Existential Atheists

Comment

Comment by Jedi Wanderer on February 14, 2011 at 7:14pm

Also, there is probably one thing which probably most existentialists would say, but not necessarily all (there were, after all, religious existentialists who disagreed, but one wonders about their idea of existentialism). And that is that if there is no objective meaning or purpose to our existence, and no objective set of values to which we can aspire, value either becomes meaningless or else it is something which resides ultimately in the experience of our existence. I think this is essentially what drives most people to existentialism.

Comment by Jedi Wanderer on February 14, 2011 at 6:52pm

@ Pansy: You will likely get everyone in here putting their two cents into this question, but perhaps that's because of the nature of existentialism. To me, it is the study of how humans experience existence, but with particular attention to the most confounding experiences there are, i.e. emotions, sense of self, values, meaning, purpose, etc.

 

Everyone has their own way of classifying the different fields of philosophy in relation to one another. I personally classify existentialism as an umbrella discipline containing all the elements of ethics, values, and psychology, but distinct from metaphysics, epistemology, political philosophy, and so on. This is because I think existentialism is the proper perspective for understanding the whole range of subjective human experience, whereas other fields try to maintain as much objectivity as possible.

Comment by Pansy on February 14, 2011 at 6:41pm

i've only recently began investigating existentailism, so i don't have a clear understanding of it. i'm reading "myth of sisyphus", and are struggling through it. can anyone help me accurately ( without complication) understand what exactly this area of philosophy is?

Comment by coyote on February 8, 2010 at 10:05pm

The religion that Herodotus mentions that the Persians followed during the time of Xerxes, Darius, etc, involved putting the dead up on towers for the birds to feed on, then destroying the bones by various methods, because they didn't want the dead to "taint" the earth. I am interested in the burial they are currently developing that involves freeze-drying of the corpse then pulverization, a powder to be spread upon a ground to promote it's fertility. However, I still think the methods in Brave New World were good. utilizing the dead, produced by such a massive population, for fertilization of crops would be beneficial to the population. Definitely not like Soylent Green or anything, but for crops, it wouldn't bother me.

Comment by Howard S. Dunn on February 8, 2010 at 9:23pm

http://www.atheistnexus.org/group/odditorium/forum/topics/tibetan-s...

Comment by Howard S. Dunn on February 8, 2010 at 9:23pm

@ Casey http://naturalburial.coop/

Also - I'll ask her where it is - Sacha put up a bunch of pics of a Tibetan Sky burial - very cool (and ancient.)

Comment by William on February 8, 2010 at 8:27pm

sounds like the dawn of the biotech age

Comment by coyote on February 8, 2010 at 8:20pm

Is there anyone here who actually thought Brave New World would actually be an appropriate future scenario? I loved the fact that they converted the dead into fertilizer...much better than preserving corpses and sealing them in boxes underground. Soma is already here, benzodiazepines are quite popular and effective at that. Though they do have a substantially detrimental discontinuation syndrome is improperly applied, when used appropriately they don't cause much harm. For some reason I just feel awkward when I hear peoples gut reactions to that book(which I am certain high school teachers assign as some kind of scare tactic), especially living in a conservative-christian dominated area

Comment by Edward Teach on February 2, 2010 at 7:41am

Hey Free,

I actually came to atheism through Buddhism/Taoism, then made the Western bounce to Existentialism. I want objective information, but my experience in this human life is always subjective. I know determinism is the objective truth, but since my experience will always be subjective, life will feel as if free will were operating.


Existentialism has profoundly affected the quality of my life. The objective truth in this case, is that experience is subjective. I totally LOVE this idea. I can create any meaning I like and my options are limitless.

I like mythology, as long as there is no confusion that it IS mythology.


BTW: Right back at ya on the insightful comments ;-)

Comment by Atheist Exile on February 1, 2010 at 11:42pm

Hey Rusty,

I had no idea this group existed until I saw it in the Latest Activity column. I've always associated you with astute insights but I've got to say that existentialism seems a bit incongruous with atheism. I mean atheists generally embrace objectivity and determinism but existentialist generally embrace subjectivity and free will. That's a simplification but I think you know what I mean.

Personally, I'm a mix of the two: I embrace objectivity and free will (compatibilism). I do like the humanity and personal appeal of existentialism, though.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page