Poll: Apatheism
- Thread starter juliett_lima
- Start date
Recommended Videos
O__o;; that wasn't there last time I looked... coinky-dinkCuddlyCombine said:
then that's what i mean. everyone go to that article!I don't care, possibly, because of the aforemetioned 5 years spent being educated in it. There's only so many times you can hear arguments for/against/neither that they become routine and stop holding any meaning to you whatsoever. I have a similar point of view regarding philosophy as I do religion - i've just stopped caring...
but yes! i have probably identified as all of these within my life... and oddly, in the order that is presented within the poll -___-
I'm a Christian, so I'm probably not going to get anything other than flak for speaking.
It's actually a growing phenomenon in Christian circles to have apathetic views towards any sort of faith(albeit the church doesn't see it as beneficial).
Also, Religion is a funny word, people say they don't ascribe to a religion, but they spread the word about it with more zeal than Jehovah's Witnesses(Door Knockers). Then people say they are Christians,but not religious.
I've even seen shirts at my church that say "It's not a religion, it's a relationship"
Which makes me laugh, because I fail to see any true criteria for religion, that Christianity doesn't meet.(i.e. not a relative definition, but an actual, generally accepted one)
I would argue that it is not JUST a religion, but it is in some way a religion.
It's actually a growing phenomenon in Christian circles to have apathetic views towards any sort of faith(albeit the church doesn't see it as beneficial).
Also, Religion is a funny word, people say they don't ascribe to a religion, but they spread the word about it with more zeal than Jehovah's Witnesses(Door Knockers). Then people say they are Christians,but not religious.
I've even seen shirts at my church that say "It's not a religion, it's a relationship"
Which makes me laugh, because I fail to see any true criteria for religion, that Christianity doesn't meet.(i.e. not a relative definition, but an actual, generally accepted one)
I would argue that it is not JUST a religion, but it is in some way a religion.
i'm really not. atheism being the active belief that there is no god, and anti-theism being anti-religion. ish.Smiles said:
mmm i'll check my old textbooks ^__^
No, because I don't run this website.madbird-valiant said:
Anyway, the OP is an atheist. Atheists aren't anti-god, the same way as most people aren't anti-Santa Claus. An anti-theist is anti-religious.
You can't just make up a word to describe yourself, especially when there are perfectly good words around that do the job.
ehhh, thread is going the wrong way. is there a wrong way for a thread to go?
this isn't a kind of e-peen thing - i'm actually genuinely just polling to see what people think, not trying to set up a new religion or definition or trying to make myself seem unique - i KNOW i'm unique, i don't need peeps on the internet to tell me that (jks). This being the first forum I've posted on for a loooong time, I just thought it might be interesting. Don't make the responses personal to me or anyone else, just look at it and say what you think without being vitriolic...
mmmmmmanyway...
EDIT: guess i shouldn't be bossy. soz!
this isn't a kind of e-peen thing - i'm actually genuinely just polling to see what people think, not trying to set up a new religion or definition or trying to make myself seem unique - i KNOW i'm unique, i don't need peeps on the internet to tell me that (jks). This being the first forum I've posted on for a loooong time, I just thought it might be interesting. Don't make the responses personal to me or anyone else, just look at it and say what you think without being vitriolic...
mmmmmmanyway...
EDIT: guess i shouldn't be bossy. soz!
Sorry but Apatheist isn't a thing, you're just talking about an atheist who doesn't mention their atheism. Atheists are people who do not believe in a higher power, if you do not believe in a higher power, you are an Atheist, simple as that.
For constrictive criticism, here's a start, saying that you do not care is not admirable, it's simply saying that you're too lazy to even try and address some really big issues.juliett_lima said:
Secondly, let's address the "arrogant anti-god position," while some of my other Escapists have already addressed the "anti-god" part, noting that atheism is not necessarily anti-theism, they haven't really addressed the position of "arrogant," so let me try. If an atheist were to conclude 100% that there were no God then yes, that would be an arrogant position. What you'd realize if you actually took the time to talk to an atheist before you arbitrarily wrote some shit down is that most atheists do not fall into this category. Defacto atheism, as it is described by Richard Dawkins does not claim that the possibility of a deity is nill, instead it asserts based on the evidence that we have that the probability of a deity existing is excrutiatingly low. This is not arrogant, it is reasnoble because it takes from existing evidence and draws a logical conclusion. Arrogant is the theist, who claims that there absolutely is a God, not only that but the theist frequently claims to know details about what that God is like, and how you can act for the God to accordingly reward or punish you. Realize then that these claims are not backed up by any sort of evidence at all, and the absolutist claim of the theist becomes arrogance itself, asserting to know the mind of God, and to tell you and I what it is. To see this difference in action, let me quote from one of the most arrogant atheists around, Bill Maher, who even at his most arrogant shows far less arrogance than the 100% assumption; says Maher "The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not the arrogant certitude that is the hallmark of religion, but doubt. Doubt is humble, and that's what man needs to be considering that human history is just a litany of getting shit dead wrong" (Bill Maher, Religulous).
Getting back to the issue of the anti-religionist, if that's what you meant to say when you acused atheism of being arrogant, let me say this. Anti-religionism is a movement of people who have drawn the correlation between religion and many of the attrocities commited in its name. Internationally we point to the extremist violence of the Islamic world, its misogyny, and the horrible things that spring from its fundamentalist religion. And domestically we point to the discrimination and outright biggotry directed at homosexuals, this being directly correlated to Christianity and Mormonism. If you don't think that religion does some terrible things in this world, let me assure you it does, and if you think that ignoring it and saying "I'm too lazy to give a fuck" is an admirable position you're dead wrong.
Also let me note here, that while atheism on the whole is not arrogant, I am pretty arrogant, I hope those who take the time to read what I've said will be able to see past my own attitude to what I'm saying. An atheist can be arrogant, that doesn't mean they all are.
Atheism is the absence of religion or theism (or the belief that there is no God as you said) but it isn't always actively practiced (just as not every Christian actively practices their faith), so the 'apatheism' you described would be a 'denomination' of Atheism rather than a stand alone theism (it's simmilar to the people who are Athiests because they simply don't think about religion, which would account for a large percentage of the population in many secularised societies).juliett_lima said:
Good on you for doing you own thing dude, but i dont think i myself could be satisfied with apathy. I mean, it seems to me you are giving up on trying to figure out what life is all about, and thinking shit up is half the fun.
ehh, okay you win. can't be bothered here, sorry. will just say one thing - my opinion is that atheism is just as arrogant as religion, I just didn't write that down. Woopsie to my editing skills.Kpt._Rob said:
This isn't in relation to the attitude of the person holding the beliefs (atheism being just as much of a belief as religion) but the beliefs they hold. both maintain that, in spite of the evidence presented (i.e. none), that they are right. there is no evidence for or against religion, which makes an atheist a subscriber to a certain set of beliefs (that there is no higher being). technically, the agnostic holds the position I've kind of described there. no evidence either way, suspend judgement. don't assume what has no evidence is correct. my position is that I don't care what is either way or in the middle. the technical agnostic position assumes that if there was evidence for higher beings, then the agnostic would believe in them, and vice-versa. the apatheist position is that if there were evidence either way, they still would not care. religion and atheism presumes that this evidence already exists.
ANYWAY, /walloftext. *hem* yes. feel free to flame me! *hesitates over post button*
Now hang on, because that actually is me. A rare position I know, Dawkins and Maher may be 6.9's:Kpt._Rob said:
But I'm a seven.
juliett_lima said:
And when people assert the views that you both have, I always go back to this:juliett_lima said:
Interview: Douglas Adams
First, a note about me. I'm a very conceited person. I see myself as a damn good writer who is quite eloquent and proficient at making points about Atheism and related issues. Fortunately for the rest of the population, there are some people out there who keep my ego in check. Every once in a while I am reminded of my limitations by certain individuals who so obviously surpass my abilities that I am forced to admit that I still have lots of work to do. Many of these people are part of American Atheists, and all serve the purpose of making the rest of me strive for self-improvement. Then there are people like Douglas Adams: talented writers so brilliant in their prose as to give even the most conceited writer-wannabe an inferiority complex. Many of these people are Atheists, but few will take the time for an interview for their fans. When they do, well, the result is something you save for future debates and arguments.
For the rare reader who does not already know all about him, Douglas Adams is the creator of all the various manifestations of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which include a radio series, a TV series, a stage play, record albums, a computer game, a series of internationally best-selling books, a set of graphic novels, and a bath towel. In a long and varied career Mr. Adams has also written the Dirk Gently novels, a non-fiction book (Last Chance to See) on endangered species, worked as a chicken-shed cleaner, a bodyguard for an Arab royal family, and played guitar for Pink Floyd. He's brilliant, he's witty, he's an Atheist, and he has quite a bit to say about Atheism, Agnosticism, and religion.
THE INTERVIEW
AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Mr. Adams, you have been described as a "radical Atheist." Is this accurate?
DNA: Yes. I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as "Atheist," some people will say, "Don't you mean 'Agnostic'?" I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It's easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it's an opinion I hold seriously. It's funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much.
People will then often say "But surely it's better to remain an Agnostic just in case?" This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I've been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)
Other people will ask how I can possibly claim to know? Isn't belief-that-there-is-not-a-god as irrational, arrogant, etc., as belief-that-there-is-a-god? To which I say no for several reasons. First of all I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don't see what belief has got to do with it. I believe or don't believe my four-year old daughter when she tells me that she didn't make that mess on the floor. I believe in justice and fair play (though I don't know exactly how we achieve them, other than by continually trying against all possible odds of success). I also believe that England should enter the European Monetary Union. I am not remotely enough of an economist to argue the issue vigorously with someone who is, but what little I do know, reinforced with a hefty dollop of gut feeling, strongly suggests to me that it's the right course. I could very easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that. These seem to me to be legitimate uses for the word believe. As a carapace for the protection of irrational notions from legitimate questions, however, I think that the word has a lot of mischief to answer for. So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is a totally different stance and takes me on to my second reason.
Doublas Adams with David Silverman
I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me "Well, you haven't been there, have you? You haven't seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid" - then I can't even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we'd got, and we've now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don't think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don't think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.
AMERICAN ATHEISTS: How long have you been a nonbeliever, and what brought you to that realization?
DNA: Well, it's a rather corny story. As a teenager I was a committed Christian. It was in my background. I used to work for the school chapel in fact. Then one day when I was about eighteen I was walking down the street when I heard a street evangelist and, dutifully, stopped to listen. As I listened it began to be borne in on me that he was talking complete nonsense, and that I had better have a bit of a think about it.
I've put that a bit glibly. When I say I realized he was talking nonsense, what I mean is this. In the years I'd spent learning History, Physics, Latin, Math, I'd learnt (the hard way) something about standards of argument, standards of proof, standards of logic, etc. In fact we had just been learning how to spot the different types of logical fallacy, and it suddenly became apparent to me that these standards simply didn't seem to apply in religious matters. In religious education we were asked to listen respectfully to arguments which, if they had been put forward in support of a view of, say, why the Corn Laws came to be abolished when they were, would have been laughed at as silly and childish and - in terms of logic and proof -just plain wrong. Why was this?
Well, in history, even though the understanding of events, of cause and effect, is a matter of interpretation, and even though interpretation is in many ways a matter of opinion, nevertheless those opinions and interpretations are honed to within an inch of their lives in the withering crossfire of argument and counterargument, and those that are still standing are then subjected to a whole new round of challenges of fact and logic from the next generation of historians - and so on. All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.
So, I was already familiar with and (I'm afraid) accepting of, the view that you couldn't apply the logic of physics to religion, that they were dealing with different types of 'truth'. (I now think this is baloney, but to continue...) What astonished me, however, was the realization that the arguments in favor of religious ideas were so feeble and silly next to the robust arguments of something as interpretative and opinionated as history. In fact they were embarrassingly childish. They were never subject to the kind of outright challenge which was the normal stock in trade of any other area of intellectual endeavor whatsoever. Why not? Because they wouldn't stand up to it. So I became an Agnostic. And I thought and thought and thought. But I just did not have enough to go on, so I didn't really come to any resolution. I was extremely doubtful about the idea of god, but I just didn't know enough about anything to have a good working model of any other explanation for, well, life, the universe and everything to put in its place. But I kept at it, and I kept reading and I kept thinking. Sometime around my early thirties I stumbled upon evolutionary biology, particularly in the form of Richard Dawkins's books The Selfish Gene and then The Blind Watchmaker and suddenly (on, I think the second reading of The Selfish Gene) it all fell into place. It was a concept of such stunning simplicity, but it gave rise, naturally, to all of the infinite and baffling complexity of life. The awe it inspired in me made the awe that people talk about in respect of religious experience seem, frankly, silly beside it. I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
AMERICAN ATHEISTS: You allude to your Atheism in your speech to your fans ("...that was one of the few times I actually believed in god"). Is your Atheism common knowledge among your fans, friends, and coworkers? Are many people in your circle of friends and coworkers Atheists as well?
DNA: This is a slightly puzzling question to me, and I think there is a cultural difference involved. In England there is no big deal about being an Atheist. There's just a slight twinge of discomfort about people strongly expressing a particular point of view when maybe a detached wishy-washiness might be felt to be more appropriate - hence a preference for Agnosticism over Atheism. And making the move from Agnosticism to Atheism takes, I think, much more commitment to intellectual effort than most people are ready to put in. But there's no big deal about it. A number of the people I know and meet are scientists and in those circles Atheism is the norm. I would guess that most people I know otherwise are Agnostics, and quite a few Atheists. If I was to try and look amongst my friends, family, and colleagues for people who believed there was a god I'd probably be looking amongst the older, and (to be perfectly frank) less well educated ones. There are one or two exceptions. (I nearly put, by habit "honorable exceptions," but I don't really think that.)
AMERICAN ATHEISTS: How often have fans, friends, or coworkers tried to "save" you from Atheism?
DNA: Absolutely never. We just don't have that kind of fundamentalism in England. Well, maybe that's not absolutely true. But (and I'm going to be horribly arrogant here) I guess I just tend not to come across such people, just as I tend not to come across people who watch daytime soaps or read the National Enquirer. And how do you usually respond? I wouldn't bother.
AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Have you faced any obstacles in your professional life because of your Atheism (bigotry against Atheists), and how did you handle it? How often does this happen?
DNA: Not even remotely. It's an inconceivable idea.
AMERICAN ATHEISTS: There are quite a few lighthearted references to god and religion in your books ("...2000 years after some guy got nailed to a tree"). How has your Atheism influenced your writing? Where (in which characters or situations) are your personal religious thoughts most accurately reflected.
DNA: I am fascinated by religion. (That's a completely different thing from believing in it!) It has had such an incalculably huge effect on human affairs. What is it? What does it represent? Why have we invented it? How does it keep going? What will become of it? I love to keep poking and prodding at it. I've thought about it so much over the years that that fascination is bound to spill over into my writing.
AMERICAN ATHEISTS: What message would you like to send to your Atheist fans?
DNA: Hello! How are you?
First, a note about me. I'm a very conceited person. I see myself as a damn good writer who is quite eloquent and proficient at making points about Atheism and related issues. Fortunately for the rest of the population, there are some people out there who keep my ego in check. Every once in a while I am reminded of my limitations by certain individuals who so obviously surpass my abilities that I am forced to admit that I still have lots of work to do. Many of these people are part of American Atheists, and all serve the purpose of making the rest of me strive for self-improvement. Then there are people like Douglas Adams: talented writers so brilliant in their prose as to give even the most conceited writer-wannabe an inferiority complex. Many of these people are Atheists, but few will take the time for an interview for their fans. When they do, well, the result is something you save for future debates and arguments.
For the rare reader who does not already know all about him, Douglas Adams is the creator of all the various manifestations of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, which include a radio series, a TV series, a stage play, record albums, a computer game, a series of internationally best-selling books, a set of graphic novels, and a bath towel. In a long and varied career Mr. Adams has also written the Dirk Gently novels, a non-fiction book (Last Chance to See) on endangered species, worked as a chicken-shed cleaner, a bodyguard for an Arab royal family, and played guitar for Pink Floyd. He's brilliant, he's witty, he's an Atheist, and he has quite a bit to say about Atheism, Agnosticism, and religion.
THE INTERVIEW
AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Mr. Adams, you have been described as a "radical Atheist." Is this accurate?
DNA: Yes. I think I use the term radical rather loosely, just for emphasis. If you describe yourself as "Atheist," some people will say, "Don't you mean 'Agnostic'?" I have to reply that I really do mean Atheist. I really do not believe that there is a god - in fact I am convinced that there is not a god (a subtle difference). I see not a shred of evidence to suggest that there is one. It's easier to say that I am a radical Atheist, just to signal that I really mean it, have thought about it a great deal, and that it's an opinion I hold seriously. It's funny how many people are genuinely surprised to hear a view expressed so strongly. In England we seem to have drifted from vague wishy-washy Anglicanism to vague wishy-washy Agnosticism - both of which I think betoken a desire not to have to think about things too much.
People will then often say "But surely it's better to remain an Agnostic just in case?" This, to me, suggests such a level of silliness and muddle that I usually edge out of the conversation rather than get sucked into it. (If it turns out that I've been wrong all along, and there is in fact a god, and if it further turned out that this kind of legalistic, cross-your-fingers-behind-your-back, Clintonian hair-splitting impressed him, then I think I would chose not to worship him anyway.)
Other people will ask how I can possibly claim to know? Isn't belief-that-there-is-not-a-god as irrational, arrogant, etc., as belief-that-there-is-a-god? To which I say no for several reasons. First of all I do not believe-that-there-is-not-a-god. I don't see what belief has got to do with it. I believe or don't believe my four-year old daughter when she tells me that she didn't make that mess on the floor. I believe in justice and fair play (though I don't know exactly how we achieve them, other than by continually trying against all possible odds of success). I also believe that England should enter the European Monetary Union. I am not remotely enough of an economist to argue the issue vigorously with someone who is, but what little I do know, reinforced with a hefty dollop of gut feeling, strongly suggests to me that it's the right course. I could very easily turn out to be wrong, and I know that. These seem to me to be legitimate uses for the word believe. As a carapace for the protection of irrational notions from legitimate questions, however, I think that the word has a lot of mischief to answer for. So, I do not believe-that-there-is-no-god. I am, however, convinced that there is no god, which is a totally different stance and takes me on to my second reason.
Doublas Adams with David Silverman
I don't accept the currently fashionable assertion that any view is automatically as worthy of respect as any equal and opposite view. My view is that the moon is made of rock. If someone says to me "Well, you haven't been there, have you? You haven't seen it for yourself, so my view that it is made of Norwegian Beaver Cheese is equally valid" - then I can't even be bothered to argue. There is such a thing as the burden of proof, and in the case of god, as in the case of the composition of the moon, this has shifted radically. God used to be the best explanation we'd got, and we've now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining. So I don't think that being convinced that there is no god is as irrational or arrogant a point of view as belief that there is. I don't think the matter calls for even-handedness at all.
AMERICAN ATHEISTS: How long have you been a nonbeliever, and what brought you to that realization?
DNA: Well, it's a rather corny story. As a teenager I was a committed Christian. It was in my background. I used to work for the school chapel in fact. Then one day when I was about eighteen I was walking down the street when I heard a street evangelist and, dutifully, stopped to listen. As I listened it began to be borne in on me that he was talking complete nonsense, and that I had better have a bit of a think about it.
I've put that a bit glibly. When I say I realized he was talking nonsense, what I mean is this. In the years I'd spent learning History, Physics, Latin, Math, I'd learnt (the hard way) something about standards of argument, standards of proof, standards of logic, etc. In fact we had just been learning how to spot the different types of logical fallacy, and it suddenly became apparent to me that these standards simply didn't seem to apply in religious matters. In religious education we were asked to listen respectfully to arguments which, if they had been put forward in support of a view of, say, why the Corn Laws came to be abolished when they were, would have been laughed at as silly and childish and - in terms of logic and proof -just plain wrong. Why was this?
Well, in history, even though the understanding of events, of cause and effect, is a matter of interpretation, and even though interpretation is in many ways a matter of opinion, nevertheless those opinions and interpretations are honed to within an inch of their lives in the withering crossfire of argument and counterargument, and those that are still standing are then subjected to a whole new round of challenges of fact and logic from the next generation of historians - and so on. All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others.
So, I was already familiar with and (I'm afraid) accepting of, the view that you couldn't apply the logic of physics to religion, that they were dealing with different types of 'truth'. (I now think this is baloney, but to continue...) What astonished me, however, was the realization that the arguments in favor of religious ideas were so feeble and silly next to the robust arguments of something as interpretative and opinionated as history. In fact they were embarrassingly childish. They were never subject to the kind of outright challenge which was the normal stock in trade of any other area of intellectual endeavor whatsoever. Why not? Because they wouldn't stand up to it. So I became an Agnostic. And I thought and thought and thought. But I just did not have enough to go on, so I didn't really come to any resolution. I was extremely doubtful about the idea of god, but I just didn't know enough about anything to have a good working model of any other explanation for, well, life, the universe and everything to put in its place. But I kept at it, and I kept reading and I kept thinking. Sometime around my early thirties I stumbled upon evolutionary biology, particularly in the form of Richard Dawkins's books The Selfish Gene and then The Blind Watchmaker and suddenly (on, I think the second reading of The Selfish Gene) it all fell into place. It was a concept of such stunning simplicity, but it gave rise, naturally, to all of the infinite and baffling complexity of life. The awe it inspired in me made the awe that people talk about in respect of religious experience seem, frankly, silly beside it. I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance any day.
AMERICAN ATHEISTS: You allude to your Atheism in your speech to your fans ("...that was one of the few times I actually believed in god"). Is your Atheism common knowledge among your fans, friends, and coworkers? Are many people in your circle of friends and coworkers Atheists as well?
DNA: This is a slightly puzzling question to me, and I think there is a cultural difference involved. In England there is no big deal about being an Atheist. There's just a slight twinge of discomfort about people strongly expressing a particular point of view when maybe a detached wishy-washiness might be felt to be more appropriate - hence a preference for Agnosticism over Atheism. And making the move from Agnosticism to Atheism takes, I think, much more commitment to intellectual effort than most people are ready to put in. But there's no big deal about it. A number of the people I know and meet are scientists and in those circles Atheism is the norm. I would guess that most people I know otherwise are Agnostics, and quite a few Atheists. If I was to try and look amongst my friends, family, and colleagues for people who believed there was a god I'd probably be looking amongst the older, and (to be perfectly frank) less well educated ones. There are one or two exceptions. (I nearly put, by habit "honorable exceptions," but I don't really think that.)
AMERICAN ATHEISTS: How often have fans, friends, or coworkers tried to "save" you from Atheism?
DNA: Absolutely never. We just don't have that kind of fundamentalism in England. Well, maybe that's not absolutely true. But (and I'm going to be horribly arrogant here) I guess I just tend not to come across such people, just as I tend not to come across people who watch daytime soaps or read the National Enquirer. And how do you usually respond? I wouldn't bother.
AMERICAN ATHEISTS: Have you faced any obstacles in your professional life because of your Atheism (bigotry against Atheists), and how did you handle it? How often does this happen?
DNA: Not even remotely. It's an inconceivable idea.
AMERICAN ATHEISTS: There are quite a few lighthearted references to god and religion in your books ("...2000 years after some guy got nailed to a tree"). How has your Atheism influenced your writing? Where (in which characters or situations) are your personal religious thoughts most accurately reflected.
DNA: I am fascinated by religion. (That's a completely different thing from believing in it!) It has had such an incalculably huge effect on human affairs. What is it? What does it represent? Why have we invented it? How does it keep going? What will become of it? I love to keep poking and prodding at it. I've thought about it so much over the years that that fascination is bound to spill over into my writing.
AMERICAN ATHEISTS: What message would you like to send to your Atheist fans?
DNA: Hello! How are you?