Being an out atheist writer?

[veinglory]

I sometimes find myself sometime inclined not to mention I am atheist, expecially on romance oriented review and discussion sites. I know quite a few writers are 'out' Christian but it seems like that is more of the norm, so it makes very little impact on people's impression. But I suspect that some readers actually would be disinclined to read work by an atheist--or it might color how they read work such as my novella where a Catholic character reconciles his faith with his sexuality. But beng largely a writer or erotica and fantasy--that demograohic, I think, is largely indifferent or adenturous when it comes to belief issues.

I was wondering how other people think about this issue and whether it ever comes up. Does not discussing it leave people to assume we follow the normative beliefs of the area and add to the invisibility of atheism and other minority belief systems in countries like America?

[Higgins]

I sometimes find myself sometime inclined not to mention I am atheist, expecially on romance oriented review and discussion sites. I know quite a few writers are 'out' Christian but it seems like that is more of the norm, so it makes very little impact on people's impression. But I suspect that some readers actually would be disinclined to read work by an atheist--or it might color how they read work such as my novella where a Catholic character reconciles his faith with his sexuality. But beng largely a writer or erotica and fantasy--that demograohic, I think, is largely indifferent or adenturous when it comes to belief issues.

I was wondering how other people think about this issue and whether it ever comes up. Does not discussing it leave people to assume we follow the normative beliefs of the area and ad to the invisibility of atheism and other minority belief systems in countries like America.

I rarely mention my steady life-long drift away from standard Christianity. It strikes me as not only being curiously dull, but relatively indescribable.
One odd thing about massively normal masses of normal institutions like Christianity is that even drifting away from the standard worldview is highly standardized, at least ideologically and in terms of imagery.

But is it? What could be less true? Isn't any drifting toward reality a drift away from ideology and its "religious" preoccupations? And doesn't that imply that no dull characterization can even begin to describe the steady replacement of poorly assembled stock figures ("Paul" "the Apostles") with a more vivid gallery of people trying to do very odd things long ago...for example?

[nancy02664]

It's such a catch-22... Not disclosing my beliefs does indeed add to that 'invisibility,' which I can't stand. But disclosing my beliefs usually leads to personal attacks, or at least (as you mention) people treating you differently (either on-line or in real life). So you either hold your tongue and let people think you're one of them, or you speak up and blacklist yourself.

But it really only becomes an issue for me if I'm in a place where religion/beliefs are being discussed. When secular conversation morphs into people talking about their beliefs, or their churches, or their pastors, or their sins, etc., I start feeling I have a responsiblity to speak up and say, "well, from an atheist's perspective..." It makes people uncomfortable, sure--but no more uncomfortable than I am, having to sit through their church-talk.

I was just thinking about this sort of the thing the other day, actually--I was reading some reviews of Sam Harris' book (well, blurbs really -- at his website: http://www.samharris.org/) at there's one at the bottom of the page that starts:

I can’t sign my name to this blurb. As a New York Times best selling author of books about business, my career will evaporate if I endorse a book that challenges the deeply held superstitions and bigotry of the masses.
Such a sad quote--and probably true. Unless you're someone whose platform involves atheism or social issues directly, I imagine that mentioning your (non) beliefs will only hurt your writing career.

[veinglory]

But there is is this issue of invisibility or prejudice. Sometimes I want to just get on with writing. Who wants to know all about the author, after all? The major authors I have met were frankly something of a disappointment (with a few exceptions). But if an estimated 10% of Americans are atheist why is the culture so presumptive of theist belief?

Just today I bought a copy of 'The End of Faith' by Sam Harris. Is is a book about history that is heavily opinionated and suggests that religion is not a positive influence on society. I donlt believe this at all, I think religion doesn't per se make a person or a culture more of less healthy. But Harris is a good writer and I was curious. Where did I find it: 'personal development'. I queried this as although it is heavily editorialised the book is a history of religious conflict and should be in the history section. Plenty of histories with overwhelming religious bias are shelved there. I got nothing but a blank look and total disinterest from the staf member. Apparently atheist bias must be separated out?

I am blathering here a bit. I'm really not used to talking about these sorts of ideas.

[Meerkat]

I've always suspected that the vast majority of the audience does not give this distinction much thought. I was approached the other day in a parking lot and given a pamphlet from the local church. "Thanks, but you should save this for someone else," says I, "I'm a Buddhist."
She then surprised me by asking "What do you believe?"
"Many things," I said, "for example I believe Jesus was born and existed, was disappointed by how the people all around were behaving, set a better example for them, was enlightened--so much so that he became God."
"Oh," she said, "then... what do I believe?"
"That He was born that way. Minor detail, don't you think?"

This is a great thread you started, by the way.

[veinglory]

I think you give a great example about how these difference can be very unimportant. But do they need to go through a period of being important to be healthily unimportant?

For example many people seem to assume atheists have no reason to be moral, they are unhappy people without clearly thought out beliefs and so on. Now a fairly breif conversation normally clears that away for individuals and then I move from being assumed to agree with their faith to being accepted as having my own (in most cases).

American society has, for the most part, accepted the equal worth of races, genders and sexualities only through a minority pride or rights period. With there ever be an atheist pride movement, I don't think so. I wouldn't go around with a placard about it perhaps because ... I'm not sure why, actually.

[Meerkat]

... they need to go through a period of being important to be healthily unimportant.

.

Your entire message and not just your quote above was so insightful that you could base an entire book on your thoughts here. Well thought out, well spoken!

[Jamesaritchie]

I'd say athiest writers don't have a prayer of success. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Be, really, anytime you view is in the tiny minority, of course it's going to make a difference. And it should.

[veinglory]

A difference if it is an 'out' perspective (atheist can, of course, 'pass'), sure--but a detriment? I mean Richard Dawkin must have made a bit off his books which are all about his very specific take on that minority perspective. Just as Octavia Butler's work was to some extent 'about' being black and it was still highly respected and widely read.

As for, 'should', out of context that's a little cryptic.

[Higgins]

I'd say athiest writers don't have a prayer of success. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Be, really, anytime you view is in the tiny minority, of course it's going to make a difference. And it should.

The odd thing is that the views differ about things that cannot be seen, known in any detail or even defined clearly... the name of the view is all that there is....its not even a real ideological difference...its purely nominal.

Even a phenomenologist and an analytic philosopher have "views" that actually differ more than those of a Big Christian Christian and a not so Christian Christian.

[beezle]

Well, it doesn't seem to be as much of an issue down here in Australia. We don't really have your puritanical/witch burning heritage. Yes, I suppose I'd call myself an atheist, but I'm not militant about it, and the topic rarely ever comes up.

[veinglory]

Australia is, in my experience, a pretty secular country. I remember what happened when the Aussie philosopher Peter Singer moved to the US. He was causing religiously based protests by the end of the year. (A comment about bestiality was the final straw, in Aus it would be a cause for jokes not picket lines).

[victoriastrauss]

I was wondering how other people think about this issue and whether it ever comes up. Does not discussing it leave people to assume we follow the normative beliefs of the area and add to the invisibility of atheism and other minority belief systems in countries like America?I live most of my life without ever discussing my beliefs, or lack of them, and I don't have a problem with that. Nor do I worry about whether a religious person will think that I'm immoral, or whatever, just because I don't believe in God, or whether they will view me in terms of atheist stereotypes. Who cares, really? It's their problem, not mine.

Frankly, I'm just as irritated by people who blame religion for everything from ignorance to date rape, or who condemn faith in general on the basis of wrongs done by particular religions, as I am by people who want to shove their religious convictions down my throat, so I'd really rather avoid the subject entirely unless I know I'm talking with a person who is capable of hearing what I have to say, as opposed to only being able to hear that I'm saying something that contradicts their idea of The Truth. Such discussions are pointless, anyway; it's not like either side is going to be able to change the other's viewpoint.

I guess this is another way in which I'm not properly an atheist, despite my complete and utter lack of faith of any sort: I don't feel that I'm part of any belief system to which I must declare my allegiance.

- Victoria

[Sean D. Schaffer]

I don't really know how to add to this discussion, but I think I should, if only to speak my own mind.

I personally don't mind what religion--or lack thereof--a writer has, so long as their writing is good. I never could understand why anyone would judge a writer based upon what they believe.

Of course, I know people do this. I have family members who think a writer is only good if they hold to certain beliefs about G-d, etc. Still, I never could figure out why they hold such, IMO, stupid ideals. The writing should trump everything; the author's religious beliefs should have nothing to do with whether or not a person reads their stuff.

This is not an angry post; I'm just musing about the fact people seem to think an atheist is somehow less an author because of their atheism. It bothers me to no end that people I know are like this.

[Cathy C]

This is an interesting question, vein. In my previous world, up in Colorado, the issue never came up. It was a large enough area that religion had little play in the "real world" of work and family and friends. But a few years ago, we moved, and now live in the buckle of the bible belt. There are TWENTY-FOUR churches in my town of under 5,000 (and I haven't yet heard of a mosque or temple in the region, so that says something by itself.) Here, where you go to church is a common topic, and everybody witnesses on one day of the week or another. So far, I'm new to the area, so nobody expects a firm commitment to a particular church, but one of these days, it's going to come up. Presently, I cheat (which galls me, but there you go) and tell them an evasive truth. "I was confirmed into the Lutheran church." Very true. I went until I was about sixteen when I stopped and reassessed my beliefs.

Since I ALSO write romance, it's tough . . . really tough. It's as though some people believe a person can't truly feel, or write about, love unless they're church-goers. We get a little buy since we write paranormal and most of the religious types tend to steer clear. Fortunately, my co-author IS religious, a devout Catholic, so I shunt the discussions about that to her when they come up. But it bothers me that I might lose readers if I told the truth.

And let's not even DISCUSS the fact that I don't have, or want, children. :eek:

I don't have any answers, but will be interested to see if anyone else does.

[LaceWing]

I moved to a very small town in Alabama for while some years ago, and was patient about not engaging in racist conversations with either whites or blacks (by acting like a yankee who was too dumb to get it), and up front when inevitably asked about church. No, I never had belonged to a church. Sorry, but my way was to read philosophy; and it was said with a sort of self-deprecating smile. I think my honesty carried the most weight, followed by a willingness to acknowledge the urge of religion.

The neighbors eventually accepted me as I was; one woman chose me talk to about racial problems in her family, and another chose me to talk to about her own religious doubts. Both told me they were grateful they had someone to talk to in that small town where everyone lived with the same codes from one generation to the next.

[veinglory]

It is odd to negotiate your status in a place that has strong religious (and other) norms. For a while I tried going to the Unitarian church but then I realised, hey, I don't want to--I'm not going. When it came to many norms I considered bigoted I developed the peculair habit of saying something like 'look, I don't agree. And I am saying I don't agree so you don't assume otherwise but I really don't see any point in discussing it'. If I was firm that avoided a one-against-10 debate over lunch every day but also meant I didn't get an ulcer.

[nancy02664]

In my previous world, up in Colorado, the issue never came up. It was a large enough area that religion had little play in the "real world" of work and family and friends. But a few years ago, we moved, and now live in the buckle of the bible belt. There are TWENTY-FOUR churches in my town of under 5,000 (and I haven't yet heard of a mosque or temple in the region, so that says something by itself.) Here, where you go to church is a common topic, and everybody witnesses on one day of the week or another.

I had to chuckle when I read this, Cathy -- I'm from Massachusetts, and I live in Colorado at the moment, and I get the exact opposite impression of the state. I guess it's all relative... :)

[Flapdoodle]

Well, it doesn't seem to be as much of an issue down here in Australia. We don't really have your puritanical/witch burning heritage. Yes, I suppose I'd call myself an atheist, but I'm not militant about it, and the topic rarely ever comes up.

Not an issue in the UK either. In fact, I'd say overtly religious people (In the Christian faiths) tend to be rather quiet and guarded about their faith (And the vocal ones, those who organise protests and campaign against TV shows, are generally regarded as loonies by atheists and non-atheists). I've noticed that organisations that are religious seem to go to lengths to cover up the fact they are "religious" group in the literature they produce. As I refuse to give money to religious organisation, I check all leaflets and envelopes that come through the door. You have to read the small print.

The state church in the UK has been the butt of jokes for years ("More tea, Vicar!") and is more like a quaint historical thing that we keep around because it adds colour and the cathedrals are nice tourist attraction - sort of like the royal family. No one listens to the bishops, but sadly the church has 12 seats in the country's upper house in the parliament, something which should be abolished. Catholicism is dwindling rapidly, and a lot of prominent politicians and writers are very outspoken about keeping religion out of politics.

[veinglory]

Of course being highly religious didn't exactly hurt the British Prime Minister as far as I can see. It may be a secular society but being explicitly and overtly atheist rather than fuzzily agnostic can still cause problems.

[Flapdoodle]

Of course being highly religious didn't exactly hurt the British Prime Minister as far as I can see. It may be a secular society but being explicitly and overtly atheist rather than fuzzily agnostic can still cause problems.

Blair may be religious in his private life, but he doesn't bring it into politics. And he's generally guarded when asked questions regarding faith.

[scarletpeaches]

Atheism didn't seem to do Douglas Adams' sales any harm.

Quotes like this, mentioned earlier:
I can’t sign my name to this blurb. As a New York Times best selling author of books about business, my career will evaporate if I endorse a book that challenges the deeply held superstitions and bigotry of the masses.

...are what put people off. Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs but calling the 'other side' of the argument superstitious and bigoted won't advance your cause any. The beliefs don't offend me, the attitude does.

I'm a Christian but don't have a problem reading books by people who follow other religions or even no religion. Why should it? Your belief/non-belief doesn't affect your writing ability.

[Flapdoodle]

Atheism didn't seem to do Douglas Adams' sales any harm.


Or Richard Dawkins.

[scarletpeaches]

I chose Adams because his writing doesn't tend to concentrate on atheism - Dawkins' does. Trust me, I have a point there.

If a writer is openly atheist, and writes about atheism, then it's natural to assume their sales will be, in the main, to fellow atheists. Douglas Adams was, I'll wager, more 'mainstream'. He wrote for the masses; Christians and atheists read him (and still do).

As for Dawkins, well, he's one of those people who seems to put down the other side of the argument so I don't read him because I find him to be an utterably objectionable excuse for a human being. Hearing him speak once, he didn't put forward the argument for atheism, but actually called Christians stupid idiots who couldn't think for themselves.

Way to win the argument, Richard.

[veinglory]

Although scif fi is probably not so heavily read by the heavily religious as, say, sweet romance.

[scarletpeaches]

Why do you say that? I read it. I know plenty other Christians who do. As for 'sweet' romance...blech. Of course, there are others who like different genres but to assume Christianity means you'll lean towards any particular genre simply isn't true.

Sci-fi isn't my favourite, but it's a hell (whoops!) of a lot higher up the list than romance.

[Flapdoodle]

I chose Adams because his writing doesn't tend to concentrate on atheism - Dawkins' does. Trust me, I have a point there.

If a writer is openly atheist, and writes about atheism, then it's natural to assume their sales will be, in the main, to fellow atheists. Douglas Adams was, I'll wager, more 'mainstream'. He wrote for the masses; Christians and atheists read him (and still do).

As for Dawkins, well, he's one of those people who seems to put down the other side of the argument so I don't read him because I find him to be an utterably objectionable excuse for a human being. Hearing him speak once, he didn't put forward the argument for atheism, but actually called Christians stupid idiots who couldn't think for themselves.

Way to win the argument, Richard.

I don't find Dawkins objectionable, and if you read his books you'll find he looks into religion and why humans have religion in great detail - something that religions themselves are wary to do as it exposes them for what they are.

[scarletpeaches]

Religions are wary to investigate themselves in great detail? I've certainly not found that of my own.

While I'm sure Dawkins is a very intelligent man, his comments that Christians are stupid idiots who cannot think for themselves put me right off him as a person. If I see for instance, The God Delusion in my local library, no doubt I'll have a read but I won't go out of my way to seek his work out.

Of course, as an atheist he has every right in the world to put forth his views - though I disagree with them I would defend to the last breath in my body his right to present them. I just think he can be very rude when it comes to those of differing opinions to himself.

[Flapdoodle]

Religions are wary to investigate themselves in great detail? I've certainly not found that of my own.

While I'm sure Dawkins is a very intelligent man, his comments that Christians are stupid idiots who cannot think for themselves put me right off him as a person. If I see for instance, The God Delusion in my local library, no doubt I'll have a read but I won't go out of my way to seek his work out.

Of course, as an atheist he has every right in the world to put forth his views - though I disagree with them I would defend to the last breath in my body his right to present them. I just think he can be very rude when it comes to those of differing opinions to himself.

Considering the antics that _some_ religious people get up to and have done in the past (In efforts to prevent knowledge that runs contrary to their beliefs), and have got up to over the years, a bit of rudeness is quite tame!

[benbradley]

Religions are wary to investigate themselves in great detail? I've certainly not found that of my own.
Those investigating
While I'm sure Dawkins is a very intelligent man, his comments that Christians are stupid idiots who cannot think for themselves put me right off him as a person. If I see for instance, The God Delusion in my local library, no doubt I'll have a read but I won't go out of my way to seek his work out.
I'm certainly interested in reading it. Many years ago I tried to read "The Blind Watchmaker" where he defends evolution against claims of creationism. Though I agreed with his premise, I found his writing to be tedious, repetitive and slow-moving, as if he were writing down to his intended audience (creationists?). That was a couple decades ago, I hope his style has improved.
Of course, as an atheist he has every right in the world to put forth his views - though I disagree with them I would defend to the last breath in my body his right to present them. I just think he can be very rude when it comes to those of differing opinions to himself.
Being an "out atheist" apparently didn't hurt the book sales of Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan either.

[oscuridad]

There is a rise in the Christian Right in the UK now, and atheists are beginning to feel like Catholics under Elizabeth the First - ironically. Tolerance (again ironically) tends to be fairly low on the agenda of this movement (if you will) - at least in the UK). You want to get on - keep quiet about what you don't believe in.

All of these choices are just that, choices. But of course the problem is that, by definition, if you believe in a Divine Creator, then there is no choice - if you see my point. I think that is what Dawkins is getting at.

As for dear old Tony Blair - he and Bush just demonstrate over and over again that politics and religion should not be mixed - and especially not near oil.

[scarletpeaches]

I disagree, oscuridad. I think more and more people are seeing religion as the basis of many problems and are leaning towards agnosticism or atheism.

While I would say, "Please don't blame God for what men do in his name," I would also understand this way of thinking. I predict, in fact I can already see it happening, that organised religion and its members will quickly become outcasts, for want of a better word.

There is so much going on between Muslim and Christian communities in this country at the moment, that I can see it happening very soon that people get fed up and say, "To hell [literally] with all religion!"

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Considering the antics that _some_ religious people get up to and have done in the past (In efforts to prevent knowledge that runs contrary to their beliefs), and have got up to over the years, a bit of rudeness is quite tame!


Indeed. The Crusades were started in the name of a religious deity, as were the Inquisition and the Salem Witch Trials. A little bit of rudeness, though it does grate on some people's nerves, is understandable.

A lot of evil has been done in the Name of G-d. In the name of converting people, some religions have murdered other human beings if they did not accept their god as their own.

Then those same people wonder why anyone would be rude to them about their religion. It boggles my mind to think people would be that naive now, although when I was a Christian, I used to wonder that same junk myself. I think a lot of it has to do with conditioning. We were taught that if people treated us badly, they were in fact treating Jesus badly. Now I understand this is a fallacy, but at the time, it was quite convincing to believe that I was being persecuted because I believed in Jesus, rather than because of my actions.

It was also a convenient excuse to act like a jerk.

[scarletpeaches]

Rudeness in one person is no excuse to use it against all of that kind. Plus, as I am neither Catholic, nor personally involved in the Crusades, I guess you can understand my objection to rudeness about religion. It doesn't endear one to the other side of the argument.

I object to rudeness in anyone, regardless of their beliefs.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Rudeness in one person is no excuse to use it against all of that kind. Plus, as I am neither Catholic, nor personally involved in the Crusades, I guess you can understand my objection to rudeness about religion. It doesn't endear one to the other side of the argument.

I object to rudeness in anyone, regardless of their beliefs.



Of course I understand it, Scarlet. I was merely pointing out that I can also understand where a lot of people are coming from when they are rude to religious individuals. It doesn't make it right; rather, it gives a tangible reason people treat others the way they do.

I'm not Catholic either, nor am I even a Christian anymore. Nor do I feel responsible for the Salem Witch Trials or the Inquisition. But what I am trying to say is, I can understand where the rudeness is coming from. It's like something I said on a thread on TIO before I decided not to view that portion of the forums anymore. Are these actions understandable? Yes. Are they justified? No. For those actions to be justified, every single religious person alive would have had to do the same things as those few in power who murdered or otherwise tortured people in their god's name. Since the majority of religious people, to my knowledge, are not like this, to blame them all for the bad things some have done, would be wrong.

No, I was merely pointing out the fact that this action on some people's part is quite understandable. I had no intention of making it sound as though I justified their actions or believed they were somehow right in what they did.

Sorry for the confusion.

:)

[scarletpeaches]

Not at all. :)

[loquax]

Philip Pullman is another name to throw out there.

My main qualm with religion is the indoctrination of small children. The vast majority of the world's religious population have been born into their religion, and in my opinion, this violates every human's right to free will.

Would I portray this failing through my novels? Sure. But nothing says it better than looking out your window and observing reality.

[oscuridad]

I disagree, oscuridad. I think more and more people are seeing religion as the basis of many problems and are leaning towards agnosticism or atheism.


Maybe its just where I live... but I have seen it around me in literary circles more and more. I find it quite worrying. It was recently described on Radio 4 as 'The End of the Enlightenment' - now that is a serious statement.

Polemic around the text of Harry Potter is a great example of reactionary Christianity at work - it is a powerful and growing force in our culture, and I am afraid that, to me, that is a bad thing - mind you, so is the fact that no-one teaches Ethics in our schools - give me an internally derived ethical framework over an externally set moral culpability as a steer for your actions any day.

It is worth remembering that the default assumption for white middle class folks is that they are Christians of some kind - usually lapsed ones. Given trying to deal with a recent occurence of anti-semetic bullying in a local school I am even more worried - this is not the way we should be going - but we are: watch to whom you reveal your beliefs, or lack of them, you just don't know where they are coming from.

[scarletpeaches]

Philip Pullman is another name to throw out there.

My main qualm with religion is the indoctrination of small children. The vast majority of the world's religious population have been born into their religion, and in my opinion, this violates every human's right to free will.

Would I portray this failing through my novels? Sure. But nothing says it better than looking out your window and observing reality.

They can always leave? I left my childhood religion. Then I went back to another one! But I did so as a 20 year old, of my own volition. That's the point. One could also argue that atheists raising children would indoctrinate their own children in their own beliefs. The argument works both ways. I see nothing wrong in telling or showing your children what you believe and leaving it up to them. For what it's worth, members of my religion do not baptise children. We only practise 'adult' baptism.

Ooh. That makes it sound porny. I mean, we only baptise people who consciously decide to do it, themselves. Grown-ups.

There. That sounds better.

[loquax]

Yeah you can leave. I wonder what percentage actually do though.

My parents raised me to choose for myself. They never once spoke to me about God or the lack thereof. I only found out this year my dad is a Christian and my mum is an atheist.


And I'm not sure you can indoctrinate atheism. It's pretty hard to get kids to not believe in stuff. Take the boogie man for example.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

I left my childhood religion as well. Unfortunately, I find that even now my parents don't want me talking about this with family members. They're afraid--and understandably so--other members of my family might ostracize me. Most everyone within my family is a Christian of some sort, with the exception of myself and possibly my uncle's sister.

I think the real danger lies in, like Loquax alluded to, indoctrinating children. This is, by my own estimation, not the same thing as telling a child it's good to believe in a particular deity. Rather, my worry is that parents will try to force their children to believe in whatever deity they believe is right for them.

One thing I do remember about my childhood faith, is that I was not considered a Christian until I myself accepted Christianity as my personal faith. In other words, the decision to become a Christian was mine, not that of my parents.

The point I'm making is, letting a child know their options is not a bad thing; rather, forcing one's religion down their throat is, IMO, the real problem.


ETA:

Loquax, I think you'll find the percentage of people who leave certain faiths to be larger than you might believe. From my own experience, I know that a large number of people are quite hypocritical within their belief systems and though they are very devout in front of their fellow religious believers, the home life is really what I think brings a lot of people to the realization that their religion is not the right one for them.

Of course, I cannot be sure of the exact numbers, but I'm still willing to wager they're higher than some people might believe, if only because of the issues people have with other believers in the same faith.

[oscuridad]

my parants had the good sense not to have me christened - and I have extended that courtesy to my son. Indoctrination is a real fear - look at the 'Alpha Course' for example - I have seen recent fallout from that in students I teach - genuinely scary, pre-enlightenment, stuff this. Welcome to the Dark Ages, part deux.

[beezle]

Apparently a great aunt of mine was so horrified to hear that I hadn't been christened, as all good Catholics should be, she flew over to do it herself.

[aruna]

They can always leave? I left my childhood religion. Then I went back to another one! But I did so as a 20 year old, of my own volition. That's the point. One could also argue that atheists raising children would indoctrinate their own children in their own beliefs. The argument works both ways.
.

Very true.


And I'm not sure you can indoctrinate atheism. It's pretty hard to get kids to not believe in stuff. Take the boogie man for example.

You certainly can. My earliest memories of my father are of his insistence that I never believe all that Christian rubbish! He really cramnmed it down my throat.

I was raised atheist long before atheism was a legitimate option. And y I was atheist for much of my youth as a result. But I wasn't happy with that belief.



Later on I made my own decision which was neither atheist nor Christian. And then I began to live in a world where the default belief was atheism, and everyone took it for granted that you, too were atheist. So it does work both ways.

I know or know of hundreds of people who were raised Christian and turned to atheism. In fact, most atheists WERE raised Christian, I believe.

My own search for a philosophy I could live, and live with,. that satisfied me completely, meant that I no longer rejected Christianity the way I did in my youth. In fact, I enjoy church services and do attend when I am in England, because there's a very nice church near where I live, and the vicar there is one of the kindest, most beautiful people I've ever met; the prototype of what a human being should be IMO. There is such a feeling of joy and community in that church! But I also enjoy visits to a Buddhist temple near London for the atmosphere of silence and peace.

Living in England I do get the feeling that the society is by and large atheist, or at least unconcerned with religion. They might go to church for weddings, baptisms and funerals but that's it.

And creationism as a valid alternative to evolution is, I believe, a purely American phenomenon. I have never heard it preached or taught anywhere before I came to this forum. It is certainly not synonymous with Christianity.

[oscuridad]

On thinking about it, I suppose that the question needed to be asked tells you the answer.

[Sassenach]

Does anyone know the religious affiliations of Stephen King, Nora Roberts, Danielle Steel, JK Rowling, etc.? Does it have any effect on their massive sales?

[Nateskate]

I thought the same thing in reverse about being a Christian in Sci Fi/Fantasy world. My assumption was that if they (agents/fans) knew my beliefs they'd automatically presume to know where I was coming from and what I thought, and would write me off before ever reading a word of what I wrote.

As far as what I read and watch, I don't line up with George Lucas's beliefs, but I liked Star Wars. Same could be said for Roddenbury's Star Trek.

I guess it depends on so much more than a person's worldview- in many people's eyes.

[aruna]

Does anyone know the religious affiliations of Stephen King, Nora Roberts, Danielle Steel, JK Rowling, etc.? Does it have any effect on their massive sales?

No idea. I don't read any of these authors but if I did I wouldn't give a rat's tooth what their beliefs are.

[nancy02664]

Does anyone know the religious affiliations of Stephen King, Nora Roberts, Danielle Steel, JK Rowling, etc.? Does it have any effect on their massive sales?

Stephen King - quoted in wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_king#Trivia) as saying he thinks there's a god
Nora Roberts - found nothing
Danielle Steel - found nothing
J. K. Rowling - quoted in this interview (http://www.cbc.ca/programs/sites/hottype_rowlingcomplete.html) as saying she believes in god

It seems logical that many best-selling authors stay vague (or at least quiet) on the subject -- I mean, if you don't come out and take sides, you can't really offend anyone.

According to celebatheists.com, known atheist/agnostic writers include Umberto Eco, Robert Heinlein, H. P. Lovecraft and Mark Twain. (I left off the obvious ones - Ayn Rand, Carl Sagan, etc.)

Actually, the list of atheist writers included several sci-fi writers -- I wonder if there's some sort of correlation between writing sci-fi and being a non-believer? (Or maybe just being an outspoken non-believer?) Hm...

[beezle]

Probably a similar correlation as that between devout Christians and a belief that dinosaur bones are all faked to maintain the evolution conspiracy. And, even if some are real, the reason you don't see live dinos anymore is because they all died out in the Great Flood. Couldn't fit in the Ark.

Because the Earth is only 6000 years old, you know.

And there are people who believe all of this.

[aruna]

Probably a similar correlation as that between devout Christians and a belief that dinosaur bones are all faked to maintain the evolution conspiracy. And, even if some are real, the reason you don't see live dinos anymore is because they all died out in the Great Flood. Couldn't fit in the Ark.

Because the Earth is only 6000 years old, you know.

And there are people who believe all of this.

My bold.

Sorry, I have to speak up here. First, I have never heard this theory (faked bones); and second, believing that dinosaur bones are faked has NOTHING to do with the devotion of a Christian. Devotion has to do with loving God and trying to lead a Chritstian life, not with belief in creationism. As I said before, I never met a Christian who believed in the 600o year old earth.

So it might be better if you had used the word "Creationists" instead of "devout Christians". Fair is fair! Using words wrongly is the cause of the most horrible misunderstandings and distortions.

[Mac H.]

Probably a similar correlation as that between devout Christians and a belief that dinosaur bones are all faked to maintain the evolution conspiracy. And, even if some are real, the reason you don't see live dinos anymore is because they all died out in the Great Flood. Couldn't fit in the Ark.

Because the Earth is only 6000 years old, you know.

And there are people who believe all of this.That's the kind of thing that annoyed me about many people arguing this.

Not understanding the belief system you are arguing about weakens the point. It means that anyone of that belief system will instantly recognise it as poorly researched and ignore it, so end up not convincing anyone - except the people who are already converted.

Just to clarify: True creationists do NOT believe that Dinosaurs were made extinct in the Great Flood. Sure, plenty of them died, but there were two on the ark. The species (all of them) died out later - probably simply because Mankind wiped them out.

By the way - my complaint applies to both creationists and evolutionists. Most appear to totally misunderstand the other side's views, so spend all their time arguing against points of views that the other side doesn't even have !

(Insert Rant: However, 'The Blind Watchmaker' was one of the few books that DID understand at least one part of the creationist viewpoint - It understood that intelligent people look at nature and appreciate that things are beautifully designed to work together - just as if it had an intelligent designer. The way simple laws of nature can combine to form really 'intelligent' appearing designs is really impressive, and totally unintuitive - something that needs to be seriously considered rather than just dismissed out of hand. In my view, 'The Blind Watchmaker' was the only evolution arguing book that seemed to really appreciate that.

The fact that biologists take for granted one of the truly cool bits of their science is just sad. I like cool bits of science.)

Yes, I still have old copies of 'Ex-Nihlo' magazines lying around.

Mac
(PS: I have the opposite experience to Aruna - where I grew up it would have been unheard of to be a Christian but not a Creationist. Anyone who didn't believe in the unerring accuracy of the Bible wouldn't have been regarded as a 'true' Christian. To avoid this confusion, I think we should just start using version numbers. Aruna is talking about Christianity V8.4b. The one I grew up with was V6.3d. The one Jesus taught was V1.0. The one Paul taught was V1.2, etc)

[aruna]

Aruna is talking about Christianity V8.4b. The one I grew up with was V6.3d. The one Jesus taught was V1.0. The one Paul taught was V1.2, etc

Thankfully everyone has upgraded since V1.0. The obligations were just too much of a nuisance ...)

The Christians I refer to are actually V1. It's quite simply Christ's message: Thou shalt love the lord thy God with all thy heart etc and thy neighbour as thyself. Basic Christianity.
I don't think Jesus sopke about dinosaurs. I actually don't think he cared.

[beezle]

Look, you hang around the right people enough, and you hear all these things. And a lot, lot more. I didn't even get into the stuff about how 'The Jew' champions evolution in order to discredit Christianity. There are people out there who will believe anything if it helps confirm their narrow world-view(sure, they're malcontents, but maybe that's part of what it takes to be a fundamentalist) and they will tell you without a shadow of a doubt that they're the true Christians, and you're not.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Look, you hang around the right people enough, and you hear all these things. And a lot, lot more. I didn't even get into the stuff about how 'The Jew' champions evolution in order to discredit Christianity. There are people out there who will believe anything if it helps confirm their narrow world-view(sure, they're malcontents, but maybe that's part of what it takes to be a fundamentalist) and they will tell you without a shadow of a doubt that they're the true Christians, and you're not.


I've heard a lot of that stuff too. In fact, one of the churches I was raised in believed we were one of maybe three 'correct' churches in the entire Portland Metropolitan Area. The thing I've noticed about those churches, though, is that though they call themselves by a particular denominational label, they refuse to hold themselves accountable to anyone save their own interpretation of the Bible.

The term 'Fundamentalist' means there are certain essentials to a faith or belief that are 'fundamental' to being part of that faith or belief. Believing in the Creation story as literal, factual truth is not one of those beliefs thought essential to be a devout fundamentalist Christian.

I think the real issue here, though, is using a broad brush to paint all fundamentalists of any particular faith as believing exactly the same thing. It's a dangerous move on anyone's part, because it completely disregards the fact that fundamentalism, by its very nature, is a basic belief in certain essential viewpoints, and not in the larger, more debatable issues.

It's kind of like saying all dogs are poodles. To say that there are no saint bernards, no black labs, no cocker spaniels, no pitbulls, would be an obvious fallacy. In the same way, to portray all fundamentalists as people who believe in Literal Creationism or that the dinosaurs all died out in the Great Flood, would be a mistake.

[aruna]

It's also a mistake to take the worst examples of a particular group as the gold standard, and point a finger as them as in, "see, this is what (insert group's name here) are like".. For me, a true Christian is exemplified by a person whose life is lived as near as possible to Christ. That is it. So what if a whole lot of people calling themselves Christians are nutcases? I happen not to have met any of these nutcases, but even if I did I would not call them Christians, and even less, devout Christians. They are not the gold standard.

In the same way, I have met several atheists who are nutcases. But for me the prototype of an atheist remains my parents: both fine, caring, people with strong ethics and civil courage.

I truly don't care what a person believes. How he or she behaves is the important, and telling, thing. I have seen atheists as Christian in their behaviour as the best Christian. And "Christians" who are downright evil. (Though I would not call them Christians any more!)

And I don't think most readers care about a writer's beliefs. On the whole, readers tend not to like books that deliver an overt message, whether that is religion or atheism. A good author might have both atheists and believers in their novels, and makes both as authentic as possible; that means having the ability, as an atheist, to step into the skin of a believer, and the other way around.
What puts readers off is when an atheist writer makes all Christians into Bible thumping psychos, or a Christian writer places horns and a tail on all atheist characters.

[Lyra Jean]

I've met people like the ones Beezle described. They are scary individuals and difficult to talk to (for me anyway). They have no interest in hearing your side of things. Not to mention they also have a low opinion of women.

I just hope that I do not come across as this sort of "christian" in my walk through life.

[oscuridad]

I understood that the Catholic faith requires that the Bible is a 'literal' truth. The 'faked bones' as 'tests of faith' were early attempts by the Christian Churches to explain the presence of fossils.

There are so many issues here - I knew a girl many years ago who was in remission from MS - she had been to Lourdes and beleived that the visit had cured her, now we all know that MS can go into remission for years but there is no cure. Her faith deluded her into believing she was healed - I don't think that is very healthy.

I rather like the idea of exploring the problems of religious beliefs through miracles - if mine are true - then yours can't be, and so on.

And what's with all the mucking about with weeping statues and bits of toast in the shape of Jesus? if you're going to do a miracle, do a good one - end poverty, allow hanging chads to be counted in Florida Election results, stop a Hurricane devastating a city, wake George Bush from his coma or get Tony Blair to cut the apron strings - anything.

But there are lots of these people around and their absolute certainty is what makes them dangerous. I AM RIGHT - SO YOU MUST BE WRONG.
I read a comment once - that what Christianity is, is so profound - Son of God comes to Earth, is killed, comes back to life and ascends to Heaven - that you have to beleive it utterly or not at all - no half meausres.
I reject it on those grounds. You can't believe that sort of stuff 'a bit', and to believe it totally means just that - all or nothing, including Genesis, Arks and nine-hundred year old men begating all over the place.

Christians tie themselves in knots (Jehovah's Witnesses in particular) saying on the one hand, the Bible is literally true, and then saying that a 'day' in Genesis actually means 'an age of the Earth'. Make your mind up - either you think its true or you don't.

To get back to writing - try a short story by Ursula LeGuin entitled 'The ones who walk away from Omelas'. Sums it up for me, really.

[aruna]

I understood that the Catholic faith requires that the Bible is a 'literal' truth. .

I understand that this is not so.

[nancy02664]

Forgot to mention: I'm pretty sure Kurt Vonnegut is an atheist as well.

[aruna]

I found this on Catholic belief:

Creation
Catholics believe that creation is good, that God uses it for His purposes, but that it is marred by Original Sin, the result of the sin of the first human beings. Catholic theologians (and Orthodox ones as well) have never agreed on one particular interpretation of the creation stories in the Book of Genesis. A few early Christians read them literally, others allegorically, and others in light of the science of the day. Some read them all three ways at the same time. All three ways were seen as acceptable, so long as Christ was at the center of creation. So Catholics are free to understand Genesis completely literally, but also to read Genesis in light of modern science, so long as certain conditions are met; reading Genesis in light of modern science doesn't mean that one is free to read Genesis without God, Jesus, and so forth. This view may shock some evangelical Christians whose churches were founded during the modernist controversies of the 19th and 20th centuries. Surprisingly, insisting on an entirely literal understanding of Genesis is actually a quite modern concept. (my bold)

In spite of my atheist parents I attended a very Christian school in England (if my father had known he;d have freaked!). I was solidly grounded in Christian, ie Church of England, teaching. We also had a very strong Science department. Most certainly, there was no dispute between science and religion. Science, including evolution, was simply the empirical study of God's creation; created within the laws of science, science being also God's creation, not by magic in 6 days. We were taught the allegorical meaning of Genesis etc.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

(my bold)

In spite of my atheist parents I attended a very Christian school in England (if my father had known he;d have freaked!). I was solidly grounded in Christian, ie Church of England, teaching. We also had a very strong Science department. Most certainly, there was no dispute between science and religion. Science, including evolution, was simply the empirical study of God's creation; created within the laws of science, science being also God's creation, not by magic in 6 days. We were taught the allegorical meaning of Genesis etc.


I read that that the rabbis of ancient times believed much the same thing as your bolded words above, and in fact that the Talmud warned against taking the Genesis account of Creation literally. I found it quite a shock, because I had been raised to believe the 6-day Creation week was the literal, actual way G-d created the Earth.

And like others have pointed out, the attitude that almost always accompanies this belief is, "I'm right so you're automatically wrong". It's almost like a chant some people use to cement their beliefs in something that has no basis in fact other than two chapters of the first book of the Bible. I mean, many people take the Book of the Revelation to be metaphor and the like; why is it so wrong to take Genesis the same way?

This kind of adamant 'you are wrong if you believe in Science' insistance is very difficult to handle, a lot of the time, because so many Christians think a literal translation of the Book of Genesis is the foundation for their faith.

I think their faith would be strengthened, frankly, if they would let Science investigate their beliefs and let their beliefs change to fit the findings, instead of saying, "No, No! That's wrong. You can't tell me my Bible doesn't mean six literal days! You're a heretic for saying this happened, even if the evidence shows it's true!"

If people would stop being so demanding that their beliefs not be challenged, I think the gap between their beliefs and the beliefs of Science would not be so large.

[oscuridad]

and therin lies the rub;
on the one hand the Bible is the word of God, and on the other, it is open to interpretation.

I am afraid that does not make a great deal of sense to me.

No more than does 'Pascal's wager' or 'St. Anselm's proof'.

Or the fact that Christians don't have a problem with a pradigm that incorporates the three statements:

God is all good
God is all powerful
Bad things happen.

An old one I know, but it is at the crux of the matter - alongside patterns in biscuit crumbs shaped like the Virgin Mary and the like.

[aruna]

and therin lies the rub;
on the one hand the Bible is the word of God, and on the other, it is open to interpretation.

I am afraid that does not make a great deal of sense to me.

No more than does 'Pascal's wager' or 'St. Anselm's proof'.



.

There is such a thing as emotional truth; what matters is not what actually happened, but what we learn and how we grow.

Or the fact that Christians don't have a problem with a pradigm that incorporates the three statements:
God is all good
God is all powerful
Bad things happen.
This used to be one of my arguments as well, when I was an atheist. It's a cliche. The thing is, "bad things happen" is a vey childish perspective. A true Christian does not expect God to be a Santa Claus, making everything right and granting all wishes. A Christian path, or ANY spiritual path for that matter, Christian or non-Christian, is most of all excruciatingly difficult. It's not for weaklings or whiners. It's climbing a sheer rock-face sometimes; because that is what builds us a human beings.

I have found in my own non-Christian spiritual path that the more I grow, the harder the challenges, but the stronger I am to bear them. That's a GOOD thing!

I've seen this happening in every single culture I've lived in. When you would think a catastrophe would make people into atheists, the very opposite happens: they actually grow in faith. It makes them strong in the face of total disaster. The message I have always received form believers of ALL religions is that they accept and even welcome the "bad" things in life as God's Will, because it forces them to cling to God all the more and thus grow stronger. Whereas when only good things happen they become spoilt and self-absorbed.

As for the patterns in biscuit crumbs thing - I've never known a Christian to do this. Is it fair to take one obscure quirk as a characteristic of the entire community?

[aruna]

If people would stop being so demanding that their beliefs not be challenged, I think the gap between their beliefs and the beliefs of Science would not be so large.

And they as well as their religion would be taken far more seriously by those outside of it!

[oscuridad]

There is such a thing as emotional truth; what matters is not what actually happened, but what we learn and how we grow.
but thats the point, isn't it - either it happened or it didn't - you can't fudge around it.


[/QUOTE]This used to be one of my arguments as well, when I was an atheist. It's a cliche.[/QUOTE]


but God is supposed to be all good and all powerful - now as Epicurus but it so eloquently - if God is all powerful and bad things happen, then He MUST be malign - you can't have it both ways

[/QUOTE]I have found in my own non-Christian spiritual path that the more I grow, the harder the challenges, but the stronger I am to bear them. That's a GOOD thing![/QUOTE]

in other words 'sh*t happens'

[/QUOTE]I've seen this happening in every single culture I've lived in. When you would think a catastrophe would make people into atheists, the very opposite happens: they actually grow in faith. It makes them strong in the face of total disaster. The message I have always received form believers of ALL religions is that they accept and even welcome the "bad" things in life as God's Will, because it forces them to cling to God all the more and thus grow stronger. Whereas when only good things happen they become spoilt and self-absorbed.[/QUOTE]

I have also seen religious belief delude people into accepting things that no-one should accept.

[/QUOTE]As for the patterns in biscuit crumbs thing - I've never known a Christian to do this. Is it fair to take one obscure quirk as a characteristic of the entire community?[/QUOTE]

an extreme example, yes, but point out a meaningful miracle - not an allegorical or metaphorical one, but an actual one.
The Catholic Curch is pretty big on this sort of stuff, I beleive.
even the freewill thing is flawed - if God knows everything, then he knows everything anyone will ever do , so where is freewill, ergo - every murder, torture, etc. is God's fault.

[aruna]

but thats the point, isn't it - either it happened or it didn't - you can't fudge around it.

Genesis is a beautiful and wise story with much depth and many interpretations. Very few Christians take it as literally true, so who's fudging? The first I heard of this theory was on American Message Boards two or there years ago, and I've lived quite a bit. Even if whole communities in America believe it to be true they are still but a drop in he ocean of Christianity.

People are free to believe what they want; doesn't bother me. I mhself would like to see less Genesis and more Sermon on the Mount among Christians.


but God is supposed to be all good and all powerful - now as Epicurus but it so eloquently - if God is all powerful and bad things happen, then He MUST be malign - you can't have it both ways

Yes, but I argued this way 40 years ago, so it's still a cliche, a very old one. You are using limited human logic to understand things far beyond human undrerstanding.

"Bad things happen" - yes they do. Why whine about it? Maybe there's a reason for them happening that we can't see. Only babies whine about "bad things happening". A strong person deals with it, and not expect some almighty Daddy to step in and "make things good" again.

I like to think of myself as a character in a novel; sometimes I'm in a right fix or a tight spot and life seems "bad" but you know what? The author of that book has a pretty good plan for me and and in the end it will turn out right. Looking back, the best parts of my life were those that I judged "bad" at the time. I learned the most through them, and I would definitely not have wished for some mysterious Hand to reach out and put things straight. Through my own effort I grew through those hard times, and that's what it's all about - strengthining my spiritual muscles so I am no longer afraid of life's storms. When they are there I try to be patient and farsighted. Sooner or later they come to an end, and usually they turn into their opposite.

Christians fully accept that there is evil in the world, and that God is not going to put an end to it with a snap of his fingers. This world is by definition imperfect, full of pain and sorrow - but according to Christianity and just about every other major religion every evil person has the choice, right here and now, to ask God's forgiveness and be transformed by grace.

It sounds as if you expect some magical deus ex machina to step in and wipe out evil. No: only people can change things. And we are all imperfect. Perhaps if we would listen to what God wants instead of our own selfish desires, we could create a better world and eliminate evil. It won't happen without us and our action.


in other words 'sh*t happens'

Well, no; you don't just sit back and let things happen. There's nothing passive about struggling to keep one's head above water in times of crisis. These are tremendous challenges; they can try us to our very limits, and they do.



I have also seen religious belief delude people into accepting things that no-one should accept.

I'm sorry your experience with "religious people" has been so negative. I'm lucky; I've known some great Christians and people of other religions. I would take them as my standard.

I think you tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I hope you get to other, less obnoxious Christians in time - and that you don't immediately dismiss them due to prejudice!


an extreme example, yes, but point out a meaningful miracle - not an allegorical or metaphorical one, but an actual one.

Oh, I see miracles every day of my life! Last week, Jenna Glatzer gave birth to a baby girl - what a miracle! Every blade of grass is a miracle! Look up at the starry sky - what a miracle! Am I being trite? Certainly not!

The trouble is that these miracles are so commonplace we take them for granted and have lost our sense of wonder, thinking that science has explained them all. It hasn't - not even close!

But why am I arguing on behalf of Christians? We've come a long way from the original topic of this thread and I don't know what I'm doing here, being neither atheist nor Christian. Let people believe what they want - as long as they are not harming anybdy who cares?

[loquax]

"Bad things happen" - yes they do. Why whine about it? Maybe there's a reason for them happening that we can't see. Only babies whine about "bad things happening". A strong person deals with it, and not expect some almighty Daddy to step in and "make things good" again. I personally find it quite interesting how the Christian God works so hard to make it look as if He doesn't exist.

I think faith is an incredibly powerful thing. Any challenges to it can be answered or defended. This is the difference between Atheism and Theism. Atheists can answer the small questions, but not the big ones. Theists can answer the big questions, but cannot excuse the small answers with any form of neutral logic.

I love my neighbour; that's how I lead my life. I treat my Christian friends with all the respect I can, and only ask the same in return. But I always feel sorry that in my beliefs, these people are deluded. And I know that these people feel exactly the same way about me.
But I'll still love them, and it's not because the Bible told me to. It's because it's the right thing to do.

[oscuridad]

Let people believe what they want - as long as they are not harming anybdy who cares?

I would agree with that wholeheartedly

[aruna]

I love my neighbour; that's how I lead my life. I treat my Christian friends with all the respect I can, and only ask the same in return. But I always feel sorry that in my beliefs, these people are deluded. And I know that these people feel exactly the same way about me.
But I'll still love them, and it's not because the Bible told me to. It's because it's the right thing to do.


I don't even know what many of my friends believe, whether they are Christian, Atheist, Zoroastrian or Zombie. I like/love them and that's all that matters. I don't feel sorry for anyone in their beliefs. They believe what they have to at that stage of their life. If you had my experiences, you would believe what I do, and vice versa. I do believe in keeping an open mind; and I believe the search for ultimate truth is probably the most powerful urge we have. I am interested in all faiths that preach lovingkindness. And neither do I need the Bible or any other book to tell me what to do.
Have a good day!

[Sean D. Schaffer]

I don't even know what many of my friends believe, whether they are Christian, Atheist, Zoroastrian or Zombie. I like/love them and that's all that matters. I don't feel sorry for anyone in their beliefs. They believe what they have to at that stage of their life. If you had my experiences, you would believe what I do, and vice versa. I do believe in keeping an open mind; and I believe the search for ultimate truth is probably the most powerful urge we have. I am interested in all faiths that preach lovingkindness. And neither do I need the Bible or any other book to tell me what to do.
Have a good day!


Bolding Mine.

Therein, I think, is the best attitude I've ever seen in anyone. Not to feel sorry for someone else because of their beliefs is something I've had to learn over the last few months, but it's a worthy goal, IMO. Not to feel sorry for anyone who believes differently than I do, has been a hard road but well worth the hike.

Actually, I think the fact there was so little tolerance for other beliefs within the churches I was raised in, could have been part of the reason I converted away from Christianity completely. I was taught to love my neighbor, but then I would be taught that 'such-and-such person is bad because they don't believe in Jesus'. It was hard for me to reconcile two opposing beliefs within the same religion... even if it was within a particular sect of that said faith.

Do I feel sorry for my Christian friends? Not at all. Like Aruna pointed out, they believe what they want to believe. I have no business feeling sorry for people who, in their own lives, are living as they see fit. Nor do I feel sorry for Atheists, for the same reason. There is no sense, IMO, in feeling sorry for someone who is happy with the beliefs they hold, even though they might disagree with mine.

[loquax]

I think it's a very nice ideal that we should not feel sorry for one another. Maybe if we lived in a utopian society with ranbows and butterflies this would be true. But for me, it's not (see my previous post). And it's my belief that it can't be true for anyone.

I feel sorry for children who grow up to be islamic fundamentalists, willing to give their lives for God. I don't care if their passion makes them do these things - that they feel wanted and complete. I just don't care. I feel sorry for them because in my mind they're wrong.

Even though giving one's life to martyrdom is an extreme example, I think in some ways the same principle applies to all forms of belief. If someone takes ANY action in the name of belief, it is my natural reaction to think they are wrong in their reasoning. And I don't think open mindedness can solve this. Sure, I'd love to not feel sorry for them. But I don't think it's possible.

[oscuridad]

Curious - why would you feel sorry for someone because of their beliefs - although a Christian colleague described me as 'a very sad man' because I do not share her belief set.
Kind of sums it up really

[Sean D. Schaffer]

I think it's a very nice ideal that we should not feel sorry for one another. Maybe if we lived in a utopian society with ranbows and butterflies this would be true. But for me, it's not (see my previous post). And it's my belief that it can't be true for anyone.

...Snipped.



We don't have to live in a utopian society for people to have such an attitude. We just have to decide for ourselves, "I'm not going to have this attitude toward others".

The fact is, Loquax, the Islamic fundamentalists you spoke of in your post, feel sorry for us that we don't believe exactly what they do. Look what they're willing to do to get us to believe what they think is right. This is the danger of holding a belief that "You're wrong so therefore you're a sorry individual". If you feel sorry for someone else and how they're wrong in your viewpoint, you're probably going to be more willing to try to convert those people to your way of thinking than if you don't have such an attitude.

Such is the case with many human beings, whether they belive in a deity or not. We have a natural desire to make everyone just like us, and if we can't, we naturally want to silence people of differing opinions.

BTW, on an interesting note: Fundamentalists and Extremists are two different things. Whether you or I believe a Fundamentalist is necessarily right or wrong, is irrelevant to the fact to be a Fundamentalist, you have to believe certain essentials to a particular faith or whatever. Extremists are those who go beyond what their beliefs tell them to do and force others, sometimes at the proverbial point of the sword, to believe everything their way.

Let me give you a Non-theistic example. I would wager believing in no god would be essential to being an Atheist. Essential=Fundamental. So if you believe the basic tenets of Atheism, such as 'there is no god', then that would make you, by definition, a fundamentalist Atheist.

Does this mean you're going to take your beliefs and beat me over the head with them? Of course not! It simply means you believe in a basic tenet of Atheism.

No, it's the Extremists that are the problem here, not the Fundamentalists.

[veinglory]

On a side note, if anyone thinks biologists take any of this "for granted" they need to hang out with a better class of biologist.

[loquax]

Indeed, everybody feels sorry for everybody else. Claiming good will is all very well, but it's false. By the definitions of logic, a solid belief cannot allow the understanding and acceptance of those who hold opposite beliefs. Tolerance is all that can ever be achieved.

Sorry for mixing fundamentalists with extremists. I think you made your point there. However, I never wrote that all fundamentalists want to kill themselves. Maybe that was an assumed statement.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Indeed, everybody feels sorry for everybody else. Claiming good will is all very well, but it's false. By the definitions of logic, a solid belief cannot allow the understanding and acceptance of those who hold opposite beliefs. Tolerance is all that can ever be achieved.


That's simply not true. I do not feel in the least bit sorry for everybody else. I may think their viewpoint is off-kilter or whatever, but to say that I cannot accept another's beliefs as good for them, is a fallacy. With the highest of respect to you, Loquax, I know myself better than you do.


Sorry for mixing fundamentalists with extremists. I think you made your point there.

Not a problem.

However, I never wrote that all fundamentalists want to kill themselves. Maybe that was an assumed statement.

Forgive me for sounding nit-picky here, but I don't remember making such an assertion concerning your beliefs. Could you quickly point me to the post where I made such an assertion?

Thanks.

[aruna]

That's simply not true. I do not feel in the least bit sorry for everybody else. I may think their viewpoint is off-kilter or whatever, but to say that I cannot accept another's beliefs as good for them, is a fallacy. With the highest of respect to you, Loquax, I know myself better than you do.






Same for me.

As for biologists not taking everything for granted, well, I hope that they, and other scientists, indeed don;t. But I was talking about the 99% of us who are not biologists. Let's face it, most people are so bogged down in their personal issues and problems they don't stop to smell a rose and delight in it, or to think "what an incredible miracle it is that the sun rose today!" Ans yet, it is indeed a miracle.l

[loquax]

Sean and Aruna, I think I've come to realise your viewpoints are a part of your faiths, because I can't understand them. I won't push the matter if you feel so against it; that's not right to do.

Regarding fundamentalism/extremism... well I wrote the word "Islamic fundamentalist", which prompted your: " No, it's the Extremists that are the problem here, not the Fundamentalists,"

I don't think I implied that fundamentalists are a problem. Just that I feel sorry for them. Martyrdom isn't restricted to the extremists.

Out of interest, do you feel sorry for the extremists?

[aruna]

Out of interest, do you feel sorry for the extremists?

and

Indeed, everybody feels sorry for everybody else. Claiming good will is all very well, but it's false. .

Extermism has nothing to do with faith or religion. I explicitly said that as long as no one is harmed, people are free to believe whatever they want and I don't feel sorry for them.

I do feel sorry for young people who grow up with violence, whether that is terrorism or any other kind of violence, because violence is simply wrong. But that has nothing to do with religion. In the same way, I feel sorry for children who grow up with alcoholic parents and abusers. I feel sorry for children who grow up in the midst of war. I weep for children who grow up in prositituion. It breaks my heart for children who grow up with AIDS or famine or any of the hundred and one ills plagueing mankind; but none of this has anything to do with what they believe.

It makes no sense, I think, to feel sorry for people's beliefs or faiths because every single person in this world has grown up in a belief system - yes, even the atheists.

[aruna]

By the definitions of logic, a solid belief cannot allow the understanding and acceptance of those who hold opposite beliefs. Tolerance is all that can ever be achieved

I totally disagree with this. I do not see beliefs or faiths contardicting each other. I see them as complementing our understanding of what actually IS. Just as a mountain has a different perspective if seen from north, south, east or west, so I see the different faiths as all valid paths to the same end. I have never said "what I believe is true therefore what you believe is untrue". It's not an either-or for me; it's a this and this; both perpectives, dependant on our spiritual maturity and our mental make-up.
And it is indeed far more than tolerance.

I know that most Christian will refute this, which I find sad, and I've had this converstion many times with, in particualr Pat; but I do not see religions as being in any way exclusionary. Doctrines may contradict each other, but I do not believe in doctrines. I believe that in essence all theistic and non-theristic religions are valid paths.

And having once been an atheist, I know that that too is valid and that the atheist cannot but be atheist - so I respect that. From his perspective, he too is right. But each of these viewpoints are all totally incomplete and minuite fragments of what really is. Our minds are simply too small to comprehend truth, so finally none of us are right. Only that person who can see all sides of the mountain simultaeously, and those know the whole, can speak of truth.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Snipped...

I feel sorry for children who grow up to be islamic fundamentalists, willing to give their lives for God. I don't care if their passion makes them do these things - that they feel wanted and complete. I just don't care. I feel sorry for them because in my mind they're wrong.

...Snipped.

Okay, this is the quote which, if I understand correctly, you were referring to. It's the one directly above my post you're pseudo-quoting.

First, I didn't say that you said all fundamentalists want to kill themselves. What I said was, extremists are the problem in the world today and not fundamentalists.

Secondly, you did say, and I'll quote it here as well as above, snipped for reading convenience:

"I feel sorry for children who grow up to be Islamic fundamentalists, willing to give up their lives for God."

I do notice you didn't say all fundamentalists are willing to give up their lives for their god, but then again, I never said that you did say such a thing in the first place. I merely pointed out that extremists are the ones who blow themselves up, not necessarily fundamentalists.

If I was in any way unclear with that assertion, Loquax, I apologize for it. It was never my intent to start a heated debate.

Sean and Aruna, I think I've come to realise your viewpoints are a part of your faiths, because I can't understand them. I won't push the matter if you feel so against it; that's not right to do.


I understand what you're saying, Loquax. Not a problem. I appreciate your willingness to not push the matter. I've seen too many people in the world act like everything that affronts their beliefs is somehow a personal attack, so to see someone willing to stop the argument before it gets out of hand, is a refreshing change.

Although I will point out that though fundamentalists might be willing to give up their lives, from what I've experienced of them (I used to be a fundamentalist Christian myself) they don't normally go around taking other people with them when they give their lives for their god. Therein, I think, lies the major difference between the two. A fundamentalist will give their life for their god, but they will not generally take someone else's life in the process. OTOH, an extremist is a person who is willing to murder other people in the name of their god, while taking their own life as well.

As for feeling sorry for extremists, that's a hard question to answer. On one hand, I could feel sorry for them, because of what they're willing to do to get a point across; but on the other hand, they're murdering people in the name of their god. In that respect I can't feel in the least bit sorry for them. I think if someone like that ends up in Hell or wherever bad people go when they die, because they murder other people to push a point, they frankly deserve to go there.

So it's a situation I cannot give just a yes or no answer to. It's a complicated matter in my own mind, and I'm kind of on the fence when it comes to feeling sorry for extremists.