New Aestheism movements

[tedteague]

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.

[Thorne]

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?"

Why do you assume that my life has to have meaning, other than that meaning which I impose upon it? Why does anyone's life have to have some deep, philosophical underpinnings? I'm not a student of philosophy. I don't know squat about Sartre or Nietzsche. To me, all that crap is no different than faith in the supernatural, trying to impose some grand meaning on the meaningless. It's simply our own egos trying to tell us how important we are.

Well, I'm not important, not in the grand scheme of the universe. I'm just a speck of dust riding on a speck of dust in a vast cloud of dust particles that is the universe. BUT I make my own meaning out of life. I have family, children, grandchildren, and they give purpose to my life. I have empathy for the pain of others, and that provides a moral framework for my life. I don't steal because to do so would validate someone stealing from me. I don't cause injury because to do so would invite others to cause me injury. In short, I do unto others as I would have them do unto me. I don't need a supernatural entity to tell me what is right. I certainly don't need the vile crap espoused by the sadistic, misogynistic god of the Bible, or the imbecilic maundering of a first century Jewish rabbi to tell me how to live my life, how to treat my neighbors, or how to make my life meaningful to me!

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.

What does "fully human" even mean? Who defines what fully human is? The term makes no sense to me. We are all products of our societies, of our cultures. We tend to base our opinions of other, and of ourselves, on those cultures. But those cultures, those societies, aren't necessarily right for everyone. And the more rigid and dogmatic those cultures become, the fewer people who will fit into them. Does that make those misfits less human? Is a jungle-dwelling, stone-age level tribe in New Guinea or South America any less human than you and I?

I am an atheist. I do not believe in gods. I do not claim that gods cannot, or do not, exist. My only claim is that, since the dawn of humanity men have been searching for gods and have found nothing but reality confronting them. I see no reason to spend my life bowing down to some being which probably does not exist.

I am also a scientist (in a loose sense, at least). I do believe that the scientific method, properly applied, is the best tool we have to date to determine what is real and how the universe works. Anything which impinges upon our universe, which has an effect upon us or the world around us, is able to be studied to one degree or another. No one has yet been able to show any solid, verifiable evidence for any supernatural claim, despite millions of person-hours spent trying to do so. Anomalous readings on an EMF detector do not mean ghosts. Fuzzy images of a bearded man on a piece of toast do not mean God. The position of Jupiter at the time of my birth has no bearing upon my destiny.

Some people DO believe in gods. Most of the people in this country believe in a Christian God. There are an estimated 38,000 different sects, each with their own beliefs about what this god is, and what he wants from his followers. As long as these believers are not doing harm to others, and are not trying to force their beliefs onto others, I have no quarrel with them. I think they are mistaken in their beliefs, just as they think that I'm mistaken in my lack of belief. Each of us has that right!

But when those people try to force their beliefs into science classes I will fight them, and ridicule those beliefs! When children are harmed by those people because of those beliefs, I will fight them! And when religious people rally to defend the perpetrators of that abuse while demonizing the alleged victims, I will fight them!