@Shanks_D_Chop I don't think it's a writer's job to tip-toe around everyone's sensitivities, but I also don't believe upsetting someone with your story means by definition that you've produced good writing. Maybe the writing's good, maybe not. It's not the barometer by which you can measure good writing because for example ...
If you describe in minute detail, a violent rape, or film one in a movie, you will no doubt upset many people, but that doesn't mean you've produced a valuable story.
"Getting to people's emotions" is important to good writing. Buy simply making someone angry or disgusted can also be accomplished with pretty bad writing.
@theend3r @Texasguy @Nikz1 - theend3r - You wrote, "You may be able to lead intelligent discussions but that doesn't make you intelligent." That makes no sense. To "lead" means to take charge, to direct, to be the pilot. If the discussion a religious person is leading is - as you say - "intelligent" - then its leader, the religious person you mentioned, must by definition be intelligent.
So theend3r - You are either not so bright, or had a real bad embarrassing moment with that post, or are very young, just a kid who might be smart but hasn't learned how to use is noggin' real well yet.
@theend3r @Nikz1 To be religious is not by definition to believe in something without reason. You need to read those books I posted, get some education. You are speaking from ignorance of your subject.
There is very little that can be said of all "religious people." You'd have to talk about specific offshoots or brands of religion. For example, regarding Christianity of the middle ages, popes actually sponsored scientific undertakings, yet I am sure no one posting here would ever guess that. The relationship between Catholicism and science is far - and I man FAR - more complex than anyone posting here seems to realize. But that would require people not to get their opinions from tv and actually to read something like for example the book, The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution
and as for religion being for the mentally challenged, again, that's like saying painting stinks because there is bad painting in the world. There's also great painting, complex and sophisticated. That is, there is simplistic tv evangelist style religion, and then there is far deeper and more complex styles of religion such as revealed in the book series on Christianity written by Jaroslav Pelikan, which I think begins with the book entitled
The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine, Vol. 1: The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition
Judaism and other religions also have a deep end of the pool, the intellectually and philosophically complex end, and the shallow more surfacy varieties adhered to by people who like to shout simple slogans and simply validate things they already believe. But for those who really want to explore the mysteries of existence, and use their heads doing so, there is plenty available to read and explore.
What I read is a lot of posters setting down extremem stereotypes of religious or non-religious people. I wonder how many of these opinions come from actual interaction with religious or non-religious people. I suspect not many.
Two of the nicest most thoughtful people are know are atheists. Two of the other nicest most thoughtful people I know are also two of the most religious people I know.
I think very few people who are religious are maniacal evil twisters of religion to evil ends. And I think the very few atheists lack morals because of their lack of faith in any religion. Also, religion and atheism are both complicated varying things and so to talk about either one with a broad brush doesn't make much sense.
Nikz1's comments