Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/33345
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/33345
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

I reject your premise. For example, I am an atheist, 100%, to my last breath.

However, I live amongst people I love, my own family, that believe in God. My parents did, one was a firm Christian, one more of a deist. Half my extended family is atheist, half are religious.

I understand atheistic reasoning 100%, I have read the Bible cover to cover, blah blah blah.

However, I also have a pretty deep understanding of religionist reasoning (or thinking), especially the common variety of 99% of them (as opposed to Biblical scholars). I know what is wrong with it, where the rational flaws are, what the wrong assumptions are, and what they won't give up.

Now I get along fine with my family, we don't discuss religion and I don't (anymore) point out their bad logic or wrong-headed assumptions. It is not a topic.

That said, I know their arguments so well I can write a convincing religious character, because **_I can exercise self-control_** and NOT interject what is wrong with what they consider their "terminal" arguments, and NOT call out the irrational circular logic they **always** deploy.

I would say the same about Ayn Rand and her fool ideas. I've read them, I know what's wrong with them and every logical fallacy she employs and every deceptive trick she tries to use. But, I could easily write a character that truly believes in it, without interjecting my own criticism or knowledge of the fallacies they are using, because I DO know their arguments so well.

Original score: 8