

Q: Do atheists always avoid religious events?
A: Like vampires, you mean? No. Many atheists will attend other people's rites of passage such as weddings and funerals. Some atheists will, e.g., get married in church in order to please relatives, arguing that since it's not real, it can't hurt. Other atheists would see this as a political betrayal.

Outstanding is:
Q: What evidence would convert an atheist to a theist?

[veinglory]

A: (for me) Evidence of the existence of God consistent with my understanding of what makes evidence valid and my defintion of 'God'.

[t0neg0d]

Why would that be a problem? If you are writing about an individual character, then wouldn't the important thing be what atheism means to that particular character?

Even if you were writing about a group of atheists, rather than an individual, then wouldn't their disagreements be part of what you would write about when describing the group?

(As an analogy, not all Americans agree on what it means to be an American, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to write about American characters. You just have to figure out what your particular character thinks and feels. And if you were writing about Americans as a group, then their disagreement about what it means to be American would be part of what the group is about.)

IMHO.

The problem comes not in the idea of defining the Atheist as I see it, but how the reader will respond to the character (specifically if they are an Atheist). It seems my earlier reference to Craven was actually a reference to Koontz... it made the reader who posted here "pissed" at his portrayal to the point of (from what I gathered by the harsh response in the post) disliking the author. I am not willing to go there. This is all I mean by this.

By all admission here, Atheism is not defined by a single concept--there is no "organization" of Atheism, so IMO it is not a subject "worth note" in literature--just the opposite, it is one I would avoid at all costs--because there are no defining qualities that everyone can relate to. This is essential when using ANY form of communication. If I define my Atheist as someone who doesn't believe in God/s, then I have alienated every Atheist who does not agree that this is the foundation of Atheism.

If I say: I am a Buddhist... I need go no further than this to define me as a Buddhist. And, can have my character's decisions be defined by this.

Same for any other religion, including Agnostic, Satanist, Hindu, etc, etc. We ALL have a working understanding of the concept, so it is a relate-able topic to use in literature. Atheism is not. =(

[veinglory]

Indeed. As a person who once conducted research into the various current (real, and aporcyphal) forms of satanism, I can say I have rarely--in the popular press never--seen any of them accurately described. In fact at least one church of modern satanism pursued being misunderstood as one of their goals.

I would argue that atheism is render the most easy apprioch to understand correctly, because there is--at its core--very simply the lack of beleif in god.

I would also argue that the main issue is not so much people who write atheist characters badly, as the tendency not to write them at all.

[t0neg0d]

And sometimes our working understandings are wrong!

If I were to write about an Evangelical Christian character -- especially if I tried to write from that character's point-of-view! -- there's a good chance I would get it wrong, and offend some Evangelical Christians.

(I'm Jewish, and what some non-Jews think they know about Jews, but are totally wrong about, could fill a huge library.)

Perhaps the problem is not in writing about atheists, per se, but in writing about people that the writer has only encountered at a distance or on the internet.

Also, I think that to the extent that the writer really likes and respects her character, the chances of causing offense to readers go down, even if some of the details are wrong. (Not that the chance of causing offense would ever go away completely.)

This is very possible, but as you can see in this thread alone, multiple people who profess to be Atheist are at odds with each other about the definition of Atheism. Most (if not all) religions have 1 defining aspect and the remainder is considered doctrine. So, if you find that 1 defining aspect, you could write the character accurately, without offending those who believe differently in your characters "doctrines".

Do you see where I am going with this?

[zornhau]

On the contrary, "potraying atheists" is a topic of literary interest because:

#1 Some theists genuinely want to portay an authentic atheist. This will help them.

#2 Though atheists are a diverse bunch, you can make useful generalisations about some aspects of some kinds of atheist, in part because many of us must negotiate our way through similar experiences.

#3 Religion and belief are interesting literary subjects. Atheism may not be important in somebody's life until it's tested, and writers love to set tests: Are there atheists in foxholes? What if an atheist encountered vampires? Etc.

But, if you think this is a waste of time and that nobody should portray atheists in fiction, nobody is stopping you from kicking off another thread to that effect.

[t0neg0d]

I would argue that atheism is render the most easy apprioch to understand correctly, because there is--at its core--very simply the lack of beleif in god.

How can this be said? The comments when I used the dictionaries definition of Atheism were in no uncertain terms: The definition is inaccurate.

Going to find the thread... back in a moment.

Somewhere halfway down the page (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=109378&page=2) and read the responses!

So, is it truly accurate? Can I define Atheism as:

1. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
2. The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

... and not have someone say I missed the boat?

[Eeek]

This is very possible, but as you can see in this thread alone, multiple people who profess to be Atheist are at odds with each other about the definition of Atheism. Most (if not all) religions have 1 defining aspect and the remainder is considered doctrine. So, if you find that 1 defining aspect, you could write the character accurately, without offending those who believe differently in your characters "doctrines".

Do you see where I am going with this?

I think so, but I don't agree. What you are talking may describe Christianity, but probably doesn't describe most, and certainly not all, other religions.

I think it's hard to see other religions without looking through the prism of one's own. But that view is distorted. And the distortion is what can cause offense to readers. (Though the offense can be reduced if the character is treated with respect.)

[t0neg0d]

I think so, but I don't agree. What you are talking may describe Christianity, but probably doesn't describe most, and certainly not all, other religions.

I think it's hard to see other religions without looking through the prism of one's own. But that view is distorted. And the distortion is what can cause offense to readers. (Though the offense can be reduced if the character is treated with respect.)

This is not the appropriate forum, but I can indeed give you an accurate, underlining, one-sentence description of any religion. There is always a centric fundamental belief associated with a religion, always. Everything else builds off of the foundation.

[t0neg0d]

Writing is not a two way conversation. The intent of this forum and thread (in particular) is to accurately define an atheist so you can avoid offending people when writing about it. I am saying this is easily possible with theism... and seems to be very difficult with Atheism. I can;t open a dialog with a reader, I have to be careful in my portrayal. It's not my belief, the proof is in the topic here. If you were to go to the Jewish, Christian and Pagan forums, I am willing to bet this thread wouldn't be a running debate, it would be a definable answer. I am not sure why this is being taken offensively.

Others here have already stated that this is not an organized effort, as apposed to a religion. So, it stands to reason that it will be more difficult to define as there is no concise answer.

[zornhau]

The intent of this forum and thread (in particular) is to accurately define an atheist so you can avoid offending people when writing about it..

No, I think the idea of the thread was to compile some useful generalisations and observations so that theists can portray atheists realistically. They'll still be able to give offense if they want.

And yes, I think that we get that atheism is an attribute rather than an identity. Even so, we do have some common experiences, not least because of various ploys theists use to "save" us.

[veinglory]

The intent of this forum and thread (in particular) is to accurately define an atheist

No, it is not.

The intent of this forum is to discuss writing for atheist markets, and to discuss being an athiest writer. Any other topics should be occassional and circumspect.

The intent of this thread is to discuss writing characters that happen to be atheist.

It is my perception that your posts in both areas are predominantly off topic and I would repeat a prior suggestion that you rethink whether you understand the purpose of this forum and how to participate appropriately.

Are you writing atheist content? Are you an atheist writer? Or are you here in support of those who do so?

[zornhau]

Dear "t0neg0d" has already posted something which quite clearly states his theological position:
Not to pick nits... but as a Christian, I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and outside of parables (stories that teach a lesson) it is literal
http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2572259&postcount=38
Looking back at his posting history on this board, and AW in general, I have to say that seems he's merely been running interference, or perhaps trying to "save" us using "Teh Dredit Dialectric".

A troll is a troll, regardless of whether it has a cross painted on its wrinkly dishonest skin.

Personally, I can think of at least one remedy (it's related to my user name), but alas this is now apparently illegal in most jurisdictions...

[veinglory]

I think that is way too restrictive, but of course going further from one's own experience carries risk. I have a persistent problem with anachronisms in my historical wrok. But as yet no complaints about my Catholic male hero in one story (despite me being neither).

I think audience is also relevant. I often write about gay men, but for women. So you need to hit the audience fantasy there, rather than necessarily the reality. When I write about gay men for a gay male audience I typically use a very different approach.

[benbradley]

I imagine all characters as "secular" (they go to work, drive cars, take showers [or those around them wish they did], etc., regardless of what religion, if any, they're a part of) until the story/plot puts them into a situation that brings out their beliefs.

I don't think I've written anything other than "secular" fiction, though I've certainly had religion and atheism on my mind. The closest I recall is the FF Challenge story "Intervention (http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61669)" (forum password: flashed), but I didn't even touch the potential religious/spiritual aspects of the situation.

[Ruv Draba]

But knights, pirates and ballerinas are defined by their vocations. Even though their personalities will be diverse, certain sorts of people will be better at these than others, and the vocations and their socioeconomic contexts themselves shape and filter the personalities.*

A typical atheist (1) doesn't believe in god, and (2) is a rationalist of some sort. Unlike, e.g. "knight", this doesn't imply a personality or a lifestyle.I'm feeling contrarian here (not unknown to this forum), but how does physical training to sword and board shape personality? And if it does, then don't skepticism and rationalism do too, but even more?

This is all speculatory, but a little fun: don't we have lazy knights, indulgent knights, cynical knights, effeminate knights, sickly knights, incompetent knights etc... Ultimately we're putting very different things inside the armour, and it's the juxtaposition between what the armour means and what the personality does that's been the source of a lot of comedy.

If atheists had a possession to turn into a symbol then perhaps we'd have some sort of symbolic substrate onto which to graft the other stuff. Certainly, literature is full of theistic archetypes (many quite uncomplementary). Maybe it's simply the 'archetypical atheistic possession' that's lacking?

Among the spiritual modalities we're simply not caricatured enough! Equal cartoons for atheists! In terms of literary richness, I can't help but feel that we're missing out here.

[veinglory]

I sometimes see atheism linked to science. But in my experience most professional sciencitists are religious of some stripe.

[Ruv Draba]

Time to invent some atheistic ceremonies? With ceremonial paraphernalia?

[SPMiller]

Time to invent some atheistic ceremonies? With ceremonial paraphernalia?I have something close: college graduations. Ceremonial maces. Costumes and hats. Very secular, but not exactly atheistic.

[benbradley]

The problem comes not in the idea of defining the Atheist as I see it, but how the reader will respond to the character (specifically if they are an Atheist). It seems my earlier reference to Craven was actually a reference to Koontz... it made the reader who posted here "pissed" at his portrayal to the point of (from what I gathered by the harsh response in the post) disliking the author. I am not willing to go there. This is all I mean by this.
Please don't be afraid of pissing off people (at least in your fiction writing)! Yeah, Koontz pissed off somoenoe in this thread, but that doesn't stop many others from buying Koontz' books.

I suppose I wouldn't be happy if I read something you wrote and you "got the atheist wrong" or some such, but as bad as that might be I think I'd be more dissapointed to not find such a character after reading you say you're dropping the atheist character because you "can't get him right."

By all admission here, Atheism is not defined by a single concept--there is no "organization" of Atheism, so IMO it is not a subject "worth note" in literature--just the opposite, it is one I would avoid at all costs--because there are no defining qualities that everyone can relate to. This is essential when using ANY form of communication. If I define my Atheist as someone who doesn't believe in God/s, then I have alienated every Atheist who does not agree that this is the foundation of Atheism.
Atheism is admittedly defined as a negative. It's like asking "What is the foundation of being a minority in the USA?" It would be not being born of Caucasian parents. That's hardly a "foundation," that's just a description of what a minority is NOT.
This thread made me think of a related question, which is how far afield can you go from your own experience when writing characters?

I had a writing teacher once who said that in order to write authentically, you shouldn't write from the point-of-view of a character from a different race or a different gender, etc. So whites, he said, shouldn't write from the point-of-view of black characters, and vice-versa, and men shouldn't write from the point-of-view of female characters, and so on.

I thought that was way too extreme and too restrictive, and that he wasn't giving enough credit to the powers of the imagination.

On the other hand, I think this thread shows that there are pitfalls if you attempt to write characters who have traits you are not familiar with and don't understand. I wonder if asking questions on the internet is enough to overcome those pitfalls.
This thread appears to show that asking such question is at least enough to RECOGNIZE those pitfalls.
In terms of this thread, the question would be can someone who is not an atheist, who appears to be unfamiliar with atheists, and who doesn't seem to understand atheism write an authentic atheist character? But the question generalizes to anyone who is trying to write about a character who is in some significant way different from themselves.
We've often heard "Write what you know," but elsewhere on AW I've read that to grow as a writer, one should (at least attempt to) write from different people's points of view, such as of the opposite sex, a different race, different personality. From what I've seen, you've pretty much got to do this somewhat to invent varied and interesting characters that interact in dramatic ways to make people want to read your story.

How about in Science Fiction, where writers had characters in orbit in zero-gee, on the Moon and on Mars, even before the first person had gone into outer space? What about the character Michael Valentine Smith from "Stranger in a Strange Land," who was brought to Earth as an adult after being born on Mars of human parents, then raised by Martians (true alien beings with alien ways and beliefs)? He had "magical" powers which were not at all understood by those around him.

[benbradley]

Time to invent some atheistic ceremonies? With ceremonial paraphernalia?
There are Ethical Societies around that do pretty much this, and offer things such as wedding and funeral services without the usual religious components while still having the social components:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_Culture
But there are very few and scattered accross the country.

I suppose UU's can offer such services, but while atheism is "a respected spiritual path" among UU's, atheists are a minority, perhaps only ten percent or less of total UU membership.

But atheists are almost by nature isolated and individualistic. The vast majority of atheists haven't even heard of either of these, and of those who have heard of UU, most wouldn't know that atheists are welcome there, and of those who do know, few lilely visit.

[zornhau]

I'm feeling contrarian here (not unknown to this forum), but how does physical training to sword and board shape personality? And if it does, then don't skepticism and rationalism do too, but even more?

This is all speculatory, but a little fun: don't we have lazy knights, indulgent knights, cynical knights, effeminate knights, sickly knights, incompetent knights etc... Ultimately we're putting very different things inside the armour, and it's the juxtaposition between what the armour means and what the personality does that's been the source of a lot of comedy.



Yes, but knighthood - and I'm talking "active" Western European Medieval knights - comes with its own yardsticks and purposes, and entails a particular culture and mindset. You can point at William Marshal and say "Now, that's a proper knight!" As for lazy knights etc... they fall short of the ideal. I won't discuss this further here, since it's OT.

So...

We may not agree on what archetypes can exist, but do we agree that there is not an archetypal atheist because atheism is an attribute rather than a vocation or role?