Anne Rice

good interview. interesting woman. thanks for the good questions josh. i'm always fascinated by people who do 180 degree turns of faith, in any direction, let alone an author who does it. thanks again.

Kasey's right -this was a good interview. Good questions -there was no sugar coating yet it was respectful -as it should be. Nice going. Thanks for the read.

She seems to have some selective memory.

Anyway...here's her Amazon post:

Seldom do I really answer those who criticize my work. In fact, the entire development of my career has been fueled by my ability to ignore denigrating and trivializing criticism as I realize my dreams and my go...als. However there is something compelling about Amazon's willingness to publish just about anything, and the sheer outrageous stupidity of many things you've said here that actually touches my proletarian and Democratic soul. Also I use and enjoy Amazon and I do read the reviews of other people's books in many fields. In sum, I believe in what happens here. And so, I speak. First off, let me say that this is addressed only to some of you, who have posted outrageously negative comments here, and not to all. You are interrogating this text from the wrong perspective. Indeed, you aren't even reading it. You are projecting your own limitations on it. And you are giving a whole new meaning to the words "wide readership." And you have strained my Dickensean principles to the max. I'm justifiably proud of being read by intellectual giants and waitresses in trailer parks,in fact, I love it, but who in the world are you? Now to the book. Allow me to point out: nowhere in this text are you told that this is the last of the chronicles, nowhere are you promised curtain calls or a finale, nowhere are you told there will be a wrap-up of all the earlier material. The text tells you exactly what to expect. And it warns you specifically that if you did not enjoy Memnoch the Devil, you may not enjoy this book. This book is by and about a hero whom many of you have already rejected. And he tells you that you are likely to reject him again. And this book is most certainly written -- every word of it -- by me. If and when I can't write a book on my own, you'll know about it. And no, I have no intention of allowing any editor ever to distort, cut, or otherwise mutilate sentences that I have edited and re-edited, and organized and polished myself. I fought a great battle to achieve a status where I did not have to put up with editors making demands on me, and I will never relinquish that status. For me, novel writing is a virtuoso performance. It is not a collaborative art. Back to the novel itself: the character who tells the tale is my Lestat. I was with him more closely than I have ever been in this novel; his voice was as powerful for me as I've ever heard it. I experienced break through after break through as I walked with him, moved with him, saw through his eyes. What I ask of Lestat, Lestat unfailingly gives. For me, three hunting scenes, two which take place in hotels -- the lone woman waiting for the hit man, the slaughter at the pimp's party -- and the late night foray into the slums --stand with any similar scenes in all of the chronicles. They can be read aloud without a single hitch. Every word is in perfect place. The short chapter in which Lestat describes his love for Rowan Mayfair was for me a totally realized poem. There are other such scenes in this book. You don't get all this? Fine. But I experienced an intimacy with the character in those scenes that shattered all prior restraints, and when one is writing one does have to continuously and courageously fight a destructive tendency to inhibition and restraint. Getting really close to the subject matter is the achievement of only great art. Now, if it doesn't appeal to you, fine. You don't enjoy it? Read somebody else. But your stupid arrogant assumptions about me and what I am doing are slander. And you have used this site as if it were a public urinal to publish falsehood and lies. I'll never challenge your democratic freedom to do so, and yes, I'm answering you, but for what it's worth, be assured of the utter contempt I feel for you, especially those of you who post anonymously (and perhaps repeatedly?) and how glad I am that this book is the last one in a series that has invited your hateful and ugly responses. Now, to return to the narrative in question: Lestat's wanting to be a saint is a vision larded through and through with his characteristic vanity. It connects perfectly with his earlier ambitions to be an actor in Paris, a rock star in the modern age. If you can't see that, you aren't reading my work. In his conversation with the Pope he makes observations on the times which are in continuity with his observations on the late twentieth century in The Vampire Lestat, and in continuity with Marius' observations in that book and later in Queen of the Damned. The state of the world has always been an important theme in the chronicles. Lestat's comments matter. Every word he speaks is part of the achievement of this book. That Lestat renounced this saintly ambition within a matter of pages is plain enough for you to see. That he reverts to his old self is obvious, and that he intends to complete the tale of Blackwood Farm is also quite clear. There are many other themes and patterns in this work that I might mention -- the interplay between St.Juan Diago and Lestat, the invisible creature who doesn't "exist" in the eyes of the world is a case in point. There is also the theme of the snare of Blackwood Farm, the place where a human existence becomes so beguiling that Lestat relinquishes his power as if to a spell. The entire relationship between Lestat and Uncle Julien is carefully worked out. But I leave it to readers to discover how this complex and intricate novel establishes itself within a unique, if not unrivalled series of book. There are things to be said. And there is pleasure to be had. And readers will say wonderful things about Blood Canticle and they already are. There are readers out there and plenty of them who cherish the individuality of each of the chronicles which you so flippantly condemn. They can and do talk circles around you. And I am warmed by their response. Their letters, the papers they write in school, our face to face exchanges on the road -- these things sustain me when I read the utter trash that you post. But I feel I have said enough. If this reaches one reader who is curious about my work and shocked by the ugly reviews here, I've served my goals. And Yo, you dude, the slang police! Lestat talks like I do. He always has and he always will. You really wouldn't much like being around either one of us. And you don't have to be. If any of you want to say anything about all this by all means Email me at Anneobrienrice@mac.com. And if you want your money back for the book, send it to 1239 First Street, New Orleans, La, 70130. I'm not a coward about my real name or where I live. And yes, the Chronicles are no more! Thank God!

Thanks, guys. Was def shooting for the right balance of "hard hitting" and respectful. She was super nice.

Does anyone here actually remember what went down on the Cult forums? I wish I had known more about the situation.

Great interview.

Nice, Brandon! I like how she gives her email and address for further discussion or disputes. Good stuff.

I don't know much about her and haven't read her books, but I'm from the area, and New Orleans used to offer tours through the Garden District where she lived, you know kind of like the Boston Duck Tours except it's a Trolley and they say, "And here's Ann Rice's house!"

But I've heard she doesn't shy from the tourists and is quite nice to everyone.

I had always thought the whole thing with her on the Cult was someone making a thread with that Amazon outburst and then some practical joker on here making a second account for trolling purposes.

Actually her theological road makes sense:

1. Raised Catholic, turned by the extraneous nature of it all.
2. In reaction becomes atheist, because if God isn't [insert your brand of faith] then there is no God.
3. Rethinks this track, and logically returns to previous thinking, this as a side-effect of having a spiritual need with nothing to fulfill it.
4. Realizes that Catholic is still Catholic even after realizing that atheism can't fulfill - so settles for freelance status until she finds the right "fit" or whatever.

This kind of thinking happens everyday, around the globe. People, when they are on the cusp of a change within themselves, tend to overreact, like over-correcting when you feel the car begin to skid. "I hate my [current faith] and since it is my faith, it must be that way with all, and it must be that way b/c God wants it that way, why else would it be so?" and on and on and on... so you jump from follower to atheist. Then you sit there, alone with your higher thinking realizing that you aren't getting what you need there either, and that atheism is just another form of fanaticism that stems from three basic groups, and when that doesn't set well with you anymore, you have a real decision to make, and you vacillate somewhat between the two ends of the spectrum you've made for yourself. And you eventually find yourself in a happy medium (no pun intended) between blind faith and stoic adherence to impossible ideals. But this requires effort, something that few people are prepared to redirect from more important projects such as Madden 2010, Mundane Job, the Quest for a Partner, or DWTS.

At least she's honest with herself and her audience about it. I applaud that on its own merits.

Just my opinion, but I think your assessment of atheism is way off, dude.

Very few people go from a believer to a non-believe is one quick motion. Even if they have been disappointed by their church, there is generally at least one more step between quitting a particular faith and realizing your an atheist.

Of course, I also don't think people "become" atheists, as you put it. It isn't a choice that you make; you don't wake up one day and say "I think I'm not going to believe in Gods today".

Additionally, I don't know if you're talking entirely in hypotheticals or not here, but being an atheist can be very fulfilling. Some people seem to need some sort of religion to function, just like some people need to pound out kids to feel like they are worthwhile. Like anything in life, you get what you want out of it.

Hey Kirk,

Not my assessment, but just my Venn diagram based on 1) this interview, 2) my experience, 3) Anne's particular situation, dude. After over twenty years on the subject, I think I have a pretty accurate take on what it means, atheist or new atheist and all points in between. I dumbed this down and made quite a reduction of it all, sure, but then it was just a post.

Agreed. But your "very few" can also jive with my "this happens everyday" - both are correct in a purely numerical/statistical standpoint. And I alluded to that "one more step" you speak of if you look at the four point bulletin I listed. I simplified this, of course, but I think I illustrated Anne's overreaction (even used the word) to the Catholic Church, running to atheism as the solution, which it turned out, for her, was not. If she had given it more thought, she might have skipped one of those over-corrections and arrived at her current iteration of faith all the sooner.

I'm not sure I follow you here. You are either raised one or you aren't. Right? So you have to "become" one at some point. Atheism is by far the minority among the many brands of faith out there (make no mistake about it, it IS a brand of faith), so I can't imagine all these people were born this way. Something, somewhere, had to move an individual to entertain, adopt, and exercise this belief. Being an atheist is no different from being a baptist, a deist, animist, shaman - you choose your particular flavor of faith. No one is just simply "born" that way - the only way under which you can explain being something without choice. That or someone has a gun to your head, but even that involves a "choice"

That's a subject I'd love to discuss in another thread, at length, should you want to. But for now, my experience has shown that atheists, and I'm sure there are more exotic anomalies, come from three distinct areas:

1) fed up with religion. religion has been the leader in bloodshed, the leader in hypocrisy, lies, class inequities, prejuices, suffering, injustices, greed, etc... many see this and since religion cries all actions are done in the name of God, surely there must be no God. And if the God that exists is what they are selling, I'm not buying...

2) due to the aforementioned that we see in the world, why would God allow it? If I were God I'd fix this stuff pronto, or at least wipe the slate clean. If genocide, torture, and all the darkest and ugliest of mankind's imagination are allowed to exist, in fact flourish, free reign, there must be no God. If he isn't going to at least clear his name, and surely he would have by now, he must not exist...

3)Finally, there are those who simply chafe at the idea of being accountable to anyone but themselves. Authority, especially any authority that exists in an impersonal, omnipotent, inflexible state, is to be shunned. Let me live my life how I want to live it.

When an atheist comes to be from one of these three reactionary mindsets (all of which are proper and accurate, I might add, albeit presented here in hyperbole, for effect, and not without their problems as far as perception is concerned) one tends to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I don't doubt that many atheists live fulfilling lives. But they find themselves filling their spiritual needs by putting square pegs into round holes. Some of the more popular atheists of our day fulfill that need by adopting a cause (see Harris, Dennet, Dawkins, Maher, Stewart, Fry, and others) not unlike causes one might witness among those who proselytize their own flavors of faith.

Being an atheist I'm sure can be fulfilling, but just as you said, like someone who feels the need to have some sort of religion to function, others feel the need to be free from the "constraints" associated with the existence of a god. They cannot function within the context of being accountable to a creator/deity/god. All sorts of unwanted strings come attached with that, typically. So if you don't like what you've seen of god as presented by brand x (catholic, mormon, hindu, etc...) it is far easier to simply reject the overall notion of a god than it is to investigate further (hence my line about Madden et al).

I'm not sure I follow you here. You are either raised one or you aren't. Right? So you have to "become" one at some point. Atheism is by far the minority among the many brands of faith out there (make no mistake about it, it IS a brand of faith), so I can't imagine all these people were born this way. Something, somewhere, had to move an individual to entertain, adopt, and exercise this belief. Being an atheist is no different from being a baptist, a deist, animist, shaman - you choose your particular flavor of faith. No one is just simply "born" that way - the only way under which you can explain being something without choice. That or someone has a gun to your head, but even that involves a "choice"

This is where I think our opinions and understanding of the subject greatly conflict. This is an argument I hear frequently from those who are religious. Atheism is not a brand of faith. It is not exactly the same as being a baptisit, diest, animist or shaman. It is in fact, the complete opposite of those things. The only reason this has come up as a common argument, as I see it, is because the religious can't wrap their head around the idea of not having a spiritual-belief system at all.

In fact, I could argue that we are in fact all born atheists, contrary to your claim that no one is born that way. You have to make a child religious, just like (as an extreme example) you can make a racist. No children pop out of their moms and automatically hate people of other races. It is a learned behavior.

This comes perfectly to your "3 ways a person becomes an atheist". Though I agree that for many atheists, what you claim is true, you're forgetting the 4th option. So I'm going to add it.

4. People who were raised without a strong sense of faith either for or against and have never felt a reason to need God or religion in their lives.

The options you seem to list are all reactionary... "I don't believe in God because he does(n't) this or that." Admittedly, many atheists do get there because of such reasons. However many do not.

Myself, for instance. If I ask my Mom, she believes in a "higher power", she also believes in astrology and psychics. She was raised Lutheran, as was the rest of my extended family. She never took me to service as a child, probably because as a single mother she was always working to provide for me as best as she could. There were a few times I went to a Christian church with one of my best friends (who I have known for 25ish years) as his family was very religious and they invited me along.

Even at a young age, I remember specifically thinking that it was ridiculous that the adults in church believed the stories we were being told. To me, the story of Christ was no more believable than Santa. I recall talking to my friend about it and how he was just as shocked that I didn't believe the tales.

The only thing that I think atheists miss out on is the sense of community that a church can create. Thankfully, this is 2010 and meeting fellow atheists is easy. And from those that I know, living a fulfilling life isn't like "fitting a square peg into a round hole". We have our causes, that is true, but I can't see how that is a negative in any way. I have 2 causes that I frequently consider:

1) Helping believers understand what an atheist actually is. This often includes answering questions like "if you don't believe in god why don't you murder everyone?"

2) Involving myself in church/state issues. Something that oddly enough, actually benefits the religious more than it benefits me.

Lastly, you say this

Being an atheist I'm sure can be fulfilling, but just as you said, like someone who feels the need to have some sort of religion to function, others feel the need to be free from the "constraints" associated with the existence of a god. They cannot function within the context of being accountable to a creator/deity/god.

Obviously I don't have any research I can point to for this, but I have yet to meet an atheist that has claimed they are an atheist so they don't have to follow a God's rules. I think that is a pretty odd claim, in fact. I have however had many Christians tell me that the reason they do good things is so they don't go to Hell. I rarely like to judge morals, but when I have heard that, the only thing I can think is that I am, without a doubt, a better person.

Some people need spirituality in their lives. I get that. It's romantic. But for many of us, it is unnecessary. I've never attempted to convince someone to drop their religion and I never would. I have however had many different types of Christians show up at my doorstep to tell me about Jesus.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it was this:

In fact, I'm almost sure it was either Corellion or Mikandrewz (think more likely the latter).

Good interview, though!

Wait, so her "freaking out" on the Cult was a fake? No wonder she had no recollection. Damn.

It seemed real to me. It was pretty elaborate.

Also, to jump into this fracas, I agree with Kirk. Atheism is NOT a faith. Believing in the cold, hard, verifiable facts of science is not the same as believing in a bearded man in the clouds.

Scientists lie

Dickensean Principles Cat

And yet another flame war between two camps.

I am intrigued. I consider myself neither 'religious' or 'atheistic' moreover 'Rational Humanist' - make of that what you will.

However, to argue consistently over the small print of each others comments will ultimately result in a stalemate - each not wanting to back down.

In some respects I agree with the point that 'Atheism is not a belief', but my problem lies with the word in it self, still denoting a bias of some kind.

I do find Anne Rice's comment:

"...I don't believe vampires exist. I can't combine them because I do believe angels exist and I do believe in God and I can't really bring those surreal, fictional vampires into anything profound about Jesus or God."

...rather contradictory, but more for my own amusement.

But what the hell, I could've said nothing, I could've read some of her books [to date: only the 'Interview' film watched, the 'Queen of the Damned' fell asleep through] and yes, I expect inflammatory comments left, right and centre.

If only I cared.

Atheists are born! Just like gays and damn dirty gingers!

I remember reading it. I'm pretty sure it was her. It wasn't written like an alt. It was written like a pissed off person trying to defend herself.

Theologians and the faithful lie more.

Atheism is not, nor ever was a religion. Hell everyone is an atheist to a large extent, they just neglect that fact. Or to paraphrase a famous quote, atheists just take it one god farther.

I'm sorry, maybe lie is too harsh; disregard facts and are dishonest to themselves, may be more accurate.

Evidence:
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/07/11/how_facts_ba...

Kids: It's okay to threadjack as long as it takes place between an admin and a mod. Don't try this at home...

Atheism and theism both straddle the fence of science and faith – that is, in fact, fact. Theism points to Intelligent Design or whatever you wish to call it to explain the precision in astronomy, the complexity of cellular life, optic nerves, the brain, the water cycle, food chains, the precise axis, tilt, rotation and distance of the earth’s orbit, DNA, etc… Atheism points to purposeless blind chance, pure random rolling of the dice to try to explain small snapshots of these realities. Again, both call upon science and both call upon faith to "fill in the blanks", which is why atheism is a faith. It is a faith because it requires faith to make it work in one’s mind.

So children pop out of their moms with an automatic default to dismiss the idea of a god? Doubtful. But I think you’re on the right track when you say it is a learned behavior – both are. We are born blanks slates to that degree, and our earliest opinions and personality traits that are typically set in place by age 7, are as a result of association and education via parents, peers, teachers, environment, etc… we can go either way, but I doubt the default is one way or the other, I think the default is merely neutral. We are then formed and shaped from there.

I wasn’t forgetting a 4th option, I named three distinct areas with the condition for less popular options. To that, I agree with your 4th option as a viable source for atheistic thinking.

But here you contradict your own point by using the word “raised” – this implies parental input, not being born a certain way.

Agreed.

Again, this points to being raised a certain way versus little Kirk just being born a certain way.

And here we see little Kirk already subscribing to one of the three points I made earlier – hearing the ridiculous lies in church and concluding that jesus=santa, therefore god=fantasy. Understandable, but still more indicative of reactionary adaptation versus being born that way

I can’t speak to your personal viewpoint. I doubt in this day and age community is at a real loss for anyone with broadband. My square peg in a round hole analogy was more to illustrate the inability for one who claims to require no faith to live a lifestyle that still requires faith. Atheism, no matter what flavor, still requires an equal if not greater amount of faith to displace rational and scientific looks at the world and say it all came about, in this precise manner, by chance.

Kirk wrote:

1) Helping believers understand what an atheist actually is. This often includes answering questions like "if you don't believe in god why don't you murder everyone?"

Understand that you and I should probably not slot one another. I am not a creationist, i.e. I don’t hold onto the ridiculous belief that the Bible says God created the world in 6 literal days. Stupid (or perhaps ignorant) people, theist or otherwise, will always continue to posit stupid questions.

Congrats. I too have supported numerous free speech movements to ensure the ability for anyone to say what they want. I’m very protective of that one.

And I doubt you ever will, who would cop to such a thing? But the idea does exist and it is a strong motivator for some, as I have found. This expresses itself more so in the scientific/academic community, where astronomers, molecular biologists, vascular surgeons, philosophers, etc… prefer a life unencumbered by the restraints associated with accountability to a deity. As far as people doing things because they are afraid of the consequences, then they, by definition, are not Christian. But then I suspect 99% of the population would fail such a definition. Gandhi made that observation in so many words. We're back to reasons 1 and 2... And as far as being morally superior to such ones: you are. That type of thinking, definitively un-Christian I might add, betrays a selfish give-and-take mentality that has produced a planet full of Rice Christians (substitute "rice" for "reward" "pearly gates" "favor" "indulgences" "having your ears tickled" "deathbed repentance" etc...), which in turn leads to ridiculous things like prosperity theology, and the kind of behavior your "Christian" friends have confessed to you.

Romantic. Sigh. I understand, but, sigh. You view it as a crutch then? I have had the experience, on more than one occasion, of having someone tell me why I should be an atheist, how faith in a god shows severe weakness and limp moral fiber. That it betrays an inability to think for myself. But as I said before, there are crude and obnoxious people on both side of this fence... So it does seem to go both ways, granted I’m sure the numbers proselytizing faith in a god far outpace those who promote the other.

Atheism and theism both straddle the fence of science and faith – that is, in fact, fact. Theism points to Intelligent Design or whatever you wish to call it to explain the precision in astronomy, the complexity of cellular life, optic nerves, the brain, the water cycle, food chains, the precise axis, tilt, rotation and distance of the earth’s orbit, DNA, etc… Atheism points to purposeless blind chance, pure random rolling of the dice to try to explain small snapshots of these realities. Again, both call upon science and both call upon faith to "fill in the blanks", which is why atheism is a faith. It is a faith because it requires faith to make it work in one’s mind.

I purposely avoided science in this discussion, because though I am someone who is very interested in science, I also believe that questions of God are different from questions of science. There certainly can be overlap, of course, but I don't need to discuss my opinion of science when discussing God.

That said, I think you are wrong in both points here.

1) There is no "faith" required in filling in the blanks of science. The blanks are simply questions that have yet to be answered. If there is one thing we know from history it's that science will continue to explain the unexplainable. To think that the blanks that currently exist will remain is short-sighted. So I suppose you could argue I have faith that we'll figure out blanks over time for lack of a better word. But to me, having faith that your mechanic will figure out why your car doesn't start is a different type of faith than believing that God exists, he judges all of our actions, and if we don't accept him into our hearts we go to hell. To me, there is a world of difference. We need a second word to be used in place of "faith" for non-religious contexts.

2) Assuming that your dice rolling and randomness relates to evolution (if you aren't referring to evolution you can mostly disregard this), it should be noted that evolution isn't a random process. Even though it is commonly misunderstood to be. There are plenty of articles and papers you can read on this subject.

So children pop out of their moms with an automatic default to dismiss the idea of a god? Doubtful.

I should have been more clear on this. I don't think kids pop out of mom an default to the "dismiss God" mode. I do however think they are God-neutral. Again, it's a learned behavior.

But here you contradict your own point by using the word “raised” – this implies parental input, not being born a certain way.

Again, this was me not being clear enough. I was trying to illustrate, with my own experience that many people are raised like I was. Where their family doesn't push them into a particular faith and they also don't push them away from it. Had I loved going to church with my friend, I'm sure my Mom would have supported me.

Romantic. Sigh. I understand, but, sigh. You view it as a crutch then?

I personally like the term "Romantic" to describe religion. It isn't intended to be offensive, just to illustrate my opinion on it as someone looking in. The promise of an eternal life is an appealing one. (aside: Much of my favorite fiction involves spirituality, oddly enough.)

I don't know if I would say religion is a crutch, though I do think that it very often is. This of course comes back to the quality of the practitioners. Like I've said, many of my best friends are religious and I don't think I would qualify any of them as using religion as a crutch. It adds something to their lives that I simply don't "get" because I have never felt an absence in my life by not having religion.

Choosing to purposefully avoid it might make sense, but it doesn’t change the fact that atheists substitute science for god. Why believe in God when I have Science? The atheist cites science, as has already been seen in this thread, anytime the subject comes up. You can choose to avoid it, but it is there, and it is entirely relevant. Your choice. I can work around that.

Again, when one supposes to cite science as a proof that there is no god, yeah, you do – because of the blanks. What is faith? A biblical definition renders it as: the assured expectation of things not yet beheld, i.e. a belief that things not yet will in fact be, at some point in time. In that thinking, by that definition, which is the only definition I traffic in, you have faith in science, because you are confident that while the outcome to these questions isn’t in front of you yet, you are sure they will be answered to your satisfaction. That, by any definition, is faith. Seems like we both agree on that, except you don’t like the word being applied to you.

As far as your analogy of the mechanic versus god, well, seems like a difference of degree to me. A bit of a reduction comparing belief in intelligent design to whether or not Hans can get the timing right on my 240DL. So you haven’t changed the definition at all, only the degree. You are also crippling your view of God by adhering to some rather erroneous assumptions that have been promulgated by a rather poor P.R. firm in the form of organized religion, specifically Christendom. Like most atheists, and referring back to my original 3 points, you seem to be basing your idea of God on what a bunch of vocal and abhorrently misinformed at best, maliciously misguiding at worst, so-called Christians want you to believe God to be. I’d get a second opinion if I were you, if for nothing else than to approach the conversation (this is a conversation, right?) well informed. When you really find out what God is, who God is, you’ll find as I mentioned earlier, that by far the majority that claim to be “godly” are in fact the opposite.

You don’t like the word faith. Chose another - it doesn’t change the conversation at all, just your comfort level, I guess. Proximity to that which you want to be disassociated with has moved many a person to redefine who they are and what they believe. For example, when I enter into talks about creation versus evolution, I always, ALWAYS, as I have previously, insert the caveat that I am by no means a “creationist” as some would pigeon-hole all who believe in God. So I empathize…

Not evolution specifically, but in terms of the formulation of the physical world, which still falls under areas of “blank” in terms of scientific attempts to justify the astronomical precision (pun intended) that has arrived from an explosion – one of the most documented yet most random acts in the natural world - something that noted thinkers from Einstein and Heisenberg to Jastrow and Flew see as evidence of intelligent design, the less acrid word scientists substitute for god when speaking among their peers. And while you and many papers say that evolution (note, this is the current iteration of evolution, not Darwinian evolution which was based on the idea of random acts, and has been refuted and subsequently abandoned by science, but rather a flavor of evolution more closely tied to emergent or teleological ideals) is not a random process, they admit that chance events [chance event = random event] play a key role in the processes. If chance takes place in part of the process, can the process then be deemed “not random?” I can say that the Lotto isn’t random, in that it involves a set range of circumstances under which successive numbers are selected, yet there is still the fact that “chance” or the “random selection” of those numbers has to take place within that control. Therefore, the Lotto is still “random”.

I gotcha. No harm to me, just be careful as the religion of the Romantics isn’t one I’d ever adhere to, too bloody, too monetary, too colonially predatory to be genuine… Of interest to me, however, is that you 1) find “the promise of an eternal life an appealing one” and 2) you enjoy reading fiction with such a theme. And yet you say you don’t need spirituality. If I don’t need science, wouldn’t it be odd of me to keep up to date on scientific finds, or to enjoy reading the subject? My point is this: everyone has a spiritual “need” – that round hole – of varying degrees based on their experiences, environments, etc... They just choose to fill it with something else, perhaps even relabeling it as “civic duty” or “personal enrichment” or “the golden rule” - whatever. I’m not saying you’re deceiving yourself or anything that heavy-handed, but I do think it is indicative of what I’ve been talking about in this thread.

I’ll say it. It is. When I asked you if you viewed it that way, I wasn’t baiting you; I wanted your honest opinion. A crutch (or a knife) can be a good thing, a crutch (again, or a knife) can be a bad thing. If you are using it properly, then the crutch serves a purpose, to help an imperfect person live a perfect life, within their limitations. If you are the type who simply park yourselves in front of a TV, podium, pulpit, megachurch, choir, whatever –and lap up every spoon-fed drop, never checking it for fact, relevance, value and/or legitimacy, then your crutch becomes a bad thing, and you are worse off than those who choose not to believe in God. Your crutch, instead of strengthening you, has rendered you weak and unable to stand on your own. You've become too reliant upon it, and when it breaks, since it is a false crutch you've chosen to lean on, you'll fall.

And care should be taken when dismissing god based on the actions of those who profess to act in his name. This goes back to my three points, and the danger of making that leap that ‘since I do not have a satisfactory answer to my question about god (because these ignorant people cannot accurately answer them) then there must not be a god at all’. We can separate deplorable actions of government officials from our government, right? I mean, we realize the need for some form of government, we’ve seen what happens even on a small, local scale when there was no police state. But if we simply chose not to recognize any form of government at all b/c they are all corrupt (and they all are to some degree, be it socialist, communist, dictatorial, democratic, regal, tribal, etc…), where would we be? Not all religion is bad. MOST of it is – this is where many atheists are surprised by my views, even such outspoken atheists as Harris, who has very poignant words for religions that hide behind God for their reprehensible deeds. But rejecting God, to me, is a rather extreme solution to the problem of religion and what it has done to society.

how about this? Atheism isn't a religion, but Atheists are a bunch of faithful followers.
Seems a fair compromise.

I didn't read all those long posts but did anyone use the Zero is still a Number argument?

NP:

As to semantics... funny.

As to the "Zero is still a Number" - no, no one did. And thanks for getting that one out of the way ahead of time...

Snore

I feel that at this point, much of what we disagree on is a matter of semantics. Stuff that can't be agreed upon because of our opposing views. For instance

it doesn’t change the fact that atheists substitute science for god

Though this does appear to happen, I don't believe it to be the case. I certainly don't substitute science for God. Though for me, science certainly provides evidence that at the very least, disproves much of what is written in religious texts. If I were using science in place of God I would be asking science to get me through tough times, or to let me know that my grand mother is doing well in the afterlife. Sure, I think about science often, because I'm interested in the subject (particularly physics and astronomy) but I am confident that science has never consoled me in a spiritual sense. Well, other than not being scared that my plane wouldn't just fall out of the air that is.

As for the topic of "faith", my point was simply to say that I personally feel that it is an inappropriate term to be used outside of religious contexts. For the simple fact that for the general public it paints a picture of religiosity. If I say "Kirk is a person of faith", no ordinary person is going to take that to mean "Kirk has believes that given time, science will answer all questions we have about the cosmos". Which is why I am still suggesting a unique term to clarify that my faith is, yes, a "degree" of difference from yours. In fact! I have decided that I am creating a new term.

Sci-fai

If this term takes off, I will be sure to credit you in it's creation.

Of interest to me, however, is that you 1) find “the promise of an eternal life an appealing one” and 2) you enjoy reading fiction with such a theme. And yet you say you don’t need spirituality. If I don’t need science, wouldn’t it be odd of me to keep up to date on scientific finds, or to enjoy reading the subject?

1) Well, being honest, who wouldn't find that appealing? I know a lot of atheists and I'm sure that given the option to extend their short life, they would take it. I don't think it's an odd or even unusual opinion for me to have.

2) I should probably have been more clear. It's not like I am secretly a huge "Left Behind" fan. But much of my favorite fiction is about spirituality in one way or another. Some of my favorite comics for instance: Sandman, The Maxx, Lucifer, Preacher are all series that basically live in the fiction of myth, religion and spirituality. And I love a good old fashioned possession movie. And at the risk of pointing and laughing, I find Supernatual to be very entertaining.

What I find interesting about this conversation is that you seem to take a far more scholarly approach to (what I am assuming is) Christianity than most other Christians I know or have talked to. You seem to be disappointed in most Christian's interpretation of the Bible. It's odd that your opinion is that seemingly, most of them are doing it wrong.

I have to ask the obvious question here I guess. If the bulk of them aren't really getting it, why do you feel/know that you are?

Is there a particular branch that you consider yourself as belonging to?

I suppose this is one of the points that made no sense to me about the concept of God at a very early age. Not only do I have to choose the right religion, which is primarily based on where I live, but I also have to choose the correct interpretation, which was written by some random guy. It seems to me that he wouldn't make it that difficult, especially considering what is supposedly at stake.

I don't know, maybe I'm over thinking it.

Instead of substituting God with Science,

How about this! Substituting High Carbs and Bread with Science.
I'll call it the Dawkins Diet. and the packaging with have a clean, sharp modern design to it.
I'm going to be rich!!

And in the words of the eminent religious leader Brick Tamland:

I would like to extend to you an invitation to the pants party.

Atheism is not a faith of science, could also be argued that it has absolutely nothing to do with science. Atheism is simply the most logical and skeptical position one can take with respect to religion and religious ideas. I call my self a atheism with respect to religion, but I'd more consider myself a secular humanist and a skeptic.

I think we are back to semantics here. I wasn’t implying that you prayed to science, since you have no need/reason/desire for prayer. My point was that you anchor your beliefs and sci-fai not on the collected writings of religious scholars, but on the collected writings of scientific ones.

Sounds like a deal.

You do not, as it appears to me so far, represent the overall demographic when it comes to atheists. Most that I come in contact with, and granted I tend to attract the more vociferous of the bunch, conclude that any ideals remotely related to spirituality are to be banished, to be treated as nothing more than fantasy. Were you to admit sad feelings/opinions, they might shuffle you to the edge of the flock. But then I can only speak to my experience with the ones I have experience with.

I understand 100%. But again, this goes back to something less about preference and more about inherent need/predilection. Like why we find certain shapes appealing, certain colors and their meaning, sounds, etc… I think the idea that we all have an inherent need for something “spiritual” – or whatever word you wish attach to the notion of spirituality – is one worth exploring from an anthropological/social studies standpoint. I wasn’t implying that you were contradicting yourself per se, but more that even as an atheist, that on some level, conscious or not, you have a preference for a subject that, intellectually, you reject.

Disappointed isn’t the word. I alluded to the model of a P.R. firm, and that if Christianity as we have come to know it is supposed to represent the Christ as mentioned in the Bible, then the firm should have been fired centuries ago (which oddly enough, it has, even being mentioned in the same book). It troubles me, and I use the word trouble here with all the gravity it can convey, that so many people are walking around with this skewed mental image of God. I empathize with them, though. Because lets face it, if you were to take a cursory glance at religion over say, the last three thousand years, I’d walk away from it too. But for me, it comes down to wanting to understand. Good fiction (another subject I enjoy as you know) always presents the virtuous as villain, and the pure as putrid. So we read the book with an aim to getting at the truth about the character. That was how I approached it so many years ago. Of course, to add to the confusion, one has to understand that many translations of that book exist, most of which were written with agendas (King James, for example, wanted the Bible to read as though it supported the idea of a triune god – not a biblical teaching but a “borrow” from Babylon and perhaps a concession of the time, as so many religions have done, adulterating the correct practices and teaching with local customs in an effort to fill pews and therefore coffers). So to get to the most accurate version, one has to go back to the source – and I am in no position to undertake ancient Hebrew or Greek, but I can, and have, studied various translations against what I know from unadulterated sources like McClintock and Strongs, Sinatic, Leningrad, Curetonian and Alexandrian Codices, the writings of Ginsburg, Kautzsch, Cowley, Green, Mercier, and a laundry list of translations, texts and sources that would bore you to tears. To me, this was a riddle worth undoing, more than any Dan Brown novel. And why not? If it was true, then it was worth undertaking, and if it wasn’t, I could without a doubt stand on my own and deflect any who tried to convince me otherwise.

My opinion is odd? Perhaps. In the minority? Surely. But then who wants to hear it? To rob from Andrew Kevin walker’s John Doe in Se7en – you can’t just tap people on the shoulder if you want them to hear. Of course, I’m not advocating the torture and death of people as was displayed in the film, but I find myself more on Somerset’s side, where we have to understand that people don’t want heros and truths, they want cheeseburgers and cable. People don't want to adapt to religion, they want to find a religion that adapts to them. Hence the various flavors available.

I guess see above. That and if you read the Bible, you’ll see that it outlines the very scenario we find today, namely that the vast majority of those professing faith would be doing so wrongly.

Yes. I have found, based on my own studies and research (which sounds way more formal than it is) that there are a few fundamental truths about God, based on the Bible:

God is not a trinity. This was an amalgam of local and popular ideas that were “incorporated” (as mentioned above) with the purpose of using a tastier flavor of religion to subjugate a people.

God is not Jesus, but Jesus is his son. There would be no redemptive value in the sacrifice all Christians point to as being the center of their faith. If Jesus and God are the same, then this idea of the “ransom” would be a lie, a slight-of-hand substitution.

God does not torture someone eternally for 70-120 years of mistakes. This has arrived from misapplication of words such as Hades, Sheoul, and Gehenna, plus some leaps of logic and the corresponding need to ignore/downplay scriptures that flatly contradict such an idea. Plus, as mentioned, the church found that the idea of hellfire was an excellent motivator in getting people to do what they told them, which covered anything from conscription into an army of the church leader’s choice, voting, of course the giving up of their hard-earned money, etc…

God isn’t sending you and me to heaven. Look at his original purpose – if he wanted us to live in the pearly gates, why would he have gone to the trouble of making Eden? Why weren’t the first humans just made as angels or whatever? Cut to the chase, man.

God did not create the Devil, i.e. specifically an incarnation of evil to “offset and balance” the world. This is Nicean/Allegheri thinking which has roots in Greek mythology, and other extraneous sources. When you do something as simple as look at the root meaning of the word (resister, slanderer) you understand that Satan, the Devil, whichever name you choose, came about on his own. God didn’t make “a Devil” anymore than Dahmer’s parents made a perverse serial killer. Dahmer, essentially, made Dahmer. I use him as an example because, if you read his dad’s book, and watch the tapes of the interviews, you see that his childhood, other than a divorce and some cold parents (look out the window and you’ll see an ocean of people who fit that mold) was pretty uneventful. He was as self-made man.

Predestination a.k.a. Fate is not a biblical doctrine. Predestination removes choice, free will - predestination cannot mesh with the God of the Bible in any way shape or form.

Of course there are others as well.

In my study, I’ve found that while some translations are good for citing a verse for dramatic effect, or to look at a wording in a different light, yet always to amplify the original intent – I find time again that only one copy, one translation really goes to great pains and distances to ensure accuracy. To me, you cannot do any better than the New World Translation (NWT), published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, a.k.a Jehovah’s Witnesses. This choice was integral to my understanding of the whole idea of God, Jesus, etc... if you start with the most accurate translation available, then you can begin to scrape away all the extraneous “teachings” that have been layered upon our force-fed view(s) of God. From a logical/scholarly standpoint, you will find no group on earth that has more accurate take on what it means to be a Christian than they do. Unpopular? Sure. But then, cable and cheeseburgers…

But it is the very ability to choose that defines us as people, as humans – we don’t operate solely on instinct, we operate on reason and choice (and emotion, a less reliable features) as well, in pretty much all we do.

If by over thinking you mean you are thinking more than the average person, then yes. But if you mean you are thinking too much so as to make the task impossible, not even close.

Kirk, Kasey, just want to say thanks for continuing the thread on the open thread 'cause it's been satisfying to read. I had a question though for Kasey. You say Jehovah's Witnesses have the most accurate translation of God and Jesus, correct? What are your beliefs then about their religion as a whole?

I only ask because I have family that joined the Jehovah's Witnesses more than twenty years ago, and as soon as they joined they cut off all ties to us, citing how morally corrupt we were. I hear my uncle is a high ranking official now in his church located in South Carolina, and the way they require their parishoners to dole out a certain amount of money to their given parish sounds like some big ponzi scheme. I once got in an argument with a JW woman because she believed in heaven on earth, and that only a few would be saved.

Are you saying only that their Bible is the most accurate in translating what it means to believe in a Christian god and to follow the teachings of Christ? Does their version of the Bible differ to how they run their church?

Also, yes, no one is born an atheist - to my 18mo old son and since he was born he's had two gods, mom and dad. He is, as every child is, an atheist to every other god until indoctrinated into believing something else.

Cult.

I think they do, yes. As to their beliefs, given that they adhere to the Bible, root out errant and unfounded teachings, I’d have to say that they are the best you are going to get when it comes to wanting to be a true Christian.

I cannot speak to individuals, but I know that their teachings don’t support/condone this type of behavior. Again, if you go back to Jesus as portrayed in the Bible, he chose to associate with the “amharets” as the Saducees and Pharisees called them, literally “people of the earth” and this is a derogatory term, not to be confused with the generally positive term “salt of the earth”. Every religious organization is going to have those that overreact, misinterpret, or just plain refuse to do what they should be doing – I think that is something every human being faces whether we are talking about adherence to doctrine, speed limits, and clock-in times for work. So while what you say is true, I think your family, based on what you have told me, is reacting poorly, and out of line with what they have been taught.

To your point about doling out a certain amount of money, a.k.a. tithing, I’ve never heard of such a thing among JWs, in fact they frequently point out that everything they do is supported by voluntary donations, and often cite scripture that support that type of arrangement, namely that one should give out of their heart, versus compulsion – the situation you describe doesn’t seem to be the same organization, based on my experience. They do not pass plates, no atms in the building, no envelopes provided, no requests for W2s – all of which I’ve seen in other churches.

See above. Best translation out there, hands down. As far as I can see, JWs run things by relying upon accurately interpreted scripture, so I’d have to say that no, the Bible and the methodology doesn’t differ.

Joshua - that's funny, given the website we belong to.

My point was that you anchor your beliefs and sci-fai not on the collected writings of religious scholars, but on the collected writings of scientific ones.

You know that this is a false analogy, for the simple fact that science is constantly evolving, reviewed and corrected. Religious texts are not. I'm happy to accept new evidence that disproves my prior understanding of things. In fact, if Jesus comes flying out of the clouds, I'll be right there to admit I was wrong.

Also, FYI: I liked the idea of sci-fai so much that I picked up sci-fai.com, .net and .org

Anyhow, thanks for your extended explanation. You raise some interesting ideas related to Christianity that I have not been exposed to or previously considered.

You didn't change my mind on the topic, but I'm always interested in civil discussion. I think we accomplished that.

This is a whole new level of crazy.

False in what sense? The laws of physics do not change, right? Only our understanding of them. Wright brothers caught onto the principles that govern powered flight - the science was always there. Same is true with those static religious texts - one's understanding of them is what changes (aside from any willful attempt to pervert their meaning/message). That is what I was talking about.

Also, fear not: Jesus will not come flying out of the clouds - add that to my previous list of fallacies promulgated by the "choich".

Kudos on the sci-fai movement - you're probably onto something there. It'd be pronounced "sy-FAY" as in Taipei, right? Better get the etymology right up front.

Glad I could help. As I said, disappointment isn't the word when it comes to the myopic, xenophobic, reactionary view people typically take on the subject (by that I mean people who profess one thing, practice another - not those who merely have a dissenting opinion). I empathize, because at first glance, I'd feel (and have felt) the same way. I'm just glad I scratched below the surface, and am always glad when I get to talk to someone with a similar mindset - not taking things at face value, perceived or otherwise.

And my intent isn't to change your mind - again, back to free will - your mind is yours. But I'm always glad to talk, enlighten, what have you. One of the main reasons I love this place - most people are pretty open and slow to pull the trigger on things, except of course opinions on music.

Does that mean you consder Jehovah's Witnesses to have the religion that correlates the most as to who/what God is in the universe and our relationship with him/it? Or have your comments been strictly pertaining to Christianity?

This just in- the existence of god is a moot point. Introducing "the game changer."

http://gizmodo.com/5704158/nasa-finds-new-life

It's the Devil! Save me Anne Rice!

That was an awesome interview. I loved 'Interview with a Vampire' and kept reading in the series for a while but her prose got too purple for me.

She didn't post on the forums. She read some posts on the forums and sent Dennis an email. He asked if he could post her email on the front page and she graciously agreed. I'm pretty sure that was it.

Huh. I had asked him about it, but he didn't mention that.

He must have forgotten. I remember waiting in nervous anticipation to find out if she'd let us post it!

Email me if you have questions about infamous moments in cult history.