but anyway, i thhink the main point of this thread (i THINK, it is not clearly stated), is the atheist movements of the then and now. one thing that was not addressed (insoafar as I have read) is that popular atheist movements are akin to nihilism, an observation i too have made. before, the two were seperate with little overlap, now, it seems to be one and the same.
for example, the famous atheists of yore all made one essential point: if god does not exist, what do we do now? if there is no divine being to give life meaning, what do we do with our lives to make them fulfilled?
for example, Sartre wrote: Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing that God doesn't exist. Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing. There you've got our point of view. Not that we believe that God exists, but we think that the problem of His existence is not the issue. In this sense, existentialism is optimistic, a doctrine of action, and it is plain dishonesty for Christians to make no distinction between their own despair and ours and then to call us despairing. this is not nearly the same as this http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009...us-ad-campaign
nietzsche wrote: One still works, for work is a form of entertainment. But one is careful lest the entertainment be too harrowing. One no longer becomes poor or rich: both require too much exertion. Who still wants to rule? Who obey? Both require too much exertion.
No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.
this is not the sameas this: http://images.search.yahoo.com/image...mb=0dbR8HsoDa6
all of these past atheists or agnostics said god may or may not exist, but that'sjust the starting point, not the ending, after establishing that god is irrelevant, something else must be done, there is still a need for fulfillment and purpose in life, and this must be the sole prupose of life, that is an existentialist way. nowadays, the attitude does seem to be "no god, who cares what you do." this argument is inherently weak because it lies in the realm of the athesists only. a true conversation between theism and atheism must be on mutual terms. currently around the library, the attitude seems to be "there is no scientific proof of god,therefore, he does not exist." this is unacceptable to the theists because you're dealing in faith, not fact. you dont have faith in gravity, you know it exists. theists make many different counter-points based in faith, but this is unacceptable to the atheists because they deal in fact.
the question thorne should be asking is "are you living your life with authenticity, or do you bend to the will of a divine being?"
and the question now that i pose to you, Thorne, is this: "if the theists have it wrong, what have YOU done to give your life meaning? How do you live in a manner that is passionate and sincere? How have you become self-conscious and established through no external factors your own moral code of belief? and if you have not, how are you different from a nihilist?"
this is not a scientific "does god exist" question, this is a "how do we bcome fully human under these differing condition" and i have not yet seen a thread here that even poses this type of discussion.
at least, thats what i think the question Punish_her asked was.