Katawa Shoujo Forums

Daitengu wrote:I mean, what's the point of using a character if you're going to make then act out of character. Having a hard time swapping in a satisfactory word tho >.<

shoudaku maybe?

I'm not a Japanese expert, but I find this to be a satisfactory word: "sa-zo".
I'll place it alongside my "amen". "Amen" captures for me an emotion I think no similar word can compare. It does have to do with my religion. It is a word which accepts that God Himself is and was willing to die so I could know He loves me. It is a very sacred word in Christianity. One used to express something not only true, but utterly life changing.

But regardless of whether you believe it to be true or not - and I believe it's true without question - it's a word which says "I believe this, for it has changed my life in love". Even if you don't believe in God, one might understand how miracles - or perceived miracles - might make us feel as if the powers that be somehow want us to be alive. Even if he doesn't think it God or anything so impressive and terrifying as Him , when he is at the border of death, only to be snatched away and brought back to life and health, one might understand he is blessed - perhaps even loved and protected - by some more powerful compassionate force beyond himself, which he will have more than a little trouble explaining. He may never become a Christian - maybe not even a theist - but what happened was certainly real. It should not have been. But it was.

Atheists use the phrase, "Oh God." I've heard them do it, frequently.

It's an expression, like any other expression. Using it doesn't denote any particular belief - at least, in most contexts. Sometimes it does mean the speaker believes in God, but it's usually safe to assume they're just surprised, in pain, or watching Saw.

"Amen," is similar. It's much more specific culturally than the former, but I think anyone reading it probably knows what it means. That is, an affirmation. It's like saying, "Yes." Except there's a bit more to it than simple agreement. Still, I don't think Hisao would use Amen in passing speech - it is a bit out of character, at least culturally.

However, the Japanese equivalent is not known to me; and in the context of the scene, I think it fits, honestly. Even if it feels OOC, it describes the last note of the story so perfectly that substituting it would feel wrong - forced, even.

Helbereth wrote:Atheists use the phrase, "Oh God." I've heard them do it, frequently.

It's an expression, like any other expression. Using it doesn't denote any particular belief - at least, in most contexts. Sometimes it does mean the speaker believes in God, but it's usually safe to assume they're just surprised, in pain, or watching Saw.

"Amen," is similar. It's much more specific culturally than the former, but I think anyone reading it probably knows what it means. That is, an affirmation. It's like saying, "Yes." Except there's a bit more to it than simple agreement. Still, I don't think Hisao would use Amen in passing speech - it is a bit out of character, at least culturally.

However, the Japanese equivalent is not known to me; and in the context of the scene, I think it fits, honestly. Even if it feels OOC, it describes the last note of the story so perfectly that substituting it would feel wrong - forced, even.

This is know, and I understand.

But moments like this do make me wonder if even the coldest, hardest atheists who have such situations foisted upon them might not even feel just a tinge of providence. Sure, it may not last long enough to make them even into a Deist. But I wonder if they ever get that feeling. YKWIM?

By themselves, I don't find stories which are dubious in their miraculous nature (kinda like this) to be firm enough evidence for God. However, for the person who does believe that God or the gods are benevolent, it's icing on the cake. I can't imagine that warm feeling of providence is much more than a chemical reaction or simply a mystery to atheists - perhaps even something they don't want to feel.

Weekend's coming. I might start working on a new excerpt (although I'm not yet sure what it would be about). We've got a lot of good ideas, here, but none of the really "speak" to me.

Well, TTFN. Ta-ta for now.

Paddy wrote:But moments like this do make me wonder if even the coldest, hardest atheists who have such situations foisted upon them might not even feel just a tinge of providence. Sure, it may not last long enough to make them even into a Deist. But I wonder if they ever get that feeling. YKWIM?

Oh I dunno. Math, physics, engineering, art, history, quantum physics, astrophysics, philosophy, biology, computer programming, sociology, ecology...

All these things I have, at minimum, a general understanding of that's a little more in depth and the average person. And I gotta say, The understanding that comes with science makes even the most mundane things, if not a marvel, atleast interesting to look at.

From the smallest sub-atomic particles to the theoretical multiverse, Everything is so.. fractal while spinning in circles through time.

Everything on earth was created from the death of a star. Just thinking about the process from dying star to star dust, to forming the solar system, to life, to sitting here being able to ponder that we all came from star dust is interesting, poetic, enlightening, some would even say spiritual.

You see providence, and I see beautiful patterns.

We may see things different, but we can still marvel at them, even if for different reasons.

I've got something I'd like to share with you - the origins of these excerpts - but I think I would rather reveal it after I tell you about Lilly, to gauge your reaction, as both will contain miracles.

Sadly, I haven't the time to write it, so I will write it later. Perhaps sometime this week.

At very least I have both intro and this story planned out in my mind. It's just a matter of typing it out.

Paddy wrote:I can't imagine that warm feeling of providence is much more than a chemical reaction or simply a mystery to atheists - perhaps even something they don't want to feel.

For context, I'm an atheist. I waste no time on trying to prove that god(s) don't exist, mostly because I wouldn't know how. To understand where I come from - as a kid I was surprised to find out that my parents actually believe. I thought they were pretending, like with the easter bunny. It's not that I turned atheist; theism just never took hold.

When I hear stuff like "that warm feeling of providence", I'm mostly just puzzled. I don't know what you mean by that. I might have the feeling, but interpret it differently. Or my brain is simply incapable of those type of synapses? It may well be something I don't want to feel, but I couldn't tell you because I have trouble gauging what you're talking about in the first place.

As to the stories: The first one was beautiful. I think Hisao waking up and sleepily wanting to share the moment with Lilly only to find out she's the source of it is a nice touch. What I like about it is the intimacy you capture.

The second story I don't like at all. I don't buy Hisao's "I love her, I don't want to see her in pain, so I'll booze her up". Surely, they'd be rushing to the hospital? Also, the effect of alcohol as portrayed... I'm not drinking at all, but I've been among drinkers a lot. Alcoholics are a different matter, but generally drinking doesn't make people happy, if they're not happy in the first place. It mostly just enhances the mood. If they're angry, they become dangerous. If they're in a party mood, they become inconsiderate. If they're in dispair, they're really going to feel it. Alcohol removes inhibitions. Finally, the way you excluded Akira from the story, except as a trigger and wrap-up line doesn't sit well with me. I've read your disclaimer, and I certainly don't hold the story against you, but it does read like little more than anti-alcohol propaganda to me; I'm not sure what else to take from it.

after I tell you about Lilly, to gauge your reaction, as both will contain miracles.

I'm curious.

Dawnstorm wrote:

Paddy wrote:I can't imagine that warm feeling of providence is much more than a chemical reaction or simply a mystery to atheists - perhaps even something they don't want to feel.

When I hear stuff like "that warm feeling of providence", I'm mostly just puzzled. I don't know what you mean by that. I might have the feeling, but interpret it differently. Or my brain is simply incapable of those type of synapses? It may well be something I don't want to feel, but I couldn't tell you because I have trouble gauging what you're talking about in the first place.

Mea culpa. I often get poetic in my language without being precise.

As I understand it, never quite having experienced it myself, some people end up facing death head-on. They get into a car crash and almost die. They end up in prison for a bad crime. Their father dies and the family ends up losing a lot of its protections (like health insurance, income... what have you). You know. Their life "ends", or almost does.

And when the comfort of their life is drawn right out from under them... something happens. I dunno how to describe it exactly. Some call it a wake-up call. Like... after they lose what they had so been depending upon, they realise not only that they never really needed it, but there is something much better waiting for them. Something maybe their parents had taught them about or they learned about in school. Maybe they never learned anything about it and are just hearing about it now.

And when what you've been relying on - sex, beer, fags, drugs, family, friends, even your own life - fails you, you turn to God for help, at least long enough that you are able to make it through your crises. (You may know this is part of a 12-step program - to realise only the higher power God [,as we understand Him,] can pull us out of the uncontrollable pain and destruction in our lives.) And He gets you through your pain, even if He doesn't always comfort you. God gives hope.

I think that is what I mean. When all else fails... God.

I mean, I hardly think that's the only time people come to know God. Or even the staple of conversions. But, the fact is, it does happen.

Do atheists ever get that feeling of hope which comes when no one and nothing else can or will help them?

As to the stories: The first one was beautiful. I think Hisao waking up and sleepily wanting to share the moment with Lilly only to find out she's the source of it is a nice touch. What I like about it is the intimacy you capture.

Thank you.

The second story I don't like at all. I don't buy Hisao's "I love her, I don't want to see her in pain, so I'll booze her up". Surely, they'd be rushing to the hospital? Also, the effect of alcohol as portrayed... I'm not drinking at all, but I've been among drinkers a lot. Alcoholics are a different matter, but generally drinking doesn't make people happy, if they're not happy in the first place. It mostly just enhances the mood. If they're angry, they become dangerous. If they're in a party mood, they become inconsiderate. If they're in despair, they're really going to feel it.

That's the point of my story, man.

A lot of people don't get this. Thus we have binge drinkers, and those sad lot that do try to drink to forget their problems. And of course naive kids like meself who think drinking makes you happy. This would have been at a time when Lilly and Hisao were very naive about the nature of drinking, and just knew they liked alcohol and it made them feel good. (So, probably very early.)

And of course, never having drank before, and really only having exposure to my mother as far as the effects of alcohol are concerned, I can only speak about this from scant second and third-hand experience.

Finally, the way you excluded Akira from the story, except as a trigger and wrap-up line doesn't sit well with me.

Ah. Thank you for reminding me of that. I almost forgot that I will, I promise, sometime in the future, write a segment dealing with that.

They do go and visit her when Lilly gets well, and... (But I mustn't spoil it for you. It will come. )

I've read your disclaimer, and I certainly don't hold the story against you, but it does read like little more than anti-alcohol propaganda to me; I'm not sure what else to take from it.

Well, I would be lying if I said I was not inspired by GK Chesterton's chapter "Omar and the Sacred Vine" from his book Heretics. Like me, he's not a teetotaler, but he strongly advises - and if I'm to take your posts as true, rightly so - not to treat alcohol like a medicine used to achieve happiness. Alcohol's primary function is not a medicine to make life bearable, says he, but to make the happy times even happier. As you say yourself, it's a mood enhancer, not a miracle cure for depression. And as Chesterton says:

[quote="Chesterton, in "Omar and the Sacred Vine","]The sound rule in the matter would appear to be like many other sound rules--a paradox. Drink because you are happy, but never because you are miserable. Never drink when you are wretched without it, or you will be like the grey-faced gin-drinker in the slum; but drink when you would be happy without it, and you will be like the laughing peasant of Italy. Never drink because you need it, for this is rational drinking, and the way to death and hell. But drink because you do not need it, for this is irrational drinking, and the ancient health of the world. [/quote]

Paddy wrote:Mea culpa. I often get poetic in my language without being precise.

Your explanations do help me understand better where you come from, but they don't actually get me any closer to what it is you're ultimately talking about. It's not your fault; and it's not just you. I live among Roman Catholics, and nobody so far has been able to explain what "God" means. I can attach several meanings to the term, but they're all ultimately little more than parodies of what believers actually believe.

Not all atheists are like me. There are converts (ex-Catholics, for example). They did believe, so they know what it is that they don't believe in. I'm as different from them as I am from theists. I'm just not part of the club.

I think that is what I mean. When all else fails... God.

I get that. But if "God" is a meaningless syllable to you, then you end up with: "When all else failes... then what?"

Do atheists ever get that feeling of hope which comes when no one and nothing else can or will help them?

I can't speak for all atheists. That's because "atheism" isn't a set of believes. It's a way to be different from a dominant type of belief. Atheists believe things, too. But a secular Humanist, a materialist, or a nihilist believe very different things from each other. And then there are people like me who don't bother to codify their believes in a short hand (and prefer not to join any club).

For me it's like this: sometimes life sucks, sometimes it's great, but mostly it's just life. I personally don't experience that sort of hope, but I've also never really thought "no one and nothing can and will help me". It's more like "Gah, I wish this were over already!" It's my experience that everything ends: good things, bad things, thing things. Everything. It sort of balances out.

That's the point of my story, man.

I think you misunderstand my point, here. Maybe not, but if you do get what I was saying, your response puzzles me:

A lot of people don't get this. Thus we have binge drinkers, and those sad lot that do try to drink to forget their problems. And of course naive kids like meself who think drinking makes you happy. This would have been at a time when Lilly and Hisao were very naive about the nature of drinking, and just knew they liked alcohol and it made them feel good. (So, probably very early.)

In your story alcohol actually does make them feel good, but the trade off is "alcohol poisoning":

story wrote:I saw a bottle of wine sitting on the kitchen counter. I had an "aha!" moment. I grabbed the bottle, a couple glasses, and a corkscrew.

Lilly came to the counter and sat down with me when I popped the cork. I poured us both a glass.

"Ah..." she sighed relievedly to herself after she threw it back.

...

"Mmmyyy... Gggguuuaadd... eeeiIII ppphhhhffeeeell great," I slurred while I clung to her shoulder, resting my lead-filled head next to her block.

"SSssssshhsso ddddoo eeiiIIIaai, Hhhhiieessaaooo..." she slurred. We could barely understand each other.

Well, my experience from watching people drink is... different. You do get that effect with alcohol, when you want to forget inconvenient things.

Imagine you want to play a new game you bought, but you have to do homework. Drink will let you forget about the homework and just play. But it's not about what you "want" - it's about what takes priority in your mind. In the case of game vs. homework, game wins - not because it's what you want, but because it's "acute". Because it's here, right in front of you. Homework is something you have to remember.

In the case of your story, "Akira's accident" is the equivalent of the game, not of the homework. One effect alcohol might have is to turn what might have been a worry into an imagined certainty. "What if she dies," becomes "She'll die, whatever will we do?" Rather than feeling good, the dispair will explode. You'll feel it way more keenly. I've seen this effect often enough; it's not pretty. That's not the only way it can go. But one thing I'm almost certain of is this: alcohol won't make them stop thinking about Akira.

If they react that way to alcohol, the conclusion I'd have to draw is that they don't actually care about Akira. Akira's accident is merely annoying them - it's interrupting their good times. It's quite obvious from other sections in your story, that this is not your intention.

So when I'm talking about how your story deletes Akira, I'm talking about that, too. You're sacrificing realism to a symbolic cautionary tale, but not in a witty way that makes me willing to suspend disbilief. Your story just falls apart.

Try another version of events: they can't rush to the hospital for some reason (insufficient information, whatever). They'll have to fill the time while they're waiting. They turn to drink, hoping it will relief the tension. It heightens it instead. When the call comes, they're not coherent enough to understand it. They start accusing each other for the failure... (Yikes, don't make me write a version. It's going to turn into horror.)

Your story is the care-bear version of what might have really happened. It's both sanitised and moralised, and that's what turns me off. It's not the point you're making. I'm going to shut up, now, because I don't really enjoy telling people I don't like their stories. Your first story makes me see what your characters feel, so I know you can do it. Why doesn't it work (for me) here? There's a difference, and I think it's experience.

Well, I would be lying if I said I was not inspired by GK Chesterton's chapter "Omar and the Sacred Vine" from his book Heretics. Like me, he's not a teetotaler, but he strongly advises - and if I'm to take your posts as true, rightly so - not to treat alcohol like a medicine used to achieve happiness. Alcohol's primary function is not a medicine to make life bearable, says he, but to make the happy times even happier. As you say yourself, it's a mood enhancer, not a miracle cure for depression. And as Chesterton says:

[quote="Chesterton, in "Omar and the Sacred Vine","]The sound rule in the matter would appear to be like many other sound rules--a paradox. Drink because you are happy, but never because you are miserable. Never drink when you are wretched without it, or you will be like the grey-faced gin-drinker in the slum; but drink when you would be happy without it, and you will be like the laughing peasant of Italy. Never drink because you need it, for this is rational drinking, and the way to death and hell. But drink because you do not need it, for this is irrational drinking, and the ancient health of the world.

[/quote]

Chesterton is a great writer with an appealing streak of mischief; I've read him far too little. In that particular piece, I'm pretty much with him when he's affirming life, but I sort of tune out when talks about the eternal. I see a little better what you meant to do, now, but I still can't get that from the story.

Dawnstorm wrote:Your explanations do help me understand better where you come from, but they don't actually get me any closer to what it is you're ultimately talking about. It's not your fault; and it's not just you. I live among Roman Catholics, and nobody so far has been able to explain what "God" means. I can attach several meanings to the term, but they're all ultimately little more than parodies of what believers actually believe.

Such as? (I'm curious what you consider a "parody of what believers actually believe".)

I can't speak for all atheists. That's because "atheism" isn't a set of believes. It's a way to be different from a dominant type of belief. Atheists believe things, too. But a secular Humanist, a materialist, or a nihilist believe very different things from each other. And then there are people like me who don't bother to codify their believes in a short hand (and prefer not to join any club).

I suppose this is true. However, all people, even atheists, feel feelings. I supposed you can't speak for all atheists - any more than you could speak for all people. Eh.

For me it's like this: sometimes life sucks, sometimes it's great, but mostly it's just life. I personally don't experience that sort of hope, but I've also never really thought "no one and nothing can and will help me". It's more like "Gah, I wish this were over already!" It's my experience that everything ends: good things, bad things, thing things. Everything. It sort of balances out.

Hmm...

If I understand you correctly, I don't think anyone doesn't get that way. Even a believer sometimes wishes God would move things along to a good chapter of life (so to speak).

But, I dunno, there's kind of that overarching theme of "Whatever happens, God - The Creator who made us for our own sake, and has no interest in mind except our own (the definition of His love of His Creation) - will ultimately lead me to happiness if I listen and follow Him."

Life isn't just life. It's a means towards an ends. The sorrow, the joy, the blah moments. All of it, even when it hurts, is ultimately working towards sharing in that never-ending, all-encompassing love He has for... well, the universe.

I think you misunderstand my point, here. Maybe not, but if you do get what I was saying, your response puzzles me:

A lot of people don't get this. Thus we have binge drinkers, and those sad lot that do try to drink to forget their problems. And of course naive kids like meself who think drinking makes you happy. This would have been at a time when Lilly and Hisao were very naive about the nature of drinking, and just knew they liked alcohol and it made them feel good. (So, probably very early.)

In your story alcohol actually does make them feel good, but the trade off is "alcohol poisoning". ...

Well, my experience from watching people drink is... different. You do get that effect with alcohol, when you want to forget inconvenient things.

In the case of your story, "Akira's accident" is the equivalent of the game, not of the homework. One effect alcohol might have is to turn what might have been a worry into an imagined certainty. "What if she dies," becomes "She'll die, whatever will we do?" Rather than feeling good, the dispair will explode. You'll feel it way more keenly. I've seen this effect often enough; it's not pretty. That's not the only way it can go. But one thing I'm almost certain of is this: alcohol won't make them stop thinking about Akira.

If they react that way to alcohol, the conclusion I'd have to draw is that they don't actually care about Akira. Akira's accident is merely annoying them - it's interrupting their good times. It's quite obvious from other sections in your story, that this is not your intention.

So when I'm talking about how your story deletes Akira, I'm talking about that, too. You're sacrificing realism to a symbolic cautionary tale, but not in a witty way that makes me willing to suspend disbilief. Your story just falls apart.

Try another version of events: they can't rush to the hospital for some reason (insufficient information, whatever). They'll have to fill the time while they're waiting. They turn to drink, hoping it will relief the tension. It heightens it instead. When the call comes, they're not coherent enough to understand it. They start accusing each other for the failure... (Yikes, don't make me write a version. It's going to turn into horror.)

Your story is the care-bear version of what might have really happened. It's both sanitised and moralised, and that's what turns me off. It's not the point you're making. I'm going to shut up, now, because I don't really enjoy telling people I don't like their stories. Your first story makes me see what your characters feel, so I know you can do it. Why doesn't it work (for me) here? There's a difference, and I think it's experience.

My second story is also written in light of a very dim understanding of what alcohol actually does to people - or what minds do to people who drink, perhaps. In other words, you are right to criticise my story if that really is what alcohol does to people and the effects of it are.

I was just working with what I did know: 1) A lot of people do think alcohol will cause you to forget things (whether it's true or not), 2) these people do tend to drink - and drink a lot, 3) these people also tend to get drunk and sluggish, and some even get poisoned. When I wrote this I did not know alcohol actually causes you to remember things.

Again, my fault. Call it, if you like, "Hollywood drunkenness". Or if you like replace "wine" with "weed", or some other thing which somehow fits the description.

Any way about it, though, while I appreciate your feedback and will incorporate it into my knowledge about alcohol and alcoholism, I am NOT going to rewrite that story! (At least, not for the time being.)

Chesterton is a great writer with an appealing streak of mischief; I've read him far too little. In that particular piece, I'm pretty much with him when he's affirming life, but I sort of tune out when talks about the eternal. I see a little better what you meant to do, now, but I still can't get that from the story.

I get the feeling the "eternal" is at best a distant concept for most people. Most of us are too rooted into the ground to go floating out in space, so to speak.

As for the story, well, I was writing in light of what I knew, and you were reading in light of what you knew. So, given what you've disclosed, naturally my writing was going to draw some (admittedly, justified) criticism from your reading.

But if you read it in light of what I knew and what I was ignorant of, it makes more sense.

And once again, much as I appreciate the input, and in light of it would like to rewrite it in light of what I've learned, at this time, I'm not going to.

Paddy wrote:Such as? (I'm curious what you consider a "parody of what believers actually believe".)

Well, when I try to imagine God as father figure, I tend to think of fathers as something you grow up to be yourself. But God's supposedly omniscient etc. You'll never be that. Clearly, believers then like being kids and romanticise infantilism. No? (I can point to several believers in my vicinity that show this isn't true).

I could go on forever. I try not to go into too much detail, since - if you don't know me - there's a very real danger of misunderstanding.

I suppose this is true. However, all people, even atheists, feel feelings. I supposed you can't speak for all atheists - any more than you could speak for all people. Eh.

Except I think there's a gradiant slope, here, in that "believing in God" is a trait you have in common with other believers, while "not believing in God" is merely a circumstance (and not a trait) I have in common with other blievers (e.g. fending off missionaries).

There are believs out there that are "atheist" believes, but they're only atheist believes because they rival theist believes. They'd still exist without theism, and then they would only be themselves. "Nihilism" for example.

Hmm...

If I understand you correctly, I don't think anyone doesn't get that way. Even a believer sometimes wishes God would move things along to a good chapter of life (so to speak).

But, I dunno, there's kind of that overarching theme of "Whatever happens, God - The Creator who made us for our own sake, and has no interest in mind except our own (the definition of His love of His Creation) - will ultimately lead me to happiness if I listen and follow Him."

Life isn't just life. It's a means towards an ends. The sorrow, the joy, the blah moments. All of it, even when it hurts, is ultimately working towards sharing in that never-ending, all-encompassing love He has for... well, the universe.

See, I don't get that at all. What does it mean to be created for your own sake, and how is that different from having no purpose at all? Life is a means towards an end? So, I'm here for my own sake, but my life their for some end? Or am I the end of my life? And what about happiness? How does that fit in? Is being happy secondary to being myself? If I end up miserable, that's fine, too? Or not? There's no need, really, to answer any of those questions. I just improvised them. I've learned from experience that answers to that kind of question don't really further my understanding. They just give more texture and greater complexity to my confusion.

Any way about it, though, while I appreciate your feedback and will incorporate it into my knowledge about alcohol and alcoholism, I am NOT going to rewrite that story! (At least, not for the time being.)

'twas but one reader response. Changing it on that account would be... premature. If I were an editor, I'd have rejected the story, wished you luck with it, and maybe pointed you towards a publication that takes that sort of stuff (if I knew of any, and if I weren't too drowned in work to send out anything but a form rejection).

Don't worry too much about a single reader's response.

One thing, though:

I did not know alcohol actually causes you to remember things.

It doesn't. It just doesn't drive out what's already on your mind. (When you say "Holliwood drunk", I think of the guy at the bar who keeps telling the barkeep the same story over and over again until he passes out.)

Dawnstorm wrote:

Paddy wrote:Such as? (I'm curious what you consider a "parody of what believers actually believe".)

Well, when I try to imagine God as father figure, I tend to think of fathers as something you grow up to be yourself. But God's supposedly omniscient etc. You'll never be that. Clearly, believers then like being kids and romanticise infantilism. No? (I can point to several believers in my vicinity that show this isn't true).

I could go on forever. I try not to go into too much detail, since - if you don't know me - there's a very real danger of misunderstanding.

I understand completely. It's a very common problem: a misunderstanding.

When we speak of God as a Father... well, what is a father?

A father is the man who raises you. Who has your best interests in mind (i.e, love). Who wants you to become the best you can become, even if you can never be as good as he is or once was. It has absolutely nothing to do with being as or more powerful than him or as or more knowledgeable than him. Your father and you are not in competition - nor should you be.

But your father wants you to grow as big and as strong as you can. And you, as a son, should want to please your father by reaching your fullest potential. And who knows what you are capable of better than the man who raised you, watched you, spoke with you, helped you, played with you, cried with you, and... well, LIVED with you for all your life?

Except I think there's a gradiant slope, here, in that "believing in God" is a trait you have in common with other believers, while "not believing in God" is merely a circumstance (and not a trait) I have in common with other blievers (e.g. fending off missionaries).

There are believs out there that are "atheist" believes, but they're only atheist believes because they rival theist believes. They'd still exist without theism, and then they would only be themselves. "Nihilism" for example.

I get this, I do. There's a thousand-and-one different types of atheist.

But what do you mean when you say "trait" and "circumstance"?

See, I don't get that at all. What does it mean to be created for your own sake, and how is that different from having no purpose at all?

Good question. I've wondered that many times myself. The difference between you and I is that you drop the Creator, God, in your equation.

Recall that we believe God created us. He made us. We didn't just coalesce into existence.

So, since God made us, but has absolutely no need for us, it does make me wonder if I really do have any purpose at all, even if God does exist.

The question is: what gives a man his purpose? Is it himself? Or can God impart a purpose onto him, even though He has no need of us men? I think, personally, He can. And does.

Life is a means towards an end? So, I'm here for my own sake, but my life their for some end? Or am I the end of my life?

Hmmm... how to put it...
Your origin is in God's wanting you for your own sake,
but your final end is different from your origin. God wishes to see you grow to your full potential.

And what about happiness? How does that fit in? Is being happy secondary to being myself? If I end up miserable, that's fine, too? Or not?

What do you mean by "happiness" and "misery"? Because it is possible to be miserable and still quite happy.

I've learned from experience that answers to that kind of question don't really further my understanding. They just give more texture and greater complexity to my confusion.

Tell me this. If Bill Gates was your dad (and assuming he was a damn good father), why would you define the man who raised you from infancy, who knows you better than you do yourself, and who wishes nothing for you but that you become the best you can, by the one difference between you and him - that he is more powerful and successful than you could ever be?

Do you kind of see what I mean?

Remember, a lot of what we say about God is metaphorical. Metaphors are never perfect analogues. Because of this, some points of the metaphor being drawn don't make sense. For example, it makes sense to draw a metaphor between a star and a signal flare in that the flare and star are both bright, and may be distant lights you can't reach. But it makes no sense to draw a metaphor between the longevity of the star and the comparably short time a flare lasts.

You seem to attack a metaphor right where it breaks down... Jus' sayin.

One thing, though:

I did not know alcohol actually causes you to remember things.

It doesn't. It just doesn't drive out what's already on your mind. (When you say "Holliwood drunk", I think of the guy at the bar who keeps telling the barkeep the same story over and over again until he passes out.)

Heh.

Paddy wrote:But what do you mean when you say "trait" and "circumstance"?

"Theism" is a belief. "Atheism" is a side-effect of some other belief that may be independent of theism, but in practice isn't, because theism is everywhere.

I say I'm an atheist, because I have to tell "theists" what I'm not. If theists go away, I stop being an "atheist" in effect (even though everything about me that made me an "atheist" in the presence of "theists" is still true). That's not true of theists. Theists would still believe what they believe (though some level of verbal defence against attacks on the position might be missing). Basically, my "atheism" is a set of behaviours a largly theistic tradition has pushed on me: it's circumstance and says next to nothing about what I believe. It's a "Do not disturb" sing for missionaries.

You seem to attack a metaphor right where it breaks down... Jus' sayin.

That's a good discription of what keeps happening, when I try to imagine God on account of theists' metaphors. And figuring out why this happens might get me closer to understanding the difference between me and a believer (though not the concept of God itself). For example, you've focussed on competition; once again with the Bill Gates example. But it's not about competition. It's not about success and failure. I can easily imagine, for example, parents of disabled children. They're still both basically the same.

What I was getting at instead was biography: my father isn't essentially different from me. You're transferring one aspect (or more) of fatherhood onto God - that's what it means to use a metaphor. But the problem is that - lacking a concept of God - I have nothing to attach this metaphor to. I'm not taking the concept of father literally; I'm not about to reverse-engineer God's DNA. Or try to proof that he's not my God through a blood test.

Maybe I'm attacking the metaphor where it breaks down because it need something to anchor the concept?

A theist believes in God - or some higher power.

An atheist believes in reason, intellect and worldly justice.

An agnostic -like myself- just stands back and watches them fight over the golden doughnut.

A Gnosis will turn you to sand if you touch it, or grant you super-powers - they're fickle like that.

A nose is the most prominent feature on the human face, and the most overlooked.

I think I've run this tangent to its end.

Helbereth wrote:A theist believes in God - or some higher power.

Correct, though this belief may include more than one god.

Helbereth wrote:An atheist believes in reason, intellect and worldly justice.

Incorrect. By definition, an atheist does not believe in god or gods. He/she may use reason and intellect, and want worldly justice, but they are not part of the definition.

Helbereth wrote:An agnostic -like myself- just stands back and watches them fight over the golden doughnut.

A common misconception is that agnosticism and atheism/theism are incompatible. They are not. Agnosticism/gnosticism is a statement of knowledge; atheism/theism is a statement of belief. It is perfectly reasonable to talk about agnostic atheists, agnostic theists, gnostic atheists, and gnostic theists.

Though the last two may be the most unreasonable to deal with…

I really like the story. Can't wait to see what's next.

As for Lilly being Christian, it hasn't been made a huge plot point, and she did where a cross in the game, so why are people making such a big deal about it? Besides, cpl_crud said that he has a problem with many fan fics because they try too hard to stick to canon. As long as things don't clearly contradict existing details, I see it as a good thing.

As for the general religious discussion, please don't argue about religion on the internet. Nobody wins.