Dear Atheists..

Kippaxpete said:
Existentialism is not an branch of philosophy unique to Kierkgaard and to suggest otherwise betrays a monumental level of ignorance. Nietzsche wrote extensively on existentialist matters but was not a fan of Christianity as the following quote makes clear.

I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough,—I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race…
Click to expand...
" The school of thought is often traced back to the work of the Danish philosopher and theologian Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855) who is widely regarded as the father of existentialism.[1]"

Of the earliest figures associated with existentialism only Friedrich Nietzsche was an atheist. Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky together with most prominent 20th existentialist thinkers like Heidegger, Jaspers, Marcel, Bultmann and Tillich were professed Christians. De Beauvoir and Sartre were both atheists but Camus vehemently rejected the description.
 
I've said it before and the point remains...If there IS a creator, and they WANT us to know about them, then we all would. Instead, we have silly man-made religions (books that can't even get the order of the universe, Earth, the sun and life right...it's like a child's view) that claim the "creator" wants us to WORSHIP them. And if we don't, we'll regret it.
That's appalling. Anything that demands worship, does not deserve worship. BUT...that's how ancient HUMANS saw things.
What can any god add to what we already know and experience in our lives?
 
Damocles said:
There are very literally thousands of accounts of people being "dead" and "coming back" again. I doubt your scientific understanding if this is the first you've ever heard of such a thing. Even the concept itself of "dead" has been redefined over and over and over again throughout history.
Click to expand...
I notice you've put dead and coming back in inverted commas. So just being pedantic then.
 
johnny crossan said:
" The school of thought is often traced back to the work of the Danish philosopher and theologian Søren Kierkegaard (1813–1855) who is widely regarded as the father of existentialism.[1]"

Of the earliest figures associated with existentialism only Friedrich Nietzsche was an atheist. Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky together with most prominent 20th existentialist thinkers like Heidegger, Jaspers, Marcel, Bultmann and Tillich were professed Christians. De Beauvoir and Sartre were both atheists but Camus vehemently rejected the description.
Click to expand...
Jean-Paul Sartre agued that existence precedes essence, implying that individuals create their own meaning without divine influence. Albert Camus
avocated for living with passion despite a lack of religious meaning. Simone de Beauvoir explored themes of freedom and responsibility in the context of women's liberation and criticised religious frameworks that limit individual choice. Martin Heidegger, while not strictly an atheist, asserted that being and authenticity often led to a rejection of religious dogma in favour of simply understanding existence. All these philosophers contributed to existentialist thinking by emphasising personal freedom and the search for meaning in a non-religious context. It's straight out of the fanatical religious adherent's playbook to simply select the evidence that suits their agenda while conveniently ignoring anything that might run counter to it.
 
Kippaxpete said:
Jean-Paul Sartre agued that existence precedes essence, implying that individuals create their own meaning without divine influence. Albert Camus
avocated for living with passion despite a lack of religious meaning. Simone de Beauvoir explored themes of freedom and responsibility in the context of women's liberation and criticised religious frameworks that limit individual choice. Martin Heidegger, while not strictly an atheist, asserted that being and authenticity often led to a rejection of religious dogma in favour of simply understanding existence. All these philosophers contributed to existentialist thinking by emphasising personal freedom and the search for meaning in a non-religious context. It's straight out of the fanatical religious adherent's playbook to simply select the evidence that suits their agenda while conveniently ignoring anything that might run counter to it.
Click to expand...
You are the one operatimg out of a playbook. There is nothing selective about my post, all the major existentialist thinkers were included of which only three were atheists. Heidegger described himself as a Christian Theologian but was a Nazi ffs - hardly a advert for the faithful is he?
 
johnny crossan said:
Anyone in your family believe in God?
Click to expand...
I’m guessing there’s a point to you answering these posts with that question?
Families are full of deluded nutjobs. Not necessarily to do with their religious beliefs but in general. Being family doesn’t make a difference really.
 
My "faith" that there is no God is founded in the fact that there is absolutely zero scientific evidence to suppose his/her/its existance.

A good quote I once heard, of an atheist talking to a devout Christian:

"You and I are very similar, having near identical theological views".

"Really?" Says the Christian.

Yes, the atheist replies, "There are 2500 Gods or deities, from the most ancient gods of polytheistic societies - Hittite, Sumerian, Mesopotamian - to the most contemporary gods of the major monotheistic religions - Allah, God, Yahweh"

You don't belive in 2,499 of them, whereas I don't believe in 2,500.
 
Phil1 said:
I’m guessing there’s a point to you answering these posts with that question?
Families are full of deluded nutjobs. Not necessarily to do with their religious beliefs but in general. Being family doesn’t make a difference really.
Click to expand...
Does make a difference actually. Just wondering if those two would regard their own family's sincere beliefs in such a disrespectful way. For myself I try not to say things to a person on here that I wouldn't say to them in person. If for example someone called me a liar to my face they'd need a pretty strong case to leave the conversation physically undamaged but I'm a bit old-fashioned like that.
 
johnny crossan said:
Does make a difference actually. Just wondering if those two would regard their own family's sincere beliefs in such a disrespectful way. For myself I try not to say things to a person on here that I wouldn't say to them in person. If for example someone called me a liar to my face they'd need a pretty strong case to leave the conversation physically undamaged but I'm a bit old-fashioned like that.
Click to expand...


It's not disrespectful to say that an adherent would put a make believe fantasy before his or her family is it though? I don't have any devoutly religious person in my circle at all and I never would have, that's a choice I make.

Faith is different, people with their own belief system that isn't driven by a book with a blueprint they have to follow to live their lives I can get, that being said just because I get it it doesn't mean I believe any of it.
 
johnny crossan said:
Does make a difference actually. Just wondering if those two would regard their own family's sincere beliefs in such a disrespectful way. For myself I try not to say things to a person on here that I wouldn't say to them in person. If for example someone called me a liar to my face they'd need a pretty strong case to leave the conversation physically undamaged but I'm a bit old-fashioned like that.
Click to expand...
That doesn’t sound very ‘turn the other cheek’ but then having read your posts I reckon you’re on the wind up. Great commitment to your own private joke.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top