• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Psychology of Atheism

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Examination of the evidence and accepting the best foot put forward on it is all I stand by, in the end. "secular Humanism" may or may not have its day, and may or may not also need to be discarded. Only time and accumulation and assimilation of sound information and verifiable evidence will tell.

This is probably tangential, but I have to ask: w
hat about personal or cultural values? What about feelings? What about desire?

One of the central narratives of secular humanism fixates on is "reason" in spite of humans being fundamentally emotional creatures driven by values, feelings, and desires. These play a role, whether it is acknowledged or not. So I can't help but to ask ask... where does all that come in? Is it really assimilation of sound information and verifiable evidence that's the key here?

The answer doesn't really matter - I think the key point to take away is that the stories we tell ourselves about these things are stories whether they are grounded in what we call reason, evidence, feelings, faith, or whatever it is. That's kinda what Augustus is trying to get at, albeit in more words. Everybody has stories they tell themselves about the world and their place in it, though the words used to describe that can vary. Those stories are what make meaning. :D
 
No. You seem to have the bizarre idea that if something isn't objective but rather a personal or collective set of values, it's automatically a myth or an illusion. That's not what the words mean.

Actually, it is what the word means. If more people were aware of this it might increase their ability to see past their own conceits of living a life free of myths.

mythos (plural mythoi or mythoses)

  1. Anything transmitted by word of mouth, such as a fable, legend, narrative, story, or tale (especially a poetic tale).
  2. story or set of stories relevant to or having a significant truth or meaning for a particular culture, religion, society, or other group;
  3. a myth, a mythology.
  4. assumptions or beliefs about something. literature) A recurring theme; a motif.

Call it what you like: worldview, narrative, ideology, myth, illusion, fiction or whatever else tickles your fancy, it is the set of narratives by which you create meaning in the world, establish your values and explain how things should be.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
This is probably tangential, but I have to ask: what about personal or cultural values? What about feelings? What about desire?

One of the central narratives of secular humanism fixates on is "reason" in spite of humans being fundamentally emotional creatures driven by values, feelings, and desires. These play a role, whether it is acknowledged or not. So I can't help but to ask ask... where does all that come in? Is it really assimilation of sound information and verifiable evidence that's the key here?

The answer doesn't really matter - I think the key point to take away is that the stories we tell ourselves about these things are stories whether they are grounded in what we call reason, evidence, feelings, faith, or whatever it is. That's kinda what Augustus is trying to get at, albeit in more words. Everybody has stories they tell themselves about the world and their place in it, though the words used to describe that can vary. Those stories are what make meaning. :D
I don't deny that things like "feelings" or "desire" exist, obviously. Once communally defined/identified these things have been sufficiently demonstrated time and time again. We don't each "feel" or "desire" the same things, but with knowledge of that abstract that another person is referencing, we can recognize these things in ourselves. But besides all of that... if people are being honest with themselves, "feelings" are not "true" - it doesn't even make sense to talk about them that way. "Desires" are not "true." And while they aren't quantifiable, they are inter-subjectively known to exist. I can relay my desires to you, and with your understanding of what a "desire" is, you understand that what I am relaying to you exists as a function of my existence. All the evidence you need, as another human being, is in your own acceptance of a "desire" as an abstract aspect of yourself. And get this... I would wholeheartedly expect a person (or any being) incapable of holding desires not to believe me at all when I stated that I had them! However, I could very likely explain the idea to them, and point to my own actions toward the ends of achieving my desires as evidence that I literally wanted to mete out those desires and achieve those ends. In essence, there is still verifiable evidence of feelings and desires occurring and acting upon an individual.

Not even this much can be said of a "god" and others' insistence that it is real/true however. And so it makes even less sense to talk about the abstract of "god" and equate it with anything nearing "truth."

And you know what... you are free to say that your god exists as a function of your existence - just as I stated about others' feelings or desires... but in that same way, your feelings are not my feelings, and your feelings are not "true" for me. Just as your god is not "true" for me either. And so your god ends up being exactly like your feelings or your desires. Present and accounted for only for you. Which is denied by theists of a great many persuasions when they insist that their god exists independent of their belief.
 
Last edited:
So you've struck on the "singular most important component of human thought", have you. Way to go champ. Excuse me while I turn around and facepalm my flesh off.

It's not exactly a groundbreaking insight.

Instead of vigorously facepalming yourself, perhaps you could explain something more important in the history of the human thought than narrative?

Specious sophistry.

Instead of just making empty statements, perhaps you would also like to explain how we create systems of meaning without narratives?

We're pretty much agreed on this point, honestly. What does this have to do with whether or not we seek to only accept what we can verify through evidence and sound reasoning though?

Why, for example, should we want to do that? Why should people hold such a value? How would you convince a child that this is what they should strive for?

What it doesn't make Christianity is any more "true" than it ever has been. It may very well have been a "building block" of sorts... so you can say it "has value" or something ("a story you tell yourself that explains the 'why'" maybe?) but you can't claim it is any more true than it ever has been. And so, if we're trying to strive for truth at all, and Christianity needs discarded on that path, then it always needed to be discarded - it just took us time to get there.

Never said anything about 'truth'. The point was that if X is a mythos, and Y is derivative of X, why should we hold that Y is not also a mythos?

This is you claiming that forms of evidence are simply myth. I don't agree, and you can't demonstrate the truth of this claim.

Values are not a form of evidence.

How do we spread values without narrative?

Examination of the evidence and accepting the best foot put forward on it is all I stand by, in the end.

I can guarantee that your worldview comprises a far greater range of values than this, and I can guarantee that you didn't arrive at them all by 'examination of the evidence'.

Even the most 'rational' of worldviews requires a foundation of subjective axioms upon which to build its ideological tenets.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Actually, it is what the word means. If more people were aware of this it might increase their ability to see past their own conceits of living a life free of myths.

Actually not, in the normal, everyday sense of myth (see myth):

1 A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
‘ancient Celtic myths’

2 A widely held but false belief or idea.​

You are playing with words in order to create a false equivalence. There is no comparison between believing in the objective reality of a god or gods without evidence, and adopting personal or collective values and being perfectly aware that they aren't objective.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
"Another major reason for my wanting to become an atheist was that I desired to be accepted by the powerful and influential scientists in the field of psychology. In particular, I wanted to be accepted by my professors in graduate school. As a graduate student I was thoroughly socialized by the specific "culture" of academic research psychology. My professors at Stanford, however much they might disagree on psychological theory, were, as far as I could tell, united in only two things-their intense personal career ambition and their rejection of religion. As the psalmist says, ". . . The man greedy for gain curses and renounces the Lord. In the pride of his countenance the wicked does not seek him; all his thoughts are, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 10:3-4)."
In my experience, I've been the odd one out in the field for being neutral and apathetic towards religion. Individual locations may vary, but the evidence-based practice I worked for in Indiana had a lot of Christian-based ideas floating around. And, as a field, psychology seems to promote gains for an individual in belonging to a religion but has been very slow to acknowledge the trauma that religion can inflict.
"Finally, in this list of superficial, but nevertheless, strong irrational pressures to become an atheist, I must list simple personal convenience. The fact is that it is quite inconvenient to be a serious believer in today's powerful secular and neo-pagan world. I would have had to give up many pleasures and a good deal of time."
And yet, according to psychology research, their are social detriments for being an atheist, such as decreased quality of care received from health care providers. And we don't need a study to show us atheists are demonized for being atheists, up to having their sense of morality questioned and denied by others.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
Some of that resonates with me as someone who pretty much grew up in an irreligious household. I mean, I was forced to do the church thing and Sunday school thing for a few years, but it was really more of a custom than the household being strongly religious. Having an inter-religious household may have had something to do with that. There were other things that grabbed my attention more, so I gravitated towards those. As I didn't have proper education about religion, I ended up dismissing it all as stupid and conflating all theism with things like "mother goose." From there, we have limited time to invest in learning and exploring things. I wasn't going to waste my time looking into the dumb superstition that was religious "fairy tales" and all that nonsense. Yeah, I was one of those atheists... because the environment I grew up in allowed for it.

Fortunately, that same environment instilled in me a love of learning. It was only a matter of time before curiosity got the better of me and I pulled my head out of the dirt when it came to religion and theism. Not everybody has (or makes) the time to do that, though. My interest happened at the right place and the right time - when I was a college undergraduate and had a ton of free time to do my own research plus a huge arsenal of resources to sink my teeth into.

Doesn't sound so different from my story, apart from the conclusion you drew.
Not all atheists dismiss myths, and some...ahem...even study them for fun or their inherited wisdom.
 

lewisnotmiller

Grand Hat
Staff member
Premium Member
The problem with atheists is they claim atheism is an easily defined belief that can be easily accessible as if there is proof of atheism. No. You went through the same or similar process as me.

I think you'll probably find that, even psychologically speaking, there are ranging experiences and reasons people have become atheists.
Your OP speaks of a cultural environment where atheism was the norm, but that is far from common for most of us.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
It's not exactly a groundbreaking insight.

Instead of vigorously facepalming yourself, perhaps you could explain something more important in the history of the human thought than narrative?
Much more important, in my estimation (see how I added this qualifier? How novel! Maybe try it some time.), are the vastly more fundamental aspects of thought. Perhaps our capability to reason in the first place? End result... I wouldn't like to be caught pretending that I know the most important aspect of human thought. Who in their right mind would?

Instead of just making empty statements, perhaps you would also like to explain how we create systems of meaning without narratives?
My statement was to point out how empty your statement was - or did you not catch that? But sure, I'll take a crack at it. Again... I wouldn't claim to know this for certain, but using my capability to reason, I would posit that we create "systems of meaning" (I only sort of grasp what this nebulous term means, so bear with me), by examining ourselves, our collective desires and "best of" arguments for the ways to most productively and happily conduct ourselves with respect to us as individuals and collectively as a group, and then among all the options we pluck out what we feel are the things that most clearly support us in our survival and garner a modicum of "happiness" along the way. We don't necessarily need a story to do this - and even less do we need to pretend such a story is reality. Sure, we may tell stories as a method of relaying information of an abstract nature... but of what use is claiming they are more than that on top of formulating and relaying the story?

Why, for example, should we want to do that? Why should people hold such a value? How would you convince a child that this is what they should strive for?
So that they don't commit themselves to making the same mistakes of the past. I would have thought this obvious. Every person tricked by a charlatan who tells them a story that isn't backed by evidence, should use this as an opportunity to wise up, and make sure their standards are set higher - for themselves as well as their children. I highly doubt there is anyone here who would praise the idea of teaching children anything and everything, regardless how well grounded in reality it is. Why accept that as a general premise, and yet make an exception for religious beliefs? There are real things to be lost here. In the case of simple religious adherence, the loss is potentially time, possibly monetary, possibly loss in peace of mind, possibly a loss of family members. I've seen all of these and more that can be blamed directly on religious adherence. And yes, the same thing could be said for ardent political stances, for which there may also be less than sufficient evidence or reasoning having gone into it... but I would admonish against adopting that sort of stance as well, and for the same reasons.

Never said anything about 'truth'. The point was that if X is a mythos, and Y is derivative of X, why should we hold that Y is not also a mythos?
Being conditionally influenced by, and being "a derivative of" are 2 separate things. If "Y" is deemed better now than "X" for verifiable, rational reasons, then it should hold that "Y" was always better than "X", even if "X" was first and helped shape our ideas of "Y".


Values are not a form of evidence.

How do we spread values without narrative?
Do you seriously give no weight to a process by which we weigh values against one another to choose which are the best versus the worst? Are not discussions about various moral or ethical considerations representative of exactly that process? Do we relay anecdotes and analogies as part of that process? Sure. But do we also not use quantifiable data, past reliability and future predictability also? Of course we do. You sit there and ask how we could possibly spread values without narrative... and yet we do it all the time. Narrative is only one form, and can only be labeled "best" as a matter of opinion. And no, values themselves are not evidence of anything except the fact that the people who hold them chose those values through whatever process they used. But you had better bet on the idea that there was a process behind it. And it didn't only involve telling stories of make believe.

I can guarantee that your worldview comprises a far greater range of values than this, and I can guarantee that you didn't arrive at them all by 'examination of the evidence'.
And I guarantee you that I did. Even anecdotes and analogies are forms of evidence. Granted, not nearly the best ones in my estimation, and those that involve abstracts like feeling and desire that do not have a direct correlation to my own experiences with the same, and have no physical presence to speak of are easily discarded - or should be. Set aside with a note to check up on whether or not there is something better to gauge the claim with at a later date. And until then, ignore it or seek the answers out yourself - but until you know, you don't know.

Even the most 'rational' of worldviews requires a foundation of subjective axioms upon which to build its ideological tenets.
I agree with this. However, those axioms of a non-supernatural nature, while abstract to the extreme, are still a shared attribute of our experienced reality between those who accept them in a way that religions simply cannot claim to wield.
 

MJ Bailey

Member
Not to be confused in its entirety with professor Paul C. Vitz's paper:The Psychology of Atheism but I found his paper quite interesting on the psychological aspect of atheism and the development of atheistic beliefs. Of course we in the psychology community believe there are a wide spectrum of beliefs concerning religion and metaphysics. Yes we indeed see the development of religious and irreligious beliefs as a development through personal experience. Nobody believes or disbelieves just because. There are developmental stages a person goes through before they solidify a particular life altering belief. I call it life altering, because for the atheist, they are not bound by any customary religious obligations nor observe any religious dietary customs.

However, what I do see in a lot of atheists both in the background of philosophical writers and anecdotally more often than not, many (not all) come from religious backgrounds where there are two spectrums: either extremely religious and repressive or irreligious (religious in custom but not practicing). During my time in research researching dietary customs in religious households, I have seen that certain customs that are straight forward yet strict also tends to not just be allocated to merely what meals you're allowed to eat and not eat, but largely branches out into every aspect of one's life. These restrictions tend to also focus on behavior, what one can and cannot do even as something as benign as what type of clothing you ought to where can be scrutinized.

For the irreligious growing up in a household where religion was not the focal point in the development of one's childhood would allow an easier transition into skepticism and the eventuality of developing hard atheist beliefs especially if one is a lover of the "hard sciences." Professor Vitz in his writing also highlights this when referring to specific socialization:

"Another major reason for my wanting to become an atheist was that I desired to be accepted by the powerful and influential scientists in the field of psychology. In particular, I wanted to be accepted by my professors in graduate school. As a graduate student I was thoroughly socialized by the specific "culture" of academic research psychology. My professors at Stanford, however much they might disagree on psychological theory, were, as far as I could tell, united in only two things-their intense personal career ambition and their rejection of religion. As the psalmist says, ". . . The man greedy for gain curses and renounces the Lord. In the pride of his countenance the wicked does not seek him; all his thoughts are, 'There is no God'" (Psalm 10:3-4)."

Atheism at least philosophically, is synonymous with freedom of expression, no constraints, autonomous thinking etcetera. One is devoid of a nagging deity or deities' rules and doctrinal regulations. One does not abide by any customary laws as they are seen as a matter of inconvenience as per Dr. Vitz in the following:

"Finally, in this list of superficial, but nevertheless, strong irrational pressures to become an atheist, I must list simple personal convenience. The fact is that it is quite inconvenient to be a serious believer in today's powerful secular and neo-pagan world. I would have had to give up many pleasures and a good deal of time."

But what is remarkable for me as an observer is that the issue I have with atheists is the same issues I have with theists concerning their belief. One side says "show me proof!" the other side says "the proof is here in this 2,000 year-old book The Future of an Illusion as his position seems to the most solid:

[R]eligious ideas have arisen from the same needs as have all the other achievements of civilization: from the necessity of defending oneself against the crushing superior force of nature. (p. 21)

Which Freud develops in idea that the composition of religious beliefs are:

illusions, fulfillments of the oldest, strongest
and most urgent wishes of mankind . . . As we
already know, the terrifying impression of
helplessness in childhood aroused the need for
protection-for protection through love-which
was provided by the father . . . Thus the benevolent rule of a divine Providence allays our fear of the danger of life. (p. 30)

Quite interesting.....So I ask my fellow religionists, what say you in regards to this?
Interesting concept, but do not completely agree. Atheist in which I have personally known more than one, can at times have a higher appreciation to other people's life for one point. On the second point in my personal beliefs are, an Omnipotent being is not gender referenced, species referenced, or objectified (per-say).etc... As far as area specific of any given Religion, I see most have both good and bad qualities, therefore I choose not to choose one in particular. (not to say this view may not change some day). I have had extreme personal experiences in which I was given proof that there is a much greater existence than us, yet lack any tangible evidence.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
And?

See... I already acknowledged the idea that atheists are capable of holding irrational beliefs, or stating things as "fact" when they have no valid basis for doing so - just like anyone else. And this is where you are forced to understand that there is no dogma in atheism. I don't have to agree with a single thing ANY other atheist says or does, except when they say "I don't believe in god." That is the only statement to which any atheist is bound, by definition, to agree with. Everything else is a free-for-all. Everything.

Well it’s not that irrational if the man did research behind his beliefs. It’s irrational to you because you believe that is not how YOU came up with the conclusion.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Well it’s not that irrational if the man did research behind his beliefs. It’s irrational to you because you believe that is not how YOU came up with the conclusion.
One might research how many angels can dance on the head
of a pin, & arrive at a quantified belief. But it's still irrational.
One's premises matter.
 
Actually not, in the normal, everyday sense of myth (see myth):

1 A traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
‘ancient Celtic myths’

2 A widely held but false belief or idea.
You are playing with words in order to create a false equivalence. There is no comparison between believing in the objective reality of a god or gods without evidence, and adopting personal or collective values and being perfectly aware that they aren't objective.

Nothing worse than pointless pedantry combined with being wrong.

"Common everyday" usage is not the only correct usage. This is commonly true with academic or scientific language for example.

Using words with accepted meanings is not 'playing with words', and it is vacuous to suggest it is.

As for 'false equivalence', it's you who is doing the comparing. I just said we all rely on myths/illusions/narratives/ideologies/ or whatever you want to call them.

You are free to think your mythos is superior to other people's for whatever reason you like if that's what floats your boat.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
I don't deny that things like "feelings" or "desire" exist, obviously. Once communally defined/identified these things have been sufficiently demonstrated time and time again. We don't each "feel" or "desire" the same things, but with knowledge of that abstract that another person is referencing, we can recognize these things in ourselves. But besides all of that... if people are being honest with themselves, "feelings" are not "true" - it doesn't even make sense to talk about them that way. "Desires" are not "true."

I really do not understand this at all. Maybe you are using the word "true" in some narrow sense of what that word means. As this reads to me, it sounds like you are saying all of our desires or feelings are disingenuous lies, or false. I cannot process that. There no sense in such a perspective to me at all, especially given its implications.


Not even this much can be said of a "god" and others' insistence that it is real/true however. And so it makes even less sense to talk about the abstract of "god" and equate it with anything nearing "truth."

Note there is great diversity of theism and what various cultures deify. Remember you're talking to someone whose gods are literally the ground you are walking on, the air you are breathing, the feelings you experience, and the behaviors you engage in. It kinda makes this point fall flat or read as nonsensical, especially on someone like me, as does the paragraph you wrote below this one. :sweat:

But how did we get on this tangent? All I was talking about is that everyone has their stories. Don't care if you call yourself a theist, atheist, potato pancake, or whatever - you've got stories.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
Also, I'm just going to innocuously post this here for no apparent reason... *cough*

"Now, pulling out a dictionary might seem like an innocuous act, but frequently it isn’t. Often the motivation behind the turn to the dictionary is not a desire for greater understanding, but a desire for control. Dictionary worshipers do not want to understand how others use words; rather, they want to control how others use words."
The Dictionary Is Not A Holy Book
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Nothing worse than pointless pedantry combined with being wrong.

"Common everyday" usage is not the only correct usage. This is commonly true with academic or scientific language for example.

Using words with accepted meanings is not 'playing with words', and it is vacuous to suggest it is.

Common everyday usage is what you can expect people to understand if you don't further qualify what you say.

As for 'false equivalence', it's you who is doing the comparing. I just said we all rely on myths/illusions/narratives/ideologies/ or whatever you want to call them.

You are free to think your mythos is superior to other people's for whatever reason you like if that's what floats your boat.

What you originally said was about illusions:

Despite many of the less self-aware atheists telling themselves otherwise, adopting an atheistic worldview is not the process of freeing oneself from illusions, but simply the replacement of one type of illusion for another (often simply a minor twist on an existing religious illusion).

Now you've backed away into "mythos" and the bizarre "myths/illusions/narratives/ideologies" - which are not interchangeable terms; an ideology is not an illusion.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
Oh yeah, it is.



You are begging the question that metaphysical deities are not fable. Sonce they enjoy he same evidence, it is not clear where this asymmetry comes from if not culture. If you you grew up in a culture that inverted them, you would have had experiences of Mother Goose.



I tried but you have a point here. I find it very difficult to convince myself that there are logical contradictions in the concept of Mother Goose. Or Apollo. Or Bob.



Yes, you take it from your culture, in general. Your belief is an accident of birth.

Which is obvious, how could I otherweise guess so reliably the religion of X when I know only where he comes froma and what his parents believe?

Am i a psychic?

Ciao

- fiole

Yes religion is partially taken from culture but of course there are outliers. Sometimes religion comes to the irreligious from a positive experience. A lot of times atheism comes from negative experiences. Beliefs and philosophies are not always cut and dry
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
The problem with atheists is they claim atheism is an easily defined belief that can be easily accessible as if there is proof of atheism.

Atheism is not a belief, much less a belief that is in need of proof or evidence.

Theism is the belief.
Atheist is what you default to if you are not a theist.



Anyhow, sure: coming to a conclusion about anything is the result of a reasoning process.

What he is saying is that the process to arrive at the atheist position, isn't complicated.
It's just looking at the theistic claims, looking at the evidence (which doesn't exist) and then concluding that the claims aren't supported - or even supportable.


How many seconds of thought will you need to reject the claim that an undetectable interdimensional 7-headed dragon is standing behind you RIGHT NOW, read to eat you up any second?

I bet you rejected that claim even before you got to "...is standing being you".
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
Well it’s not that irrational if the man did research behind his beliefs. It’s irrational to you because you believe that is not how YOU came up with the conclusion.
I could research a topic like "ghosts" all I wanted, but at the end of the day, an inability (of myself and everyone else) to demonstrate ANY of the so-called "facts" I/we have learned about ghosts definitively kills the endeavor. It's over. Done. Finito. I may as well be spouting fiction.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
I really do not understand this at all. Maybe you are using the word "true" in some narrow sense of what that word means. As this reads to me, it sounds like you are saying all of our desires or feelings are disingenuous lies, or false. I cannot process that. There no sense in such a perspective to me at all, especially given its implications.

What I am saying is that neither the words "true" or "false" apply to feelings or desires. They simply "are." Just try and tell me what makes your feeling "true." Because you feel it? It is therefore "true" in some objective sense? Of course not. It is for you, and you alone to process and "feel." It's there, and can be acknowledged, but there is no "truth" or "falsehood" to be relayed in its existence. It would be like saying that the shape of a rock is "true" or that it is "false" - those terms do not apply to the shape of a rock. The shape is what it is.


Note there is great diversity of theism and what various cultures deify. Remember you're talking to someone whose gods are literally the ground you are walking on, the air you are breathing, the feelings you experience, and the behaviors you engage in. It kinda makes this point fall flat or read as nonsensical, especially on someone like me, as does the paragraph you wrote below this one. :sweat:

But how did we get on this tangent? All I was talking about is that everyone has their stories. Don't care if you call yourself a theist, atheist, potato pancake, or whatever - you've got stories.
And stories aren't necessarily "true."
 
Top