Atheist Writers

Members: 310
Latest Activity: on Friday

Writing's Cool

So yeah.... discuss.

If your posting/writing contains explicit sex or erotica, please note that in the post title or the first line of the post. All discussions on A/N are open to all members, including minors and some prudes like me who blush too easily. Thanks in advance.

Discussion Forum


Started by Don. Last reply by Stephen Goldin Aug 22, 2014. 3 Replies

Upcoming New Book putting God on Trial

Started by Ravi Morey. Last reply by tom sarbeck Jun 19, 2013. 1 Reply

I've Just Published a New Book, the "Freethought Resource Guide"

Started by Mark Vandebrake. Last reply by Michael B. Paulk May 26, 2013. 1 Reply

Is anyone working on anything?

Started by Joe Fausnight. Last reply by Milan Elesin Jan 31, 2013. 47 Replies

Is it too over the top?

Started by Ted E Bear. Last reply by Alan Michael Wilt Jan 21, 2013. 2 Replies

writing from musical flow

Started by michele ricketts. Last reply by Craig A. James Sep 22, 2012. 1 Reply

Book review blogs?

Started by Stifyn Emrys. Last reply by Cyle O'Donnell Sep 18, 2012. 1 Reply

Christopher Hitchens' last words

Started by Stifyn Emrys. Last reply by Marc Draco Aug 19, 2012. 1 Reply

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Atheist Writers to add comments!

Comment by Diana Graves on July 10, 2009 at 5:04am
Hello All!
Comment by Richard Goscicki on June 25, 2009 at 9:34am
Welcome, George. It's great that we can renew interest in these stimulating discussions at will.

I took a look at your website. Neat!

On the R*E*S*P*E*C*T subject, I agree with your comments about our right to express ourselves. Interesting that you quote Voltaire to support your statements, while religionists use the Bible. I'll take Sagan, Voltaire, Einstein, Dennett, and Hithchens over Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and that asshole Deuteronomy any day.

Check out my website and you'll see our similarity.

A Jehovah Witness kid (around early 20s) knocked on my door a few months ago. After hours of conversation in my living room, I think I helped deprogram him, and thus saved his life. Now he's free of mindless worship and graveling adoration of an imaginary god. I helped him get off his knees.

You and I have a lot in common; we both took up the quixotic mantle of trying to change the world. Even if we save just one person, the effort was worth it. Who knows how many others believers kindled a flicker of doubt because of my blog posts and comments on websites like this.

Check out my blog on this site and we can discuss some other important issues like: Why I Became a Militant Non-Believer.
Comment by George Ricker on June 24, 2009 at 1:44pm
Hello to all. I'm the author of two books—Godless in America: conversations with an atheist and mere atheism: no problem!—and the creator of the Godless in America web site, where I have posted essays on a wide variety of subjects and links to some of my short stories as well as a blog, some poetry and links to some of my favorite sites, including this one.

OK. That's it for the shameless self promotion. I look forward to participating here and promise to try to make my contributions constructive.
Comment by Jake kerr on June 11, 2009 at 5:16pm
On board, folks.

Writing a couple of novels and enjoying them quite a bit.
Comment by Richard Goscicki on June 6, 2009 at 6:18pm
Radiation and drugs are known to be able to cause genetic mutations or rearrangements. An interesting coincidence of history, speaking of Hitler, is that methamphetamine was discovered in the 1933, the year he became Chancellor of Germany. His personal doctor, Dr. Morel, was experimenting with the stuff and wound up giving the Fuehrer a little pick-me-up cocktail. It gave him energy and made him feel dynamic and invulnerable. Sadly, by the time of the bomb at the Wolfsschanze in July, ’44, the meth had just about driven him insane. Millions of people had to die because of it.

Meth is psychotropic but doesn’t affect the genetic material. If it did my supposition would be plausible.

Angie, being in the company of Mel Brooks, who wrote The Producers ain't too bad.
Comment by Angie Jackson on June 6, 2009 at 5:20pm
Pansy Hitler... wait, anyone seen the Producers with Gene Wilder? They sort of covered that...
Comment by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on June 6, 2009 at 4:59pm
The important thing, Richard, is that you have attempted this difficult task. No-one else has, as far as I know.

You paint an intriguing picture of Hitler as a pansy. I had to laugh.
Comment by Richard Goscicki on June 6, 2009 at 4:19pm
Rosemary, I want to thank you for your interest in my writing, I admit that I didn't want the sex theme to run away. It was very difficult for me to express the worldview and sexual appetite of a woman. But Dawkins' selfish gene theory required that I see it through.

I thought the hawk/dove dichotomy was interesting. Can you imagine what history would be like if genes flipped so capriciously as they do in MR? I can picture Hitler becoming an effeminate pansy right after the Nazis invaded Russia.

Fun stuff to contemplate.
Comment by Rosemary LYNDALL WEMM on June 6, 2009 at 3:51pm

Ah, but I wasn't brought up Catholic! I never had any reason to think of non-reproductive sex as "sinful". And never did! OTOH, I got tied up with the usual Fundie nonsense about "fornication" being bad, just because it was. I overcame that one before I lost my religious beliefs. It made sense be forbid fornication in a society with no way of preventing pregnancy because the outcome was often horrid for the woman, the child and any guy who had the misfortune to be found out. The advent of reliable contraception blew that argument out of the water. I could be responsible and enjoy myself. No problem. Very ethical.

My problem with your character is that she is rather irresponsible at times. Or at least niave. As I think I said in an earlier comment on your book (or at least thought it), the female character is more like a male fantasy of how it might be. It grates on me for that reason. I suspect, but have no proof, that other women may also feel this way.

In other words, don't be so quick to assume that criticism of the book is based on your atheist world view. It may well be based on your masculine one!

Comment by Richard Goscicki on June 6, 2009 at 3:12pm
Rosemary, Non-reproductive is considered sinful. This makes no sense at all, except with a memetic interpretation that the memeplex needs to replicate. Tight knit, extended, patriarchal families are the best way for vertical transition (father to son) of the memetic information.

Just to explain some my preoccupation with sex, the story is an allegory of Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. Suppose what he dubs the “coy/fast gene” reversed due to chemical contamination and corruption of chromosomal nucleotide sequences.

Cynthia was a good girl from a well-to-do, tight family— shy, modest and family oriented. Pre-mirror reversal, she said, "I'm not that kind of girl," quite a few times in her life. But suppose a chemical managed to reverse the alleles. As shy as she was before the mirror reversal, that's how coquette, immodest, teasing and swinging she becomes.

How would this genetic flip change her life? She becomes a completely different person.

Members (310)


© 2015   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service