So maybe is back story then...Mummy running off, or Daddy?

SusiGo wrote:

besleybean wrote:

So maybe is back story then...Mummy running off, or Daddy?

Or we could ask Benedict what his backstory was. Although I suppose he wouldn't tell. 

You could...

But no, I don't suppose he would.

there are links in this board leading to several more or less good magazine articles,
if you use the search function on top you should be able to find them one by one 

a sherlock holmes fan wrote:

in the Irene Adler episode sherlock said "for God's sake" and "dear lord"
doesn't that tell us if hes an atheist or not ?

Some of those phrases become part of a vernacular and get used even if one doesn't believe in a higher power. I'll say similar (though generally surrounded with worse language), but I am an atheist. I was raised in a catholic household and the phrases stuck.

besleybean  beat me to the same basic comment.

Last edited by equiraptor (January 2, 2013 9:59 pm)

I'm fairly clear in my own mind that he's not gay.
I would assume he is atheist, but I just don't know,

Last edited by besleybean (January 2, 2013 10:30 pm)

besleybean wrote:

I'm an atheist and I blaspheme constantly, so that tells us nothing.

I don't think it can be blasphemy if the speaker is not a believer-- to a true atheist, those expletives would just be words like any other words. *smile*

I'd be surprised if the Holmes boys weren't raised good Anglicans, but this also tells us nothing.

My understanding is that the vast majority of UK residents are not church goers or believers, so.... the odds are that he is totally unchurched and totally atheist, simply because he's never allowed his prodigious brain to "go there" and consider it and perhaps never even been exposed to it.

Interesting question, this, but we'll never know the answer. The showrunners and writers will never take their characters in any direction to fill in this part of their backstories, IMO.

Sherli Bakerst wrote:

I don't think Sherlock is an atheist and here's why: He can't prove or disprove that God/god(s) exist. And I think without the ability to be certain, he wouldn't commit himself to something unknown.

An atheist does not need to have faith (or proof) in either direction. An accurate description of an atheist point of view is, "I do not believe in any higher power." This could alternately be explained as, "I do not see sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim that there is any higher power." There is no faith involved. It's not saying, "I believe there is no higher power," or "There is no possibility of a higher power," just "I don't believe in a higher power and don't see strong evidence of one." Should new evidence be discovered, this perspective may change.

Keep in mind, "agnostic" need not only apply to religion. One can be both "agnostic toward religion" and "an atheist". A reasonable example statement from such a person would be, "I don't know if there are any gods or not, and so I do not believe in any."

Last edited by equiraptor (January 2, 2013 11:52 pm)

Oh course he is and I never doubted it...I only ever doubted how the writers would choose to show it.

geeksugars wrote:

Yes. In the sign of three he says something about God adn then says well he would be if he were not a lutacrist fantasy designed to create a oppurtunity to the family idiot. (he does kind of contradict himeself but I do believe he would be an agnostic atheist.)

An agnostic atheist isn't possible. One cannot be both simultaneously.

I believe the word he used was ludicrous, meaning ridiculous, preposterous, idiotic, absurd. These sentiments, said out loud in "polite" company, and not only that, right in the face of a perfectly nice gentleman of the cloth who, I'm sure, didn't feel his own faith was ludicrous or a fantasy, either one, seemed cruel, even for "a-bit-not-good" Sherlock. Completely inappropriate, even more so than he usually is, IMO. I literally cringed when I heard it the first time.

This is all conjecture, since we have no way of knowing Sherlock's true heart when it comes to this subject, any more than we can understand the true nature of his sexuality, since the writers haven't spelled it out for us in either case.