Total Posts:7|Showing Posts:1-7
Jump to topic:

Are non-theists vampires?

John_Royals
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 1:43:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Anyone who has read the novel by Bram Stoker Dracula knows that it is a very great read. I was reading it again for the first time in years recently, and found myself asking some philosophical questions given the conclusions one can draw from this intriguing literature. Although I understand the context in which it was written, and the author's intent; i'd like to draw new parallels using the book as a way to compare.

Dracula, a villain only because he is misunderstood (relatively speaking). Hunted for fear of his "evil" qualities. His limitations on his power, are always subjective to if people WANT his presence; for instance entering a house; and he could not drink from Lucy unless she wanted him too.

On the other hand, the Hero. Van Helsing, a man who uses modern science and Christian ideology to combat Dracula as he is the only one who can see what is really necessary to defeat Dracula in a quest to help the oh-so sacred Heroine Mina.

Non-theists are vampires because we break stereotypes of what theists believe. We can be nice, sophisticated people. But once engaged in our domain, feel that we are Monsters for the "nightmares" (challenge of faith, and beliefs ie: premarital sex, sinful behavior, rejection of God) we give them and the company we keep because it is "heathen." Therefore, to combat non-theists Van Helsing's emerge who acknowledge modern science, but believe people can only be remedied through extra religious help. How many Christians are saved by modern medicine, but believe prayer is what saved them?

The scariest thing non-theists project, is the challenge of stereotypical theists beliefs. And so when we are invited to present ourselves, not forced, we are met with shock and horror. We are made to be the villains, the scary monster who needs salvation.

I want to write more, but really hope people input on my interpretation.
bsh1
Posts: 27,504
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 2:41:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is a very interesting analogy, and I think there is something to be said about it.
Live Long and Prosper

I'm a Bish.


"Twilight isn't just about obtuse metaphors between cannibalism and premarital sex, it also teaches us the futility of hope." - Raisor

"[Bsh1] is the Guinan of DDO." - ButterCatX

Follow the DDOlympics
: http://www.debate.org...

Open Debate Topics Project: http://www.debate.org...
John_Royals
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 3:12:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 2:41:44 AM, bsh1 wrote:
This is a very interesting analogy, and I think there is something to be said about it.

That's what I thought when I finished reading it. Was Dracula really a monster, or was he demonized because the narrative is told from first person perspective? We only know Dracula as he is seen through the journals and letters.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 4:01:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 2:41:44 AM, bsh1 wrote:
This is a very interesting analogy, and I think there is something to be said about it.

I was hoping for this to be an opportunity for an outstanding sarcasm post.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
John_Royals
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/18/2015 5:15:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 3:54:49 AM, SM2 wrote:
We don't sparkle. Therefore you're wrong.

And thank goodness, I live near a desert so if people did sparkle in the sun, it'd get mad annoying; I hate wearing sunglasses as it is
HououinKyouma
Posts: 1,030
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/19/2015 2:11:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/18/2015 1:43:52 AM, John_Royals wrote:
Anyone who has read the novel by Bram Stoker Dracula knows that it is a very great read. I was reading it again for the first time in years recently, and found myself asking some philosophical questions given the conclusions one can draw from this intriguing literature. Although I understand the context in which it was written, and the author's intent; i'd like to draw new parallels using the book as a way to compare.

Dracula, a villain only because he is misunderstood (relatively speaking). Hunted for fear of his "evil" qualities. His limitations on his power, are always subjective to if people WANT his presence; for instance entering a house; and he could not drink from Lucy unless she wanted him too.

On the other hand, the Hero. Van Helsing, a man who uses modern science and Christian ideology to combat Dracula as he is the only one who can see what is really necessary to defeat Dracula in a quest to help the oh-so sacred Heroine Mina.

Non-theists are vampires because we break stereotypes of what theists believe. We can be nice, sophisticated people. But once engaged in our domain, feel that we are Monsters for the "nightmares" (challenge of faith, and beliefs ie: premarital sex, sinful behavior, rejection of God) we give them and the company we keep because it is "heathen." Therefore, to combat non-theists Van Helsing's emerge who acknowledge modern science, but believe people can only be remedied through extra religious help. How many Christians are saved by modern medicine, but believe prayer is what saved them?

The scariest thing non-theists project, is the challenge of stereotypical theists beliefs. And so when we are invited to present ourselves, not forced, we are met with shock and horror. We are made to be the villains, the scary monster who needs salvation.

I want to write more, but really hope people input on my interpretation.

Somewhat dramatically overstated, but an interesting take on the issue nonetheless. You are certainly right about the stigma associated not so much with atheism in itself but with the word atheism. There are people who react quite differently when--in reply to the question "do you believe in God?"--you say, "I am an agnostic," or (funnily enough) "no, I don't believe in God," compared to how they react when you say, "no, I am an atheist."

P.S. I actually thought this was going to be a fun troll post.
"Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire." F. Nietzsche.

"Freedom is always freedom for the one who thinks differently." R. Luxemburg.

"The principle of the masochistic left is that, in general, two blacks make a white, half a loaf is the same as no bread." G. Orwell, paraphrase.

"Islamophobia is a word created by fascists, used by cowards, to manipulate morons". Andrew Cummins.