Funny Quotes Poking Fun at Attheists
- Sign In
- Join
The Sword and Laser discussion
I'd like to suggest In the Garden of Iden by Kage Baker. It's stand-alone but the start of a series that's got romance, immortal cyborgs, pesky religious fanatics (in prehistoric, Inquisitional, and Reformation flavors), rebellion, and the manipulation of history by a malign conspiracy. It's author is on my short list of favorites from 40 years of reading sf. 
Mod 
I am a Christian, with no apologies offered for it. Christian geeks like me are quite a small minority. There is an obvious majority of agnostics & atheists among SF&F fans. I find it sad that so many in geekdom are so negative towards Christianity & often unkind while also complaining of the way Christians have behaved towards them in the past.Sheldon Vanauken said "The best argument for Christianity is Christians.....But the strongest argument against Christianity is also Christians" complete quote below:
http://bit.ly/rWeRrf
Where people get into trouble is by making judgments about an entire group based on individual people/experiences. There are a lot of non-Christian geeks who are thoughtful & considerate towards we few Christians.
As for me, I am a deeply flawed person(the Christian faith requires one to recognize this fact). When I behave poorly feel free to blame me entirely, but not Christianity. For in those instances I am acting contrary to the instruction of my Lord.
My major beef with Christians is that most people who self-identify as such -- and I include you, Philip -- clearly haven't read what Christ supposedly said. How many times did Christ rail against the rich? The monied? And did he not command all of his followers to give away all of their belongings in order to walk his path? You have a car, you're breaking the rules. House, ditto. Computer, same. All the stuff in our lives are pretty much the things Christ hated. (Which also puts a lie to the notion that he would've supported any of the GOP's platforms.)
Mother Theresa is the only person I've ever heard about who actually did as Christ commanded. She gave up a life of privilege and wealth to serve the poor. When she died she owned only her glasses, rosary beads, Bible and sandals. THAT'S how you're supposed to be a Christian.
Yes, it's damned hard. Way too hard for soft Americans. Which is why none of you do it.
So yes, I judge you all. By your own standards. Because by those you all fail miserably. I don't make the rules.
All that said, I have nothing against most Christians. Most of them are pretty nice people. I'm lapsed Catholic myself.Just a lot of hypocrisy going on in Christianity, which bugs the hell out of me.
Just to get back to books, I'd like to second the Culture series by Ian M. Banks. They are superbly written, very intelligent, and do have a sort of religion vs. science vibe. Oh, who am I kidding, it's all-out war between conservative Christians vs. socialist atheists.Still, very good books that are extremely well written.
Christian geeks aren't a small minority. I know many and, for the most part, they're some pretty cool dudes (and one rather lovely dudette). I think the difference is that non-geeks who are Christians tend identify themselves very strongly as Christians where Christian geeks tend to identify themselves very strongly as geeks first and Christians second.
Of course, I'm generalizing and know exceptions to all of those. But I think, in this instance, that it's an acceptable general statement in terms of broad-spectrum accuracy.
(How's that for backpedalling?)
I'll not be drawn into a religious argument. I think when Tom & Veronica started The Sword and Laser they did so to read & discuss SF&F books, not to have a forum for arguing and personal attacks. We should all be respectful of that intent & police ourselves so the time & effort they devote to this group is enjoyable & not bogged down by keeping people in line. 
Tom wrote: "I grew up in that town. Dry until a few years ago. It was really weird being back there and seeing beer for sale in the grocery store. That was like seeing the communist bloc fall, in that it was s..." The funny thing is my grandmother blames my grandfather and his twin brother for the whole dry town thing. I grew up in the house where she was born and raised and she said that from my childhood (and hers) window she could see the bar (which is now a baptist church, ohhh sweet irony...) and watch my then-future grandfather drag his drunk brother from the bar... loose his grip on his twin and watch in horror as my drunk great uncle threw rocks through windows all down main street in a fit of pre-war teenage rage... she never said what the boys got for doing that, but the town went dry by the end of that month.
Thanks gramps.
Boots wrote: "Jason wrote: "As a side note, I was once told by a Rabbi that "atheists are closest to the divine, because they reject the false interpretations of the divine". Not sure what that means, but there ..."If you have no god then you have no false god and If he knew that you are a Christian then it was his way of saying you would be better off as an atheist because you chose the wrong god.
I don't think that's what he meant.
God in this tradition is in essence beyond category or description; hence any interpretation is necessarily wrong. The best one can hope for is a system that points to God and leads one deeper into his/her/its presence. Sort of like a good fantasy novel.
Disclaimer: I'm on the atheist edge of the agnostic spectrum though your mileage may vary depending on topic and context.
I have to second Al. Or, at least, I hope Al's interpretation was correct. I'd hate to think of anyone meaning, "It's better that you believe in nothing at all, rather than the nonsense those people believe."Though, point of interest: Atheism is a statement of belief and agnosticism is a statement of knowledge. I.e., you can be an agnostic atheist by saying, "I don't know if there really is a God or not, but I don't believe their is." Since the existence of God can neither be proven or disproven most atheists are also agnostics. Even Dawkins ranks himself as a 6 on the Atheist scale (1–7 with 7 being 100% certain).
Personally, I prefer to call myself a Saganist. That being someone who is deeply interested in the universe, science, philosophy and understanding. This does include understanding of theology but in my case it's purely academic.
Philip, I don't think discussing religion, especially as it relates to works of fiction, is a too out of bounds. After all, much of the best fantasy either mirrors religious mythology or outright steals from it. However, I do agree that whatever is said it should remain respectful. After all, religious belief is deeply personal to many people.
However, if treated with the correct level of delicacy, I think religion is a very interesting topic of discussion. And I don't just mean the Abrahamic religions and atheism. There are many other (in my opinion, more interesting) religions.
Al wrote: "God in this tradition is in essence beyond category or description; hence any interpretation is necessarily wrong. The best one can hope for is a system that points to God and leads one deeper into his/her/its presence. Sort of like a good fantasy novel." I think you have the essence of it. If there is a God, then that being is essentially unknowable to limited creatures such as ourselves, so ascribing human motivations to God is fruitless. We don't need religion to codify the rules of "right and wrong" for us to know them.
I was listening to The Young Turks show today and some comedian was asking how it is that God told every one of the Republican candidates to run, but when he says God told him to stay in and watch Glee, people back away slowly.
This is why I view statements like Philip's -- "For in those instances I am acting contrary to the instruction of my Lord." -- with consternation, where he is presenting himself as humble (bonus points) but claims to know what an omnipotent universe-creator wants him to do (points deducted). If you accept the notion of an all-powerful creator, there's literally no way to comprehend it.
Al wrote: "Disclaimer: I'm on the atheist edge of the agnostic spectrum though your mileage may vary depending on topic and context."
I am officially agnostic, because there's no way (currently) to either prove or disprove the existence of God, but I am operationally atheist in day-to-day living because I don't see enough evidence for a creator's intervention.
Also: due to my poor phrasing, my comments regarding Mother Theresa above might be rightly interpreted as approving of her and her mission. I do not. I find her behavior to be just as bad as that of Pope Benedict (the current guy who looks like Emperor Palpatine), and to have caused misery to hundreds of thousands of people. I'm just saying she lived her life closer to what Christ taught than any other contemporary Christians.
Also: day two of the diet, so I'm almost certainly crankier than usual. But in the spirit of the internet and poor judgement, it's not going to keep me from posting. :p 
Obviously you'll have to elaborate on why you found Theresa's behavior so reprehensible :PWe made it to page two before going totally overboard on religious debating. Such restraint!
Point of interest: is any truly honest person not an agnostic?
The problem Trike and Phillip may be facing is that language is imprecise. For the sake of argument, grant that the creator of the universe did indeed write Ten Commandments, and that they are definition points for absolute morality. But what exactly did he mean when he said "Thou shalt not kill?" Period, end of story? What about self defense, or in war? Does it apply to abortion? Contraception? Further, it seems to me that no matter how much that commandment was elaborated upon, we'd still have no concrete idea of what exactly the rules are. Not to mention keeping that elaboration accurate through translation.
Well, so begins interpretation. We must also interpret what exactly Jesus meant by telling the rich man to give up his material goods, while also instructing us to love our neighbors. And guessing at Trike's response to my opening question, or at least what an objectivist would argue, charity can sometimes do more harm than good for a person. Is there a contradiction? Regardless of your opinion, it requires interpretation.
What I'm getting at is that a Christian must acknowledge that morality is as unknowable as the existence of a creator. The only answer is to act according to your convictions, while acknowledging that said convictions are inherently subjective. Good luck?
But presuming Phillip is aware of this fact, give him a break, eh? (If he's not, well then he's on his own.)
But to Phillip's greater point, I think, I agree with his assessment that can't we all just get along? All too often, Christians (and every other religious kind, to be fair), so sure of their convictions, judge the world, to the consternation of many, Norman and his wife included. But atheists are no less prone to this non-sense. You are not wrong, Trike, in pointing out that the Christian cannot know what is really Right and Wrong, but I find your approach as regrettable as the Christians in Norman's town. Besides, by your own words, the rules are up for debate, so how can you so easily judge the American Christian?
Mod Steve wrote: "Although The Moon is a Harsh Mistress was not well received, largely for its political opinions, when discussed on S&L, consider books by Robert A. Heinlein...
In more general terms, it slightly upsets me when people declare that they do not like a story because of it's religious opinion, political position and so forth because they disagree with it. It is FICTION people! The author can present any politics or religion that they darn-well want in their story. The reader should not determine that they then dislike the book because of that, but embrace its intent. Perhaps the author is describing a Christian/socialist ideal, or putting a positive spin on a communist future, not because they like the idea, but because they consider it necessary to their fiction."
Well, what I didn't like in The Moon is a Harsh Mistress wasn't necessarily the ideas themselves, but how they were presented by soapboaxing. The professor seemed too obviously a mouthpiece for the view Heinlein seemed sympathetic towards -- but even if Heinlein wasn't sympathetic to those ideas, the professor was nonetheless allowed to monologue at length and the few times he was challenged by other characters they brought up straw-man arguments that were easily dismissed, and the professor's official enemies were consistently presented as bureaucratic pin-heads and/or fools.
That's a good way to indicate with neon lights who the good guys and bad guys are, but it doesn't make for a very nuanced or interesting exploration of an idea. This was balanced some by the revolution on the moon not taking the exact the shape intended by the professor's ideology, so the book overall wasn't as simplistic a 'Moon Libertarianism Yay!' set-up as it seemed half-way through, but the earlier soapboaxing still kept me from enjoying it fully.
Contrast this with Frank Herbert's interest in political and religious ideas in the Dune series (I'm only talking *Frank*'s work - I haven't read his son's Dune books). There is no one idea that is presented as the right idea of how to best govern -- it is instead a continually open question explored in the books.
For instance, Paul is the messianic leader who frees Dune, right? Who could be a better good guy than that? Well in Dune itself he greatly fears the cult of personality building around him, as well of the religion-fueled violence ('the galactic jihad') the fundamentalist Fremen could unleash on the rest of galaxy in his name, and these and other problematic consequences of his rebellion are explored in the subsequent books. Likewise, Paul promises that Dune will be ecologically remade into a green, un-harsh world. Great, right? Except that this process is shown in the later books as sapping the strength of the Fremen culture and creating its own backlash and problems.
This kind of complex give-and-take of the *consequences* of political ideas and actions is a much richer experience than soapboaxing. That's the kind of give-and-take I think Heinlein got right in Moon by having the revolution sway a bit from the professor's ideals.
And, bringing it (somewhat) back to the topic at hand, I was similarly annoyed by the anti-Christian soapboaxing in The Mists of Avalon, even though I'm an agnostic. Again, it was multiple examples of characters giving obvious speeches seeming to telegraph the author's point of view, instead of the author taking the harder tack of *showing* the consequences of opposing ideas through events in the story (let's see Christian oppression instead of have Merlin monologue about it). Like Moon is a Harsh Mistress (but to a lesser degree), this was mitigated by some additional nuance in Mists' conclusion, but the soapboxing nonetheless diminished my enjoyment of the book.
Partially, this is related to the the old *show, don't tell* rule of writing good fiction.
Gets 'em every time! 
As someone who went from being raised rationalist, moved to fundamentalist, then to mainstream, then to apathetist, I still enjoy very much reading books that discuss issues of faith and reason because its in that place where one thing becomes another that truly interesting stories lie.(I define faith as any belief one has that cannot be disproven by any means)
So with that in mind and agreeing with the list above, I thought I would add a couple of others:
Anathem by Neil Stephenson because it is blazingly creative and delightfully inverted.
Kraken by China Mieville because it dares take fundamentalism - of any kind, seriously.
Any of the Alex Benedict novels by Jack McDevitt because no one else I've read conjures a sense of the majesty and wonder of an empty universe like him.
Al wrote: "Boots wrote: "Jason wrote: "As a side note, I was once told by a Rabbi that "atheists are closest to the divine, because they reject the false interpretations of the divine". Not sure what that means, but there ..."If you have no god then you have no false god and If he knew that you are a Christian then it was his way of saying you would be better off as an atheist because you chose the wrong god.
I don't think that's what he meant.
God in this tradition is in essence beyond category or description; hence any interpretation is necessarily wrong. The best one can hope for is a system that points to God and leads one deeper into his/her/its presence. Sort of like a good fantasy novel."
That seems like a far more accurate interpretation. After rereading what I had written it seems to come across far more jaded than I had meant it to be.
Speaking of other religions, I believe it's Hinduism that has (or at least had) a tradition where priests would sit in a circle and each, in turn, would attempt to explain what God was. The one who "succeeded" was not the individual who described the concept the most succinctly but the one who, in articulating the concept, drove the others, and eventually himself, to silenced awe at the profundity of just what it was they were trying to express. They believed that in that inexpressible moment beyond the words of man was to be found the truth of the divine.In Islam there is the similar concept of "Allahu akbar", which I've been given to understand doesn't mean "God is great," but rather, "God is greater." meaning simply that whatever you think God is, God is beyond even that greatest thing you can conceive.
Oddly, I look at the universe in a similar way. Though, instead of trying to explain that myself, I'll let Neil deGrasse Tyson do it for me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpfoLv...
Doug wrote: "Oddly, I look at the universe in a similar way. Though, instead of trying to explain that myself, I'll let Neil deGrasse Tyson do it for me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpfoLvlA6... " Tyson expresses his joy and wonder so eloquently. You can see why he was Sagan's protege. This is exactly how I feel. To gaze into the depths of the universe, or from a mountain at a grand vista - or, if you take a little more time and effort, into the micro word - creates in me a sense of awe and wonder which I imagine is what people mean when they talk of spiritual experiences. While I personally believe that the aim of loss of individuality and merging with the godhead that so many religions (Buddhism most obviously, but sometimes Christianity and Islam too) espouse as an ultimate goal is abhorrent, when completely consumed by the wonder of the universe for a time it does feel as though I cease to exist in the face of the grandeur.
I would throw my hat in for some Terry Pratchett action, especially Small Gods. While the book is actually about a real god and (Discworld's equivalent of God himself, in fact) it is a parody of Christianity, and, from an atheistic point of view, I got a kick out of the fact that the religion in the book is so ridiculous, but when you compare it to real life it's pretty much the same, which highlights how ridiculous religion is. 
Raised Christian, I no longer adhere to any specific religion but remain a very spiritual person. I do share many atheist views, especially as it pertains to organized religion, being a huge fan of the both Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens. The subject of organized religion and the harmful impact it has on our growth as both a species and society is a central theme in my novel, Known Afterlife.That shameless plug for my novel aside, the esoteric tone heard through out the book would most likely not resonate with an atheist POV. Two novels I highly recommend are "Childhood's End" by Arthur C. Clark and "Anathem" by Neal Stephenson.
Childhood's End, written by one of the godfathers of sci-fi, follows a peaceful alien invasion of Earth resulting in a near-utopia. The novel touches on several thought provoking subjects such as the imposed transcendence of the human life form. Written in and partially set in the 50's, Clark's vision of the future remains novel and applicable to our present now.
Anathem is a 1000+ pages "doorstopper" based around characters within an ancient cult of intellectuals dedicated to the exploration of math and science. It starts slow and, while not lacking in some good action, not what I would call a fast past thriller. More over, it is the premise that keeps you engaged and remains one of the best novels I have read in applying and explaining how quantum mechanics impact our daily existence. Viewing quantum mechanics as the bridge between science and spirituality, I have studied the subject via several non-fiction books and/or documentaries ("The Dancing Wu Li Masters" by Gary Zukav and "The Quantum Activist" by Amit Goswami being two of my favorites). Comfortable with my laymen's understanding of it all, Anathem's first person narrative and classic hero's journey expanded my view without being didactic or dry.
Oh, in addition to my previous suggestion of Small Gods, I also think the Incarnations of Immortality series by Piers Anthony would be a good read for this. Specifically For Love of Evil.The series is set in a world where science and magic co-exist, and the roles of certain mythological entities (Death, Time, War, etc) are actually offices that are filled by mortals, and each book follows the story of how a particular person comes into each office, and how they deal with the problems of that office. The first five books cover Death, Time, Fate, War and Mother Nature, and then the book I mentioned, which follows Satan, and that is followed by God's tale (There is another following Nox that I only recently found out about, but I haven't read that one yet).
A constant theme throughout the series is the incarnations battling against Satan to even things up in the battle of good and evil in the absence of an active God, who doesn't get involved. I particularly recommend For Love of Evil because, while the others cover a time span roughly that of the protagonists life, Evil starts during the middle ages, showing the protagonist's path to becoming Satan himself, and continues through to when Bearing an Hourglass is set (some time in the near future), and depicts his struggle with his denizens, his hands-off opponent, and the black and white nature of Christian judgement.
Sorry, that was a bit of a long winded endorsement. In truth, the first book in this series, On a Pale Horse, is the first book I really read (as in voluntarily, for fun), and the series has always been a little special to me.
Norman, this isn't a book suggestion, but introduce her to Tim Minchin's you tube videos and she won't feel so alone. Brilliant atheist musical comedy. Always a pick-me-up for me. The one about the pope... Yeah, I laughed so hard. Oh my, that is funny stuff. Thank you for the introduction to Tim Minchin, I am now a fan. 
Trike wrote: "My major beef with Christians is that most people who self-identify as such -- and I include you, Philip -- clearly haven't read what Christ supposedly said. "
Well, it depends on whether you take it literally or see it as a didactic use of hyperbole.
....pokes in...I smell a lot philosophy in here... oh and I worship Terry Pratchett with the love and devotion most.Christians have for Billy Graham... Small Gods is brilliant.
Norman wrote: "Terry Pratchett [...] is brilliant." Quoted for truth.
Also, the best books I've ever read have been about philosophy in a scifi context. Has anyone mentioned Dune yet? A quick in-page search tells me that yes someone has. The story is well written and the characters are very interesting but it was the philosophical concepts the books grapple with that made me fall so madly in love with them.
The Dune series is still some of my all-time favorite literature, possibly only trumped by Douglas Adams.
It just so happens that on a recent episode of East Meets West(one of Tom's 73 other podcasts), they discuss this very topic. It's a good example of non-Christian geeks discussing Christianity & other belief systems with thoughtful consideration, like many of the posts in this thread.http://bit.ly/xS0sq3
FertileSpade wrote: "Check yourself. Might want to check what Tolkien thought about the subject, but then again what did he know, just a literary giant and father of fantasy." I believe tolkein was mentally ill as well as being a literary giant so perhaps his views on the subject aren't as valuable as one would think.
First I highly recommend Ready Player One and not just because Ernest Cline is a "non-believer" but its a great book. :)I used to be similar as an atheist, looking for material that would represent my beliefs, but I began to realize that preaching to the choir was pointless. I was set in my beliefs and I probably wasn't going to change anyone else's especially by my reading choices, so while I appreciate a good rant I just read what I like irregardless.
But if she wants the comfort of her beliefs while surrounded by a sea of contrast I'd suggest a little non-fiction band-aid maybe. Something like Christopher Hitchens "God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything" or "The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever". Personally I keep a copy of "The Atheist's Bible: An Illustrious Collection of Irreverent Thoughts" in my car at all times for a bit of sanity when it gets a little too crazy.
Cheers to you both though, and best of luck.
Batman is my God, sometimes the Doctor. In general Religion is understandable that it makes ones life more bearable but not acceptable when taken too seriously. 
I guess I'm an atheist who don't label myself an atheist or argue the point, usually. The only time I do that is when somebody religious angers me by telling me what I should or shouldn't do, like not read a certain book, or that I should take my child to church. I think I've had so much anger from religious people managing to always push their ideas upon me (starting from being forced to go to church because church people knocked on my door and persuaded my mom to force me to go to make friends in a new country) that when that happens, I go on a rampage, bordering on hatred. Luckily, I eventually calm down. I guess that comes from not healthily expressing my atheism, but keeping it quiet. I guess I'm hoping that if I don't mention it, then the religious folks won't pester me. Somehow, it doesn't always work. 
Darren wrote: "Really? I thought the Culture was very much atheistic. I've only read Consider Phlebas and "A Few Notes on the Culture," though. " I've read four Culture novels now, and the basic idea seems to be that most Culture citizens are atheists by default, but every now and then they will decide to believe in a god or religion for the usual Culture reasons (a whim, for the experience, etc).
You could try the Narnia trilogy.jk ALL GLORY TO THE HYPNOTOAD
Samurisloth wrote: "FertileSpade wrote: "Check yourself. Might want to check what Tolkien thought about the subject, but then again what did he know, just a literary giant and father of fantasy."I believe tolkein wa..."
Sigh.....ok ok, I'll bite. What good reasons do you have for believing JRT was mentally ill?
Noel wrote: "Sigh.....ok ok, I'll bite. What good reasons do you have for believing JRT was mentally ill? " just to jump in here.....Tom Bombadill? ;)
Aloha wrote: "I guess I'm an atheist who don't label myself an atheist or argue the point, usually. The only time I do that is when somebody religious angers me by telling me what I should or shouldn't do, like not read a certain book, or that I should take my child to church." The book comment made me think of a book we read recently in my Post-War Japanese Literature class, a book which, if anyone is interested, is called Silence and is by Endo Shusaku; not sci-fi, but I highly recommend it. The author is a Japanese Christian and the novel is about a Christian Priest who came to Japan after the country closed its doors to outsiders and persecuted the religion. I mention it because in spite of its generally pro-religion story (or so I see it) the pope hated and blacklisted it, perhaps because it placed importance on personal belief rather than following the church blindly. It's this kind of thing which I also hate. I'm neither an atheist nor a Christian, but have respect for both groups so long as they respect the right of others to have a different idea.
I'm Catholic and I found Contact to be a brilliant bit of writing (and film making) that explored the nature of faith and non-faith in a pretty good way. Of course I'm also looking at the portrayal of Ellie in both cases through the lens that might different if I were atheist. Thanks, Ruth, for the recommendation. As much as I get into an anti-religion fervor when something pisses me off, I really hate seeing people's belief being laughed at. I do argue for people's right to state their non-belief as much as people's right to state their belief. Most of all, I prefer respect and not imposing one's belief on the other person.Ruth wrote: "Aloha wrote: "I guess I'm an atheist who don't label myself an atheist or argue the point, usually. The only time I do that is when somebody religious angers me by telling me what I should or shoul..."
stranger in a strange land is a great book. I just finished it. I enjoyed his style of writing, but the book was dated for me. Aloha wrote: "I just finished it. I enjoyed his style of writing, but the book was dated for me." Wow, that was quick! :D It's a fair comment; I guess since I'm reading a lot of books from the post war era I didn't really notice. I like the way Endo tackles religion without it becoming overly preachy or telling the reader what to think.
Oh, and I totally agree with your earlier comment about beliefs being laughed at. People tend to hold their beliefs pretty close, and it hurts to have them directly mocked. I don't mind poking fun at things, in the way the film 'Dogma' did, but there is a difference between this and trying to make out that someone is an idiot for believing in god, or not doing, or whatever.
Sorry, Ruth, I meant Stranger in a Strange Land. I go through books quickly, but not that quick! But there is research that support listening to an audio during sleep can enhance learning. Ha! I need to take that to the debate over audiobooks.http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/...
I'm with you on not making people feel like an idiot, as long as someone's not treading on your toes with their belief, like banning books that they feel blaspheme their religion, or opposing gay marriages.
Haha, I WAS surprised! That makes more sense now. I'm dumb. :PToo, too true. Actions that people take because of their beliefs are a different matter.
Well, in Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and Grey Mouser stories, religions are basically consumerist. Little-known deities with one minister start in rundown shacks at the bottom of the Street of the Gods in the city of Lankhmar, then move further up the street into more impressive temples as they gain followers and popularity, and move back down the street as their popularity wanes. The only exception is the black temple at the top of the Street of the Gods, the temple to the Gods of Lankhmar (the rest are just the gods in Lankhmar), and they are not prayed to--only feared. Raymond E. Feist's Midkemia books are pretty typical epic fantasy (based on his own D&D game). But you eventually learn in the Serpentwar Saga that the gods were created by human belief, not the other way around.
Gods created by human belief?????? How could that possibly be? Whoever heard of such a thing. 
"Lord of Light" would be my pickIm a christian agnostic in that I think Christ was real and great, an insurrectionist and arguably the first socialist theorist, just not divine....
I am thinking about writing some form of Christian Science Fiction.This Present Darkness could be considered Christian Fantasy, so would The Left Behind books be some form of futuristic Christian Sci-Fi?
I am a christian and I don't recommend them. I believe they may have shaped public policy, such as President Bush's decision to ignore the UN, may have been a result of the thoughts produced by those books.
From Book 4 and on the series has literary problems.
I'm an atheist and I can safely say that I don't search out books that tout atheism at all. It's more that books that truck out religion tend not to make it to my bookshelf and if they do, they rarely stay long enough to make a lasting impression. And by this, I don't mean that I avoid books that contain religion at all (See GRRM's A Song of Ice and Fire, Hyperion, Tigana) but I tend to have issues with books that seem to actively promote existing religions.And in fact, I would actively advise against reading books that actively promote atheism just as much as I would advise against promoting books that promote any judeo-christian or any other religion. And this is mostly because some folk out there fail to realise that atheists can be just as devout in their belief that there is no god/gods/deified foodstuffs as any religious person.
For someone who's new to the Sci-Fi world, I'd recommend the likes of Hitchiker's Guide and Ready Player One on the lighter side of things, they're both fun to read and easy to get into. Ready Player One is basically 80s Geek Culture for Dummies, it covers just about everything: books, movies, music and games and even if she doesn't like the book itself, it may inspire a starting point.
For more space-opera style sci-fi, you can't go far wrong with Leviathan Wakes or Hyperion.
As has already been mentioned, it might be best to pick up a selection of sci-fi anthologies to read through and see what authors you like and then pursue their other works.
add: link cover
Welcome back. Just a moment while we sign you in to your Goodreads account.
Source: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/750308-any-atheists-any-at-all?page=2
0 Response to "Funny Quotes Poking Fun at Attheists"
Postar um comentário