Shit stirrer

[Gamblnluck]

(IRL, I do not understand, either)

I am waiting for at least one reasoned response.

The simple answer is she violated your trust. That is the crux of almost all those stories.

 

[SimonDoom]

Absolute nonbelievers are a rarity. Most people, regardless of their stance on organized religion or traditional deities, maintain some form of belief, whether in a higher power, aliens, or philosophical principles.

If we are nothing more than a cluster of atoms, this debate makes little sense. However, if there's more to us than atoms, this "more" marks the inception of belief.

Proof?

If you have no proof, you have nothing more than your own subjective thoughts. Which are fine for you, but not for you, and not in any way verifiable or universally valid.

You are being fuzzy on the concept of "believer." I don't believe in the supernatural, but I do have "philosophical principles." They are not based on the belief in any thing supernatural.

It is possible for us to be more than a cluster of atoms without there being a deity of any kind.

 

[Plathfan]

Proof?

If you have no proof, you have nothing more than your own subjective thoughts. Which are fine for you, but not for you, and not in any way verifiable or universally valid.

You are being fuzzy on the concept of "believer." I don't believe in the supernatural, but I do have "philosophical principles." They are not based on the belief in any thing supernatural.

It is possible for us to be more than a cluster of atoms without there being a deity of any kind.

Do you believe in aliens?

 

[nice90sguy]

The characters aren't real.

Try telling that to my characters. They'll just tell you what they tell me, to wake up and smell the goddam matrix

 

[Plathfan]

Anti-religion seems to be a sort of religion, with its believers as fervently devoted as any other congregation.

 

[TheLobster]

“To believe” has several meanings that, in debates like this, are routinely and often unintentionally conflated. Faith-based belief and evidence-based belief are not the same thing and it’s sophistry to suggest otherwise.

 

[SimonDoom]

Do you believe in aliens?

No. Not without evidence. It seems plausible to me that life exists on other planets, but I know of no proof that it does, and there's no convincing evidence that aliens have ever visited Earth. I'm agnostic on the issue, the same way I am about the existence of "God," whatever that is.

 

[SimonDoom]

Anti-religion seems to be a sort of religion, with its believers as fervently devoted as any other congregation.

That may describe some people, but not me. I'm not anti-religion. I just don't believe because I don't think there's sufficient evidence or reason to believe.

 

[lc69hunter]

Wow. This thread took off in some strange directions, but then, this is AH, so it is not that surprising, given that they are the cream of the crop of the thinkers here on Lit

 

[alohadave]

What's the appeal of two agnostics "going at it"? No inhibitions, no inner compass, no conflict, no sense of sin, no distinction between right and wrong. Everything is permitted; everything is bland and casual.

This is a very common mistake that people of faith make. Not believing in a deity does not mean that you have no morals and ethics. Those are instilled by parents, community, and society, as well as personal convictions.

 

[Plathfan]

That may describe some people, but not me. I'm not anti-religion. I just don't believe because I don't think there's sufficient evidence or reason to believe.

This is turning into a circular argument. You clearly have an issue with the word "believe" due to its association with organized religion, yet we are inherently wired to believe.

If I ask if it's morally right to sacrifice one person to save a thousand, you'll likely say yes. However, if I put a knife in your hand and tell you to do it yourself, you'll probably refuse. Even though it's rationally and morally right to save a thousand, you wouldn't be able to do it because you---as hard as it is to admit---are a believer who puts his beliefs before rationality, before science.

 

[alohadave]

If we are nothing more than a cluster of atoms, debating about morals makes little sense.

It means a lot if you want to get along in society.

 

[alohadave]

Anti-religion seems to be a sort of religion, with its believers as fervently devoted as any other congregation.

You know who posts things like this? Trolls who are looking for a reaction and to start fights.

Do you think that we've never seen these arguments before, or that you are the first to come up with them?

You should post in some of the other forums if you want to argue.

 

[ElectricBlue]

What's the appeal of two agnostics "going at it"? No inhibitions, no inner compass, no conflict, no sense of sin, no distinction between right and wrong. Everything is permitted; everything is bland and casual.

Mixing an atheist with a believer can create some intriguing dynamics. But placing two or more atheists in bed? It's like watching a poorly executed porn scene or rabbits humping in the backyard, which, evidently and regrettably, is quite popular.

Two agnostics or two atheists can still be living, loving people with emotions, beliefs (of their own, obviously), humanity. What special privileges does "believing in god" bring to the table? That's sanctimonious rubbish.

 

[SimonDoom]

This is turning into a circular argument. You clearly have an issue with the word "believe" due to its association with organized religion, yet we are inherently wired to believe.

If I ask if it's morally right to sacrifice one person to save a thousand, you'll likely say yes. However, if I put a knife in your hand and tell you to do it yourself, you'll probably refuse. Even though it's rationally and morally right to save a thousand, you wouldn't be able to do it because you---as hard as it is to admit---are a believer who puts his beliefs before rationality, before science.

I'm not being circular.

I don't have an issue with the word "believe." I have an issue with the way you are using the word and the way you are conflating different commonly accepted meanings of the word for the purposes of trying to shoehorn what I believe into your narrow framework, which I reject.

I "believe" that there is a tree outside my window right now, because I can see it. I've touched it. It drops leaves in my yard. This is a form of "I believe" that satisfies reasonable empirical standards.

I "believe" it's wrong to murder people. That's a different sort of belief. It's a normative belief. It's based on a lifetime of human experience, education, moral sympathy, reasoning, and lots of things. But it's definitely not based on a belief in God. I don't "believe" in God. But I don't "disbelieve" in God, either. I just don't know, and I'm fine with that. My agnosticism on the question of God in no way undermines my ability to believe in the tree in my yard or the wrongness of murdering people. It strikes me as entirely beside the point and unnecessary to believing in either of those things. If you can't understand that, then you lack imagination. Your attempt to interpret my beliefs in terms of your beliefs is misguided.

This exchange may seem like a wild diversion from the OP's original issue, but it's not. There's a recurring issue in this forum about the limit of the human imagination. The original post in this thread indicated the OP could not accept or understand a viewpoint different from his, and that's a stance that I always disagree with, across the board. I replied to the OP that there are obviously sound, real-world grounds why a husband would be upset at the wife in the scenario the OP presented, even if the sex ended up better. There are always different ways of looking at things, especially in the realm of fiction. The imagination is not limited. Morality is not tethered to one particular belief system, religious or otherwise. The actual lived experience of human beings is complex and diverse. Authors of erotica should feel perfectly free to write stories that reflect this fact. Norms and statistical averages should never place limits on fiction.

 

[Bramblethorn]

No. This is just nonsense. This is a good example of elevating one's personal subjective ideological views over provable fact. There's no evidence that agnostics are more apathetic than believers. There's no evidence that agnostics and atheists in fact have a weaker sense of right and wrong than believers. As far as I know, there's little to no evidence that religious belief in actual practice makes people behave more ethically. Religious people cheat on their spouses and murder people just as often as nonreligious people do.

That question of "if atheists don't believe in God, what's to stop them stealing and killing?" always did seem like one that implies far more alarming things about the questioner than it does about the questioned.

 

[lovecraft68]

Conceptually, erotica and sin often go hand in hand, so I find it hard to believe you've crafted an entire erotic universe made up only of atheists. Some of your characters must have a deep faith; you've simply chosen to suppress that aspect.

Of course I've written believers into my work.
Who do you think the villains are?

Piece of a scene that never made it into my Novel Hand of Fate, a late night shock jock interviewing Abigail Lefay, owner of the infamous club the Black Flame and head of the Lefay Coven.

“And the witch has jokes!” Brock grinned into the camera. “I better be careful, or she’ll turn me into a toad.”

“Looks like God’s already done that,” Abigail spoke with a straight face.

Behind her Seth snickered, but Lydia sighed in her mind, “And now you’ll egg him on?”

“Right, I’m the freaky looking one here. Sure.” He smiled, but she could tell she’d ticked him off, vain prick.

“You said God. You believe in him?”

“My father’s a devil. If there is a devil, there is a god. Has to be a balance.”

“Makes sense. But I assume you believe the devil is stronger?”

“Can’t say for sure; it’s not like god shows himself to fight.”

“He cast the devil out of heaven, didn’t he?” Brock prodded.

“In the book of lies, and only in that book, does that story exist.” Abigail folded her arms over her chest.

“Okay so if they never fought how do you know which side is…”

“My father is present, Brock. Lucifer Morningstar is present. All devils and alleged forces of evil are present. They allow their children to feel them, sometimes see them, and they bless us with wealth and power. God let’s his children suffer and wallow in poverty. The excuse is to test them; the truth is he doesn’t give a fuck.”

 

[lovecraft68]

That question of "if atheists don't believe in God, what's to stop them stealing and killing?" always did seem like one that implies far more alarming things about the questioner than it does about the questioned.

You don't need to believe in a god to have a basic sense of right and wrong.

The big lie of religion is that fear of god is the only reason people try to be good because if not they'll be punished with eternal torment.

If a fairy tale is what it takes for a person to do the right thing, it doesn't say much about that person.

 

[lovecraft68]

I'm not being circular.

I don't have an issue with the word "believe." I have an issue with the way you are using the word and the way you are conflating different commonly accepted meanings of the word for the purposes of trying to shoehorn what I believe into your narrow framework, which I reject.

I "believe" that there is a tree outside my window right now, because I can see it. I've touched it. It drops leaves in my yard. This is a form of "I believe" that satisfies reasonable empirical standards.

I "believe" it's wrong to murder people. That's a different sort of belief. It's a normative belief. It's based on a lifetime of human experience, education, moral sympathy, reasoning, and lots of things. But it's definitely not based on a belief in God. I don't "believe" in God. But I don't "disbelieve" in God, either. I just don't know, and I'm fine with that. My agnosticism on the question of God in no way undermines my ability to believe in the tree in my yard or the wrongness of murdering people. It strikes me as entirely beside the point and unnecessary to believing in either of those things. If you can't understand that, then you lack imagination. Your attempt to interpret my beliefs in terms of your beliefs is misguided.

This exchange may seem like a wild diversion from the OP's original issue, but it's not. There's a recurring issue in this forum about the limit of the human imagination. The original post in this thread indicated the OP could not accept or understand a viewpoint different from his, and that's a stance that I always disagree with, across the board. I replied to the OP that there are obviously sound, real-world grounds why a husband would be upset at the wife in the scenario the OP presented, even if the sex ended up better. There are always different ways of looking at things, especially in the realm of fiction. The imagination is not limited. Morality is not tethered to one particular belief system, religious or otherwise. The actual lived experience of human beings is complex and diverse. Authors of erotica should feel perfectly free to write stories that reflect this fact. Norms and statistical averages should never place limits on fiction.

Pssst...you're biting on the bait.

 

[mildlyaroused]

What's the appeal of two agnostics "going at it"? No inhibitions, no inner compass, no conflict, no sense of sin, no distinction between right and wrong. Everything is permitted; everything is bland and casual.

Mixing an atheist with a believer can create some intriguing dynamics. But placing two or more atheists in bed? It's like watching a poorly executed porn scene or rabbits humping in the backyard, which, evidently and regrettably, is quite popular.

Usually I hold reservations before insulting someone's opinion, but this is just sanctimonious bullshit. It's my dose of stupid for the day.

Let me get this straight: you're the one reducing atheists having sex to animals "humping", and in the same breath you're the one claiming that those atheists are the ones who have no inner compass or sense of right and wrong? Funny, that.

Atheists and agnostics have "inhibitions, inner compasses, distinctions between right and wrong, etc." I know because I'm an atheist (I don't like the term agnostic in a personal sense, because I think it's just an objective fact of the world that nobody (believer or not) can know for sure whether anything divine exists), and I experience all of those things every day. So do the millions and millions of other atheists around the world.

To me, God or "faith" are just not things that exist. You can't imagine the level of their non-existence in my life, the same way I can't possibly fathom the fact that you genuinely grapple with them as real concepts. They just don't exist to me. The same way Superman doesn't exist to me. And yet I still form romantic and platonic connections, I still grapple with morals and ethics, I still ponder philosophical questions. Those concepts to me have zero basis in "faith".

I am very accommodating of others' religious beliefs. I've read plenty of religious texts, and I think religion can form the basis of some really fascinating discussion (or in our case, fiction). But to think that an absence of faith automatically means an absence of human fundamentals such as morality or conflict is exceptionally narrow-minded. And to argue that everyone is a "believer" in something is equally pointless, because that doesn't mean anything. I "believe" I am typing on my keyboard. Sure, by that parameter, nobody is a "non-believer". Well done!

 

[MediocreAuthor]

Of course I've written believers into my work.
Who do you think the villains are?

Piece of a scene that never made it into my Novel Hand of Fate, a late night shock jock interviewing Abigail Lefay, owner of the infamous club the Black Flame and head of the Lefay Coven.

“And the witch has jokes!” Brock grinned into the camera. “I better be careful, or she’ll turn me into a toad.”

“Looks like God’s already done that,” Abigail spoke with a straight face.

Behind her Seth snickered, but Lydia sighed in her mind, “And now you’ll egg him on?”

“Right, I’m the freaky looking one here. Sure.” He smiled, but she could tell she’d ticked him off, vain prick.

“You said God. You believe in him?”

“My father’s a devil. If there is a devil, there is a god. Has to be a balance.”

“Makes sense. But I assume you believe the devil is stronger?”

“Can’t say for sure; it’s not like god shows himself to fight.”

“He cast the devil out of heaven, didn’t he?” Brock prodded.

“In the book of lies, and only in that book, does that story exist.” Abigail folded her arms over her chest.

“Okay so if they never fought how do you know which side is…”

“My father is present, Brock. Lucifer Morningstar is present. All devils and alleged forces of evil are present. They allow their children to feel them, sometimes see them, and they bless us with wealth and power. God let’s his children suffer and wallow in poverty. The excuse is to test them; the truth is he doesn’t give a fuck.”

Yeah, I've read one of your stories that featured a Christian as the "villain", and it was the most ridiculous crap ever. It actually would have been funny if it weren't such an obvious projection.

It was in a story that you deleted though, so I guess I can't complain too much

But if a Christian wrote an atheist character who was that pathetically impotent, we would all roll our eyes and call it stupid and biased. So it was easy to do the same with yours.

 

[SimonDoom]

Pssst...you're biting on the bait.

I know.

It's a weakness.

 

[lovecraft68]

Yeah, I've read one of your stories that featured a Christian as the "villain", and it was the most ridiculous crap ever. It actually would have been funny if it weren't such an obvious projection.

It was in a story that you deleted though, so I guess I can't complain too much

But if a Christian wrote an atheist character who was that pathetically impotent, we would all roll our eyes and call it stupid and biased. So it was easy to do the same with yours.

Yeah, I didn't like how the overall story turned out, but it wasn't the reason I removed it, long story there and not for public consumption.

Before I go further, and under the assumption you were raised in faith, what would your parents think of you writing porn? Especially delving into non con a bit? I'm going to hazard a guess this is a dirty secret for you, maybe even from your husband/boyfriend. Know why? Because according to your faith, part of you feels its wrong. Is it? Of course not, you do you, and if it feels good do it...do as thou wilt unless you're harming yourself or others.

All those things are how I feel, because the only moral code and rules I have are the ones I set for myself-and I can sin against myself by making mistakes within my set rules-you're living by another's rules, rules set in archaic times.

As for the Christian being the villain, if you don't think that type of upbringing leads to that type of rebellious behavior, you're either naive or living in denial. Generations of women were raised under the thumb of men thanks to 'religion". Less common today, but its still out there. Women raised in that type of environment, and usually very conservative politically as well, and think its okay are victims of religious and political stolkholm syndrome.

To be clear, in my story, the church might have been shown in a bad light, and that was extended to the ex-boyfriend because he's a man. Men in church have far less restrictions, all part of the sexism.

FWIW the difference between us is you want to have at it with an atheist/satanist/heathen whatever character, is I wouldn't care. Why? Because when you don't believe in anything what is there to take personally? Or maybe that's just me. And up until fairly recent times the non believer was always the bad guy, back in the white hat black hat style of story telling.

Last point...your defensiveness shows your own doubts. Not in your personal faith, but the religion that paints it in a bad light.

My story was accurate for far too many women for far too long, and what happened, is what it can lead to. My parents began going to a Pentecostal holy roller bible to the letter church, made me go a bunch of times. Hated it, but let me tell you, the girls in that church were raised like they were living in another time, and when they went wild, they went wild and often with the wrong type of guy. The tag of the story was careful what you wish for, and too may young women, thanks to their "Godly" upbringing have found out the hard way.

To be fair, young men too, fall in with the first woman to seduce them, and she's a piece of work, drugs, gangs, all that stuff that looks so inviting because you've been raised like a sheltered prig. Parents in those churches do their kids no favors raising them that way.

Look at this idiot football player, telling a room full of women who are there on the proudest day of their lives that they worked so hard for and he pretty much told them to go back in the kitchen...because of his religious views.

 

[lovecraft68]

More people have been killed in the name of The Christian God and Allah throughout history than the two world wars combined.

Those gods who tout peace and love haven't seemed to convey that message to their followers.

Why? because its been corrupted by their messengers-vast majority of them men who wrote everything for their benefit. No one corrupted a message of peace more than Mohammed. Take a world religion course not taught by modern snowflakes, and by fact, and you'll be disgusted.

But religion appeals to hivemind, groupthink and mob mentality. Groups of people told they're right and everyone not in those pews passing judgement and gathering to feed their own sense of self-righteousness. Conform or burn is their mantra.

Look at all the peace and comfort I'm missing out on.

But, like I said, faith is what matters, religion is big business and full of the kind that makes the good folks look bad.

Faith is personal, and should be kept that way, not forced at others.

My wife's faith is part of what makes her the amazing person she is, and is helping her get through some tough times with her health right now.

Yet she married a non-believer, why? Because she chose to go with what she felt, not what she was told in her catholic upbringing, which she walked away from in disgust years ago, and is part of a new thought style religion. One my parents condemn because they have no issue with homosexuality because they're not the hatemongers many believers are.

My father takes me aside one time when my wife mentioned studying to be a minister in her church and says "You know women aren't allowed to be ministers, right?"

My response was "I know that lie, but we don't practice lies in my house."

Again, keep that crap to yourself. If faith gets you through the night, more power to you, I mean that, but myself and others sleep just fine and don't need it. If you don't want us to think you're wrong, don't spend you're time telling me I am.

 

[StillStunned]

Perhaps we move this thread back to the unifying topic of LW, rather than the politics of organised religion? That's some shit that doesn't need stirring.