Thoughts on Atheism Stripping Society of a Willingness to Survive

[GatorAbe7]

While reading Jean-Paul Sartre’s existential works two summers ago I realized that I, along with most individuals, do not have the means to construct for ourselves a meaning within the cold vacuum that Atheism is. Attaining your own meaning (as Sartre triumphs), rather than searching for a predisposed meaning bestowed by a Creator, is much more difficult for an individual to undertake. This is one of the distinct advantages Religion/Faith holds over Atheism.

Though the idea of Atheism has been around since the beginning of mankind, you’re hard pressed to find the lack of a belief of God take form as the predominant thought of any pre-Enlightenment culture. The German Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer is widely regarded as the first philosopher to take on Atheism as a formal academic study. Upon delving into implications of Godlessness, Schopenhauer famously recounts opening the “single narrow door to truth.” He was horrified, as he recounts seeing the world truly without God – a callous world of indifferent suffering and lacking of purpose. A long line of Atheistic philosophers have expounded on Schopenhauer’s foundation, most notably from Nietzsche to today’s New Atheistic movement. Of the “New Atheists,” Sam Harris proposes the most vigorous arguments that Atheism has “no content,” it is a void to be filled with the meaning of art, science, and beauty.

The drawback of Atheism is that most individuals cannot be counted on to cultivate their own personal meaning. This is where religion, especially the Islam and Christianity step in. They equally balance the individual and the masses by unifying the many while granting a unique role to be discovered by the individual. This is the personal dignity offered through Faith that Atheism cannot provide.

Atheism can work for those, like Sartre, who make it work. It can work on an individual level but Atheism woefully fails on a societal level by leaving a society completely defenseless because it does not unify with divine purpose. By providing purpose, Religion unifies a society toward a single purpose that the masses deem worth fighting and worth saving. Conversely, by leaving the individual to find their own purpose (many of which do not, those that do fail to unify their purpose) an Atheistic society is inherently without a purpose and thus unwilling to maintain their survival. In a survival of the fittest sense, a religious society is better disposed to survive.

(I can present several lengthy examples of cultures, but for now I’d rather leave it in its theoretical form above.)

Especially hoping for Lacuna’s or Brainstorm's thoughts here.

[Dreamliner]

Although I consider myself a religious nutter, I rather suspect that the 'unifying principle' of Americans is the religion of Americanism, a sort of heaping plate of national pride sprinkled salted with Christian imagery.

[MichiGator2002]

My man Mark Steyn discussed the context of Nietzsche's famous "God is dead" in "After America", and how even the atheist Nietzsche didn't herald it as good news, but rather as much what is discussed above. Belief in God is a socially, morally organizing factor in society that nobody has yet to show a track record of us being better off without.

[Lawdog88]

Individuals always construct their own meaning.

It is us, around which everything else revolves.

[Juggernautz]

Isn't that what American Indians believe?

[wargunfan]

At its core atheism is Nihilistic and offers no hope of ultimate meaning to a society or an individual. It is, at its center, a cold and bleak materialism in which the individual is nothing more than a collection of molecules moving through space and time.
Atheists have to borrow from a religious world view in order to reach for meaning in their lives. Concepts such as love have to be appropriated from religion because they have no meaning or utility in an atheistic world view. Atheists deny this fact and try to construct a basis for love as a sort of social contract. These attempts fall short because in a strict materialist world view love has no more utility than any other social contract.
My view is that most so called atheists are in reality simply agnostics or failed former believers who cannot reconcile the injustices and unfairness of the world with a loving deity. Actual doctrinaire atheists are truly rare and if they were not utter cowards they would have already made the highest statement of atheism and ended their meaningless lives.

[bluelang]

Originally Posted by GatorAbe7

The drawback of Atheism is that most individuals cannot be counted on to cultivate their own personal meaning.

Prove it.

Or offer even one tiny shred of evidence.

[Spurffelbow833]

Originally Posted by GatorAbe7

The drawback of Atheism is that most individuals cannot be counted on to cultivate their own personal meaning.

Most individuals cannot be counted on to cultivate their own relationship with a deity, either. If their religion even ostensibly allows them to think for themselves, they gladly instead opt for what their self-appointed leaders spoonfeed to them, and the wars and the famine and the pestilence and the bloodshed go on and on and on.

Are we entitled to meaning? Must we have some fuzzy assurance that life and those we love endure beyond the grave? As someone once so eloquently put it, we love a rose because we know it will soon be gone. Whoever loved a stone? I hope there is life after death, but I don't require proof or assurance of it to appreciate what I do know exists. And first and foremost, I do not see the moral imperative of believing anything. Seek, yes. Find and quit looking, no.

Dream, the IRS demands triple what God demands according to tithing churches. Plus God doesn't kick in your door and put you in a jail cell if you don't pay him. It's pretty clear that Americanism is the true national religion. The others are just toys we're allowed to play with as long as we put them away when we're told to.

[Dreamliner]

The churches need to renounce their ties to the state, including their tax-exempt status, and return to the Christian religion. Also, remove the American flag from their sanctuaries, stop having "Military Appreciation Days" and what-not.

[Spurffelbow833]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

The churches need to renounce their ties to the state, including their tax-exempt status, and return to the Christian religion. Also, remove the American flag from their sanctuaries, stop having "Military Appreciation Days" and what-not.

Keep talking that way, and you'll end up in the stockade.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Spurffelbow833

Keep talking that way, and you'll end up in the stockade.

I know, I transgressed the Last American Taboo: "Thou Shalt Not Speak Ill Of Caesar Or His Violent Arm."

[Row6]

Originally Posted by Spurffelbow833

Most individuals cannot be counted on to cultivate their own relationship with a deity, either. If their religion even ostensibly allows them to think for themselves, they gladly instead opt for what their self-appointed leaders spoonfeed to them, and the wars and the famine and the pestilence and the bloodshed go on and on and on.

Are we entitled to meaning? Must we have some fuzzy assurance that life and those we love endure beyond the grave? As someone once so eloquently put it, we love a rose because we know it will soon be gone. Whoever loved a stone? I hope there is life after death, but I don't require proof or assurance of it to appreciate what I do know exists. And first and foremost, I do not see the moral imperative of believing anything. Seek, yes. Find and quit looking, no.

Dream, the IRS demands triple what God demands according to tithing churches. Plus God doesn't kick in your door and put you in a jail cell if you don't pay him. It's pretty clear that Americanism is the true national religion. The others are just toys we're allowed to play with as long as we put them away when we're told to.

Interesting thread. A note - Protestantism is specifically aimed at individuals cultivating their own relationship with the deity. Granted, they had field notes to guide them in this.

Elsewhere, your characterization of the atheist perspective on the world may not be any more cold than other religious tendencies now out of fashion like Calvanism. As Hitchens noted, the Christian idea of afterlife could be like living in a celestial North Korea.

[wargunfan]

Originally Posted by Row6

Interesting thread. A note - Protestantism is specifically aimed at individuals cultivating their own relationship with the deity. Granted, they had field notes to guide them in this.

Elsewhere, your characterization of the atheist perspective on the world may not be any more cold than other religious tendencies now out of fashion like Calvanism. As Hitchens noted, the Christian idea of afterlife could be like living in a celestial North Korea.

Which is exactly (by his own choice) where he is.

[TWGator]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

The churches need to renounce their ties to the state, including their tax-exempt status, and return to the Christian religion. Also, remove the American flag from their sanctuaries, stop having "Military Appreciation Days" and what-not.

I agree with this wholeheartedly.

[GatorAbe7]

Originally Posted by bluelang

Prove it.

Or offer even one tiny shred of evidence.

Empirically? Scientifically?

Atheism declares there is no meaning. Thus, why could all Atheists be counted on to search for something they believe cannot be attained.

[Dreamliner]

As it turns out, hard empiricism isn't very empirical.

[GatorAbe7]

Originally Posted by Spurffelbow833

Most individuals cannot be counted on to cultivate their own relationship with a deity, either.

Yes, though when the Religious do make a quest of finding meaning, established Faith has long-lasting signposts. What sign posts do Atheist's have? Science and Art as Sam Harris points to? Are those really signposts with a direction toward personal purpose?

Are we entitled to meaning?

"Entitled to meaning" is a broad way to put it. Rather, we are entitled to the option of searching out meaning for ourselves. "Man is condemned to be free," as Sartre famously declared. He goes on to establish that because we free, we are first and foremost free to exercise our option of living or dying.

Must we have some fuzzy assurance that life and those we love endure beyond the grave?

Many, many people must have that very assurance for those they love and for themselves. Because Religion offers this and Atheism does not many exercise the option of believing in God. If Atheism is deemed to offer no such hope, yet it is true; and Religion offers hope, yet it is false, then do Truth and Hope become inherently separated? Humans demand both.

As someone once so eloquently put it, we love a rose because we know it will soon be gone. Whoever loved a stone? I hope there is life after death, but I don't require proof or assurance of it to appreciate what I do know exists. And first and foremost, I do not see the moral imperative of believing anything. Seek, yes. Find and quit looking, no.

Well said.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by GatorAbe7

Yes, though when the Religious do make a quest of finding meaning, established Faith has long-lasting signposts. What sign posts do Atheist's have? Science and Art as Sam Harris points to? Are those really signposts with a direction toward personal purpose?






"Entitled to meaning" is a broad way to put it. Rather, we are entitled to the option of searching out meaning for ourselves. "Man is condemned to be free," as Sartre famously declared. He goes on to establish that because we free, we are first and foremost free to exercise our option of living or dying.




Many, many people must have that very assurance for those they love and for themselves. Because Religion offers this and Atheism does not many exercise the option of believing in God. If Atheism is deemed to offer no such hope, yet it is true; and Religion offers hope, yet it is false, then do Truth and Hope become inherently separated? Humans demand both.



Well said.

Sign posts or crutches. The "meaning" of most religious is kicking the can down the road, i.e., a religious life is meaningful because something bigger than ourselves says it has meaning. What would make an afterlife more meaningful than this life? If super-Daddy says in ancient book that he has a higher purpose for us what otherwise makes it so? He could be the devil dressed up and we wouldn't know it, would we? Ultimately the religious and non-religious decide for them selves what is meaningful. Putting it off on some super authority is still your choice.

[Row6]

Originally Posted by wargunfan

Which is exactly (by his own choice) where he is.

That was Hitchen's characterization of heaven - eternity spent praising the leader while he knows your every thought. You think that's where he is?

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by Row6

That was Hitchen's characterization of heaven - eternity spent praising the leader while he knows your every thought. You think that's where he is?

I doubt that Hitchens would be happy in a place that didn't have lots of Muslims to kill.