Shit stirrer

[Euphony]

I swear, I feel like it’s early 2000s again and internet is again abuzz with the same trite debates of theists vs non-theists. Heck, it’s even on a web forum, too, just like in those days!

Check my Geocities for the REAL answer.

 

[StillStunned]

But without a deity, or any metaphysical concept you choose, this world is nothing but matter chaotically scattered through space. Everything is accidental and meaningless. What, then, is the meaning of love or compassion if these feelings are merely the random product of chemical processes?

Who says? All I know is that I exist, a small clump of that chaotically scattered matter. However that came about - through some convenient handwavey higher power or through a natural process of millennia of evolution.

And if I know I exist, then I have to assume that the similar clumps of chaotically scattered matter surrounding me know that they exist too, and I should treat them accordingly.

(For the record, I'm not an atheist. I believe in humanity - and the more people are gathered together, the less humanity there is to go around.)

 

[Plathfan]

(For the record, I'm not an atheist. I believe in humanity - and the more people are gathered together, the less humanity there is to go around.)

I know you’re not. An atheist would not take part in such a discussion, and if they did, it would only be to ridicule it.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

MA did not mention being upset at the portrayal of the church in her feedback, she brought it up here, but once I got to know her a bit I kind of figured it would have.

I hope you don't feel like I was disingenuous bringing up my complaints now versus when I first reviewed it

I didn't mention those complaints when you originally asked me to read it, because you had specific issues about the NC/R that you wanted addressed. Rather than bitch about anything unrelated to that topic, I said:

"I could go into the fiddily bits that I didn't like, but you wanted a specific answer....

...To go into why it wasn't my favorite would just be a long list of personal nit picks, and would in no way help you make a better story or a more popular one. It would only help you write one better for ME, and of course, that isn't a reasonable goal that you have would or even should have. "

 

[Areala-chan]

What, then, is the meaning of love or compassion if these feelings are merely the random product of chemical processes?

They feel good and improve my life and the lives of the ones I love and care about. Is there anything more meaningful in life than that?

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I hope you don't feel like I was disingenuous bringing up my complaints now versus when I first reviewed it

I didn't mention those complaints when you originally asked me to read it, because you had specific issues about the NC/R that you wanted addressed. Rather than bitch about anything unrelated to that topic, I said:

"I could go into the fiddily bits that I didn't like, but you wanted a specific answer....

...To go into why it wasn't my favorite would just be a long list of personal nit picks, and would in no way help you make a better story or a more popular one. It would only help you write one better for ME, and of course, that isn't a reasonable goal that you have would or even should have. "

Well, having just read the story, I must say I have no idea what you were referring to.
I disliked the story as I expected I would, based on the category the story was in. Yeah, the sexual theme and the tone couldn't have been farther away from what I like. There are also parts in the story construction I would do differently as I think there was too much exposition at the start. But objectively speaking, it was an okay story. I must admit that the whole time I was waiting for this plain and obvious scorn towards Christianity you were talking about to make an appearance, but it never did. The only reference to the villain being religious was when he said that he had been raised a strict Baptist but he even said it in the context of understanding how tough being brought up like that was, and how restrictive it all was in the sense of freedom. We don't even know if he is truly religious or not.

In case you were actually talking about the religious boyfriend that the MC dumped, then once again, I see nothing unusual in that character. He was selfish but not because he was religious.

 

[Britva415]

Essentially, an atheist operates like a machine, processing everything based on logic, feasibility, and effectiveness. Ethics aren't a priority when the primary concern is simply whether something is beneficial or not

I'm not an atheist, but I know an uninformed stereotype when I see one.

 

[Britva415]

without a deity, or any metaphysical concept you choose, this world is nothing but matter chaotically scattered through space. Everything is accidental and meaningless. What, then, is the meaning of love or compassion if these feelings are merely the random product of chemical processes?

So, belief in love or in compassion is incompatible with "atheism" - according to you. That's more stereotyping which simply tells me you don't know or don't believe atheists who repeatedly tell you that love and compassion are meaningful to them.

Just because you don't feel like you know what it means to them or just because you can't tell whether it matches your own meanings, none of that means your model of atheism matches what any real-world atheist thinks and feels.

 

[Lifestyle66]

Okay, Ic69hunter, this will teach you to be more specific. You naively assumed there was only one kind of shit here in the AH.

It should have been "Extra-marital Sex Shit-stirrer"!

 

[lovecraft68]

Okay, Ic69hunter, this will teach you to be more specific. You naively assumed there was only one kind of shit here in the AH.

It should have been "Extra-marital Sex Shit-stirrer"!

We should have the AH wheel of contention, and posters can spin it to pick the polarizing topic

Some choices

Underage
Copyright
Finishing another's story
Cuck/LW response to cuck
Religion in or out of writing.
AI issues
Score discussions and validity of the Red H.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

Well, having just read the story, I must say I have no idea what you were referring to.
I disliked the story as I expected I would, based on the category the story was in. Yeah, the sexual theme and the tone couldn't have been farther away from what I like. There are also parts in the story construction I would do differently as I think there was too much exposition at the start. But objectively speaking, it was an okay story. I must admit that the whole time I was waiting for this plain and obvious scorn towards Christianity you were talking about to make an appearance, but it never did. The only reference to the villain being religious was when he said that he had been raised a strict Baptist but he even said it in the context of understanding how tough being brought up like that was, and how restrictive it all was in the sense of freedom. We don't even know if he is truly religious or not.

In case you were actually talking about the religious boyfriend that the MC dumped, then once again, I see nothing unusual in that character. He was selfish but not because he was religious.

Perhaps time has soured my opinion of the story, polarizing the things that I didn't like about it to somewhat unfair levels ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯ I'm willing to accept that. I read the story quite some time ago.

However, the MMC does bring up Christianity as at the source of the boyfriend's sexual inadequacy. I recall that much at least. This quote was directly from the story:

He grunted, his expression now one of disdain. "Typical religious upbringing, women are there to please, not be pleased. Want sexist bullshit? Get into religion."

Mind you, the character in question is making these statements as he actively rapes a woman, so perhaps you can understand why the anti-religious arguments might stand out in my mind lol

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Perhaps time has soured my opinion of the story, polarizing the things that I didn't like about it to somewhat unfair levels ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯ I'm willing to accept that. I read the story quite some time ago.

However, the MMC does bring up Christianity as at the source of the boyfriend's sexual inadequacy. I recall that much at least. This quote was directly from the story:


Mind you, the character in question is making these statements as he actively rapes a woman, so perhaps you can understand why the anti-religious arguments might stand out in my mind lol

Yeah, there is that line. Putting aside the fact that I think it's the truth, that line is being said by a guy committing rape so it's actually more of an ironic moment than anything else. I don't know if LC wanted to express his own opinion there, but if he did, choosing an asshole to do it is sure an odd choice

 

[Lifestyle66]

We should have the AH wheel of contention, and posters can spin it to pick the polarizing topic

Some choices

Underage
Copyright
Finishing another's story
Religion in or out of writing.
AI issues
Score discussions and validity of the Red H.

This particular "Shit stirring" (based on the OP) was "Cuck/LW response to cuck".

Thus my "be specific" with the titled shit.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

Yeah, there is that line. Putting aside the fact that I think it's the truth, that line is being said by a guy committing rape so it's actually more of an ironic moment than anything else. I don't know if LC wanted to express his own opinion there, but if he did, choosing an asshole to do it is sure an odd choice

I knew that LC disliked religion when I read it, so I did not take it as an ironic statement, but rather a projection of his own beliefs... using a sanctimonious rapist as his mouth piece. Lol

 

[mildlyaroused]

As I've mentioned previously, for atheists who don't believe in anything beyond the realm of the scientific and empirical, concepts like the soul or anything metaphysical lose their relevance. Consequently, ethical or moral considerations also lose their significance. This doesn't necessarily imply malevolence, but rather a detachment from such concerns. For example, why would someone be swayed by emotions that they see as nothing more than chemo-electrical brainstorms? Essentially, an atheist operates like a machine, processing everything based on logic, feasibility, and effectiveness. Ethics aren't a priority when the primary concern is simply whether something is beneficial or not.

Atheists aren't robots. If you think being atheistic means you don't hold abstract values and perspectives, then you are using the term incorrectly. Atheists simply disbelieve in God/Gods. That's all there is to it. Disbelieving in God is in no way equivalent to having no abstract/human values.

You desperately need to educate yourself, because what you're saying is not only incorrect; it is actively demeaning towards an enormous portion of the world's population.

I know you’re not. An atheist would not take part in such a discussion, and if they did, it would only be to ridicule it.

There's another absolute statement based on nothing but your own ignorance. It's deeply ironic that you claim that morals are meaningless for atheists, while continuously making sweeping generalisations about the atheist population that liken them to animals or robots. If morals are only meaningful to you, why are you making such immoral statements?

But without a deity, or any metaphysical concept you choose, this world is nothing but matter chaotically scattered through space. Everything is accidental and meaningless. What, then, is the meaning of love or compassion if these feelings are merely the random product of chemical processes?

Let me reframe your own question: "What, then, is the meaning of love or compassion if these feelings are the product of a higher being?" If there is a higher power, then those feelings have been prescribed to our world. If there is not a higher power, those feelings occurred naturally in our world (products of chemical processes, as you said).

Either way, the value of those feelings doesn't come from their source; it comes from the individual. Love has no value if there are no living beings to appreciate it. If feelings of love or compassion are "random product of chemical processes", instead of "products of a divine power", why does that matter? You can still appreciate them and live by them. That's what atheists do every day. That's how they live.

You have your argument completely backwards, I'm sorry. What you're saying is that because (in an atheistic world) feelings of love came from randomness and nothing, they are worthless. But in a divine world, those feelings have value precisely because they came from the divine.

Do you not see the irony? In both arguments, you are prescribing value to feelings by looking at the existential source of those feelings - but for some reason, you've categorized one source as valuable, and one as meaningless. That seems to me like an arbitrary decision you have made through your own bias.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Do you not see the irony? In both arguments, you are prescribing value to feelings by looking at the existential source of those feelings - but for some reason, you've categorized one source as valuable, and one as meaningless. That seems to me like an arbitrary decision you have made through your own bias.

I suspect our new deist friend hasn't had this level of attention for a long time. They'll be fine once they've hung around the AH for a while and figured out that, "Gee, not everyone believes in my god like I do, but they still seem to be okay people."

Meanwhile, I admire your tenacity in continuing the discussion!

It's a bit like arguing black against white when everyone else knows there are colours. What's the point? Their mind is already made up.

 

[mildlyaroused]

I suspect our new deist friend hasn't had this level of attention for a long time. They'll be fine once they've hung around the AH for a while and figured out that, "Gee, not everyone believes in my god like I do, but they still seem to be okay people."

Meanwhile, I admire your tenacity in continuing the discussion!

It's a bit like arguing black against white when everyone else knows there are colours. What's the point? Their mind is already made up.

You're right, it may be time to step away from this argument... you know, take the moral high—

Never mind, I forgot morals are meaningless to me!

 

[ElectricBlue]

You're right, it may be time to step away from this argument... you know, take the moral high—

Never mind, I forgot morals are meaningless to me!

I know, circling in that dark meaningless ether, fucking up those deus atoms as you do so. It almost makes you feel perverse, don't it? All that unholy contamination - and the great thing is, nobody can do a thing about it .

 

[M_K_Babalon]

If you have a strong sense of right and wrong, you definitely believe in something. Agnostics or skeptics doubt everything and ultimately resort to apathy. If everything is just matter, the whole concept of good and evil is absurd. Maybe you don't believe in a deity who is essentially a human being with superpowers, but you have to believe in something.

 

[Bramblethorn]

As I've mentioned previously, for atheists who don't believe in anything beyond the realm of the scientific and empirical, concepts like the soul or anything metaphysical lose their relevance. Consequently, ethical or moral considerations also lose their significance.

"Consequently" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here.

This doesn't necessarily imply malevolence, but rather a detachment from such concerns. For example, why would someone be swayed by emotions that they see as nothing more than chemo-electrical brainstorms?

Why would a physicist be afraid of a live wire, when they see electrocution as nothing more than a physical phenomenon caused by the passage of current through the human body?

Why would a meteorologist come in out of the rain, when they see it as nothing more than the physical condensation of water from air?

Why would an economist insist on being paid for their work, when they see it as nothing more than a convention to facilitate the exchange of goods and services?

Mysterious.

Essentially, an atheist operates like a machine, processing everything based on logic, feasibility, and effectiveness.

Somewhere around the fourteen century, a Flemish artist drew a hippopotamus in Jacob van Maerlant's "Der Naturen Bloeme". Our artist had probably never seen a real hippo, and yet he was able to deduce exactly what a hippo must look like.

For some reason, your insightful description of atheists reminds me of his work.

Ethics aren't a priority when the primary concern is simply whether something is beneficial or not.

For instance, a true atheist

I smell a No True Scotsman fallacy a-brewing...

might respond with a grimace to any mention of fidelity or the sanctity of marriage. To them, sex is merely physical friction intended for pleasure.

"Intended for", you say?

That's a peculiar way to characterise the thoughts of somebody who - you have been asserting - believes everything to be meaningless and without purpose. Within that worldview, how could sex possibly have an "intended" purpose?

It's almost as if you don't really believe in the logico-robotic straw atheist you've been constructing here.

They may regard monogamy as a prehistoric remnant of a patriarchal society designed to suppress women and their sexual freedom. Loyalty, for them, is seen as nothing more than a superstition of the naive, and they may feel no moral inhibition about pursuing married women to "liberate" them. They might even have the audacity to claim credit for training and heightening their libido, suggesting you should be grateful for their intervention.

They might. Some do. Others might, and do, find that rather cringey.

I have no problem with fiction that portrays extramarital fun; after all, that's what this site is all about. What makes me uncomfortable is when some who embrace the "lifestyle" act like missionaries, imposing their worldview onto this side, as if the rest of us haven't seen the light yet.

Evangelists usually are tedious, atheist ones included. But I'm not sure they're more tedious than this business of telling us all how atheism works, based on the simplistic caricature atheist you keep inside your head, over the perspectives of actual human beings who are atheists.

Many who claim to be atheists don't truly fit the definition.

...ah, and there's that No True Scotsman, right on schedule.

They are often spiritual, sensitive, and moral beings. Yet, their rejection of established religion leads them to deny that they are not strictly rational and that they do believe in something, even if they can't pinpoint exactly what it is. Nonetheless, this doesn't stop them from being patronizing toward those who can.

• professes to know the minds of others better than they know themselves
• complains about those others being "patronising"

Hmm.

I would certainly not deny the existence of atheists who are patronising towards non-believers in general, but it might also be worth considering that the universe has a way of reflecting some things back to sender.

 

[lovecraft68]

I knew that LC disliked religion when I read it, so I did not take it as an ironic statement, but rather a projection of his own beliefs... using a sanctimonious rapist as his mouth piece. Lol

Making a character unlikeable tends to make them unlikable and to gain a reaction.

I'll take your comment as a compliment that I succeeded.

Want to debate religion in general, or just in stories, that's fine.

Want to try story shaming or knocking another writer, that's a very different game. One that's frowned upon by pretty much everyone here.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

The problem with discussing matters of faith, or the lack of it, is that some tend to take it personally and react emotionally, particularly when they lack a strong counterargument... -Cut for annoying drivel-

Christians taught you about atheism, didn't they?

 

[MediocreAuthor]

Want to try story shaming or knocking another writer, that's a very different game. One that's frowned upon by pretty much everyone here.

I'm not shaming or knocking you. It's your writing (specifically that story) that I disliked. Also, I dislike your beliefs, but the feeling is mutual, so no harm there.

I've never been a fan of censoring myself. If I have a problem with you, rest assured, I have no problem coming out and saying it.


[Edit: Oh wait, you said, story shaming? Well I guess I did do that... I wasn't a fan of that story, and you know why. So I guess I'm guilty as charged there. lol]

 

[Yarglenurp]

It is my belief that all of this is actually part of one very kinky erotic role-playing game because that's the only way I could imagine grown-ass adults thinking it's a good idea to discuss religion on a site called "Literotica." Ok, I'll join in.

God is very ashamed of you. You've been very naughy, deserving of punishment. You need to made clean in my-I-mean-his holy waters. Did you forget that God made me in his image? Time for you taste the body of Christ.

 

[Plathfan]

But in a divine world, those feelings have value precisely because they came from the divine.

I reject the word "divine"; it has a positive connotation that I haven't implied.

Do you not see the irony? In both arguments, you are prescribing value to feelings by looking at the existential source of those feelings - but for some reason, you've categorized one source as valuable, and one as meaningless. That seems to me like an arbitrary decision you have made through your own bias.

In one argument, feelings have a metaphysical source (beyond physics, beyond matter), while in the other, they are an illusion. An illusion where love and compassion originated as self-preserving mechanisms for an individual and their offspring. The idea that a random collection of molecules could create such a sophisticated mechanism is inconceivable, but let's set that aside for now.

I deliberately oversimplified my description of an atheist to focus on corresponding with the OP rather than engaging in a pointless philosophical debate. You might have noticed this had you not felt compelled to defend yourself.