The problem with atheism.

[dancupid]

Let me start by making it clear that I am an atheist.

The problem I have with the atheist agenda is that is stops at 'the non existence of God' - the same logic is not applied consistently to the whole of the human condition.

If I examine my life and use this same 'spaghetti monster' logic, I am drawn to the same conclusions about all my actions and activities - they are all as equally pointless and irrational as worshiping God.

If I rationally examine my sense of self I realize that it is just a genetic innovation - it encourages self preservation - genetic selfishness creates a genetically induced illusion of self worth.

My desire to survive is itself as delusional as a belief in God - pain and my fear of pain are a genetically induced survival mechanism I am in thrall to.

If I believe in God and survive then it is no different to not believing in God and surviving - nature will select for survival.

But my actual survival is meaningless whether I believe in God or otherwise.

This is the only conclusion that can be logically formed from a real examination of life.

Atheism is merely another tribal display - a peacock's tail trying to attract a mate through a verbal display of intelligence.

[1714840904]

1714840904

[1714840904]

1714840904

[1714840904]

1714840904

[1714840904]

1714840904

[dancupid]

There is no atheist agenda.

Atheism simply means "without god". There is nothing to "do".

All your activities, in the long run, are probably pointless.

That's not true - Richard Dawkins does not apply his understanding of evolution when talking about religion to the rest of human behaviour.
He limits it to belief in God.
Why doesn't he talk about people working in factories or in fields, or going to football matches?
He clearly has an agenda.

[Wilikon]

Let me start by making it clear that I am an atheist.

The problem I have with the atheist agenda is that is stops at 'the non existence of God' - the same logic is not applied consistently to the whole of the human condition.

If I examine my life and use this same 'spaghetti monster' logic, I am drawn to the same conclusions about all my actions and activities - they are all as equally pointless and irrational as worshiping God.

If I rationally examine my sense of self I realize that it is just a genetic innovation - it encourages self preservation - genetic selfishness creates a genetically induced illusion of self worth.

My desire to survive is itself as delusional as a belief in God - pain and my fear of pain are a genetically induced survival mechanism I am in thrall to.

If I believe in God and survive then it is no different to not believing in God and surviving - nature will select for survival.

But my actual survival is meaningless whether I believe in God or otherwise.

This is the only conclusion that can be logically formed from a real examination of life.

Atheism is merely another tribal display - a peacock's tail trying to attract a mate through a verbal display of intelligence.

And yet you keep on living, posting threads about the meaning of.. Not true atheism, but life itself really.

Beautiful isn't it?

I believe in God (supreme energy, consciousness, etc, etc) because I can question its very existence and I love the fact that real atheists, like yourself exist.

[crumbs]

There is no atheist agenda.

Atheism simply means "without god". There is nothing to "do".

All your activities, in the long run, are probably pointless.

That's not true - Richard Dawkins does not apply his understanding of evolution when talking about religion to the rest of human behaviour.
He limits it to belief in God.
Why doesn't he talk about people working in factories or in fields, or going to football matches?
He clearly has an agenda.

Atheism is simply a way of interpreting reality without alluding to God, not the opposite of theism (which is antitheism, but that's an annoying word that makes people want to barf -- don't use it).  Dawkins is just an annoying guy -- ignore Dawkins.

[Axios]

Atheism is simply a way of interpreting reality without alluding to God, not the opposite of theism (which is antitheism, but that's an annoying word that makes people want to barf -- don't use it).  Dawkins is just an annoying guy -- ignore Dawkins.

Not really. Since most of the reality is explained by atheists/whoever and theists agree with it (how your cell phone/car/train/etc works). The only part they don't agree with is creation, so it's pretty much creationism vs atheism.

[Mike Christ]

Holliday got it right; atheism is a broad term that blankets any person who does not include any god in their beliefs.  Although we may believe anything, even something completely and utterly irrational, so long as those beliefs do not include god, it's still atheism.

I believe it's better to define atheism not as itself a belief, but more of a "who cares"; there's more important things to worry about than whether or not there's a God, such as what's on TV, or what I might eat for dinner tonight.  There cannot be an atheist without a theist, for if we have one and not the other, it's as strange as noticing that there's oxygen everywhere; we don't often think about the moments when there isn't.  Although it may be obvious that there's a stark contrast between theist and atheists today, there was a time when atheism was downright impossible to imagine, and I believe there will be a time in the future where upon learning that most people of today believed in mythological creatures, the future-people will draw long and odd glances.

However, I must disagree with you on the point of life; if the point of life is to change life, or to accomplish some unthinkable goal, then life is pointless, for our time here is limited, and we'll never be able to accomplish, and surely not alone, whatever end-game life has in store for us (I imagine that moment isn't going to be fun), nor would we even be around to see it.  If, on the other hand, we may view life solely to appease our sense of happiness, then the one who spends more of his time here happy is ultimately the winner in his own end.  If we're under the belief that nothing happens once we die, it is imperative to accomplish such a task while we're still aware we can accomplish it.

With this in mind, the person who believes in God and is also happy, is doing better than the person who does not believe in God and is unhappy; however, if it is true that God brings happiness, there would be no atheists.  So what brings happiness?  Is it the truth?--no, the truth, as we've examined in the various "smarter" folk on this planet, often makes people unhappier than those who are blissfully ignorant (and with good reason; who could be happy knowing what governments are doing to this world?)  If the truth does not bring happiness, then why do we seek it?  Perhaps, then, we are not naturally inclined to be happy, but naturally inclined to survive; it is at this point there is a disconnect between what makes an organism human and what makes him like any other creature on the planet, for if we are to assume human beings are just clusters of smaller organisms that occur over a stretch of time, powered by whatever other organisms it will consume, then surely life appears to not have a point; after all, the grass does not grow because it wants to, it is simply programmed to do so.

So if we look at life this way, through a cold and logical lens, we will never find a reason for it; it just is; it's not until we use what no other animal has that we can find meaning in it, for we are the only creatures who have the capacity to apply meaning.  But this, as you say, is where atheism ends; atheism applies to just one, singled-out idea.  I'm not sure if there is a word for belief in nothing; I believe nihilism would be appropriate.

[crumbs]

Atheism is simply a way of interpreting reality without alluding to God, not the opposite of theism (which is antitheism, but that's an annoying word that makes people want to barf -- don't use it).  Dawkins is just an annoying guy -- ignore Dawkins.

Not really. Since most of the reality is explained by atheists/whoever and theists agree with it (how your cell phone/car/train/etc works). The only part they don't agree with is creation, so it's pretty much creationism vs atheism.

You're confusing theists with creationists and atheists with Darwinists. 

[Axios]

Atheism is simply a way of interpreting reality without alluding to God, not the opposite of theism (which is antitheism, but that's an annoying word that makes people want to barf -- don't use it).  Dawkins is just an annoying guy -- ignore Dawkins.

Not really. Since most of the reality is explained by atheists/whoever and theists agree with it (how your cell phone/car/train/etc works). The only part they don't agree with is creation, so it's pretty much creationism vs atheism.

You're confusing theists with creationists and atheists with Darwinists. 

I am not confusing anything. Most likely you're confusing agnosticism with atheism.

[crumbs]

Atheism is simply a way of interpreting reality without alluding to God, not the opposite of theism (which is antitheism, but that's an annoying word that makes people want to barf -- don't use it).  Dawkins is just an annoying guy -- ignore Dawkins.

Not really. Since most of the reality is explained by atheists/whoever and theists agree with it (how your cell phone/car/train/etc works). The only part they don't agree with is creation, so it's pretty much creationism vs atheism.

You're confusing theists with creationists and atheists with Darwinists.  

I am not confusing anything. Most likely you're confusing agnosticism with atheism.

Agnosticism is a state of not having knowledge concerning existence of God.  Atheism is the interpretation of reality without alluding to God.  Yes, in everyday speech the definitions overlap, but when the two are contrasted (as you have done), the abovementioned definitions apply.

[pedrog]

The problem I have with the atheist agenda is that is stops at 'the non existence of God' - the same logic is not applied consistently to the whole of the human condition.

I don't think there is an atheist agenda, there is an anti-theistic agenda, but that's another subject.

Actually the vast majority of atheists position themselves as agnostic atheists, we don't make claims, we accept the evidence and we make our mind by that evidence, and as there is no evidence for the existence of gods, we have no good reason to believe in them.

I go the extra mile and say there are no gods, but I cannot support this claim, because absence of evidence it's not evidence of absence, it's just my bet.

If I rationally examine my sense of self I realize that it is just a genetic innovation - it encourages self preservation - genetic selfishness creates a genetically induced illusion of self worth.

My desire to survive is itself as delusional as a belief in God - pain and my fear of pain are a genetically induced survival mechanism I am in thrall to.

As a species, I believe, we have already transcend our natural selection heritage, we no longer act on mere instincts.

Atheism is merely another tribal display - a peacock's tail trying to attract a mate through a verbal display of intelligence.

It's just a position we take on a claim, the same position I take on many other claims like astrology, sorcery, homeopathy, mediums or Nigerian letters.

[ronimacarroni]

I believe in God because the fact that we exist is a miracle.
Seriously who would have thought a bunch of feces throwing apes would evolve to build pyramids, computers, send a man to the moon...
By accident.

[Mike Christ]

I go the extra mile and say there are no gods, but I cannot support this claim, because absence of evidence it's not evidence of absence, it's just my bet.

Actually, in the scientific method, the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.

To drive this point home, there is no evidence of a nation named Hooloocooloogooloo.  We might argue that, since there is no evidence of this nation existing, that doesn't necessarily mean a nation named that doesn't exist.  However, because we are aware of all the nations in the world, and know there aren't any other continents to be found on the planet, then the absence of evidence of the nation named Hooloocooloogooloo is the evidence of absence.

There might be; nothing is impossible.  But it's so highly unlikely, to say it doesn't exist is as close as you'll ever get to the truth; there may be no certainty, but it's beyond reasonable doubt.

Likewise, all evidence of God has proven either from shaky sources or religious testimony, but there is no hard evidence of Him.  He exists only in stories, whether in books or told by peers.  So, without any indication of there being a God, we can only assume He isn't there.  It's entirely possible He is, but as rational beings, we know better than to say there exists such a being without the ability to present hard evidence.  Nothing has ever not existed so much as God and the spaghetti monster; they're essentially the end-roads to something not existing: no evidence whatsoever.

[ronimacarroni]

I go the extra mile and say there are no gods, but I cannot support this claim, because absence of evidence it's not evidence of absence, it's just my bet.

Actually, in the scientific method, the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.

To drive this point home, there is no evidence of a nation named Hooloocooloogooloo.  We might argue that, since there is no evidence of this nation existing, that doesn't necessarily mean a nation named that doesn't exist.  However, because we are aware of all the nations in the world, and know there aren't any other continents to be found on the planet, then the absence of evidence of the nation named Hooloocooloogooloo is the evidence of absence.

There might be; nothing is impossible.  But it's so highly unlikely, to say it doesn't exist is as close as you'll ever get to the truth; there may be no certainty, but it's beyond reasonable doubt.

Likewise, all evidence of God has proven either from shaky sources or religious testimony, but there is no hard evidence of Him.  He exists only in stories, whether in books or told by peers.  So, without any indication of there being a God, we can only assume He isn't there.  It's entirely possible He is, but as rational beings, we know better than to say there exists such a being without the ability to present hard evidence.  Nothing has ever not existed so much as God and the spaghetti monster; they're essentially the end-roads to something not existing: no evidence whatsoever.

you can't physically prove God exist-yet.
But common sense tells us that something can't come out of nothing.
and so every culture ever has come up with the concept of God independent of each other.

[Mike Christ]

you can't physically prove God exist-yet.
But common sense tells us that something can't come out of nothing.
and so every culture ever has come up with the concept of God independent of each other.

Though you are right--there is the "yet" factor, where we may prove his existence in the future--at this moment, because we have been unable to provide evidence of him to this date, he is, as of right now, non-existent.

The universe itself violates common sense; if we believe the universe has a beginning, we must believe the universe has an end.  If the universe had a beginning, what became before the universe?  What will come after the universe?  Does time stop?  Does it begin?  And if we're assuming the universe was born from a conscious being, does he live in an alternate universe?  Does it have a form?  Is it merely energy, without form or conscious, which we call God?

My point is, since we cannot know, we shouldn't automatically assume it must be God; cultures from the dawn of time, having failed to explain the various happenings around them, instead assigned them to higher beings.  Before the single God, most cultures had multiple gods, each of which was in charge of different things, such as the rain gods and the love gods and the god of wine and the god of war etc.  Religion, when viewed in this light, was the original science; it was a way to explain the inexplicable.  Who could blame them?--they did not have any foundation to understand why the sun rose and fell, why the sky had clouds and why they sometimes struck with violent flash and thunder.  It was all mystical, majestic, magical; without any prior knowledge to the scientific method (which did not come about until loooong after most modern religions were created), your only choice was to believe there was some higher power making these things happen.

But now we know more than we used to, and we know what causes the floods, what lightning is and what it can do, what causes tornadoes and volcanoes and earthquakes.  Still, to this day, when faced with what we do not or cannot know, we assign it to God; my belief is, if we do not know, we shouldn't be so quick to assume it's the work of God, but instead seek the answer to the questions we have.  We cannot answer a mystery with a mystery; we cannot say it's the work of God if we cannot explain the work of God, for that does not answer our initial question.

[pedrog]

I go the extra mile and say there are no gods, but I cannot support this claim, because absence of evidence it's not evidence of absence, it's just my bet.

Actually, in the scientific method, the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence.

To drive this point home, there is no evidence of a nation named Hooloocooloogooloo.  We might argue that, since there is no evidence of this nation existing, that doesn't necessarily mean a nation named that doesn't exist.  However, because we are aware of all the nations in the world, and know there aren't any other continents to be found on the planet, then the absence of evidence of the nation named Hooloocooloogooloo is the evidence of absence.

There might be; nothing is impossible.  But it's so highly unlikely, to say it doesn't exist is as close as you'll ever get to the truth; there may be no certainty, but it's beyond reasonable doubt.

Likewise, all evidence of God has proven either from shaky sources or religious testimony, but there is no hard evidence of Him.  He exists only in stories, whether in books or told by peers.  So, without any indication of there being a God, we can only assume He isn't there.  It's entirely possible He is, but as rational beings, we know better than to say there exists such a being without the ability to present hard evidence.  Nothing has ever not existed so much as God and the spaghetti monster; they're essentially the end-roads to something not existing: no evidence whatsoever.

Thank you for that.

I was speaking in absolute terms, usually when it comes to god, beyond reasonable doubt is not enough for believers, but you touch this point also in "There might be; nothing is impossible.", but this position is a slippery slope to all kind of beliefs, and very easily disputed.

you can't physically prove God exist-yet.
But common sense tells us that something can't come out of nothing.
and so every culture ever has come up with the concept of God independent of each other.

Sorry, common sense cannot be applied to quantum physics, and, actually, stuff comes out of nothing all the time at the quantum level.

[semaforo]

    Richard Dawkins, at least on youtube, sometimes seems like the pope of atheism. I only watched one video of him recently where a Muslim posed him the question of the conundrum of morality without any consciousness after death, which reminds me of your concern with atheism. Taken to its conclusion, consciousness ending with this life often leads to hedonism- simply trying to enjoy this life as much as possible since it's all we get. This hedonism does not end well, because sensory pleasure is transitory, and generally leads to seeking of bigger and better thrills. Think about the development of movies and how the frame switches keep getting faster and faster as the years go on. People want more entertainment. Same with heroin- fun at first, but then you need more and more and eventually it doesn't get you high any more but you have to keep taking it to avoid the withdrawal sickness.

      Ivan Karamazov in Dostoevsky's the Brothers Karamazov famously observed "If there is no god, then everything is lawful." Atheism inevitably leads to self interest, because atheism is not, in truth, the absence of a form of worship- it is worship of the self. All action is simply to the end of serving and gratifying the self, whether for the fulfillment of genetic programming or for aesthetic gratification, and in this case the self takes the place that the Creator takes in other belief systems.

    A false god can be a single self or a composite self, an abstract concept or constellation of concepts personified or not. Justice, democracy, freedom, or other ideals are examples, even nature, as distinct from culture would be such a false deity. These concepts are worshiped because an individual or collective identifies with them- we are freedom loving Americans, so we worship our collective ideal of freedom, we are communists so we worship the ideal of the working class, so on and so forth. So in short the gods of atheists are contained in their own identities. God in this sense is just something that is worship, and worship is a form of service. We worship communism because we believe that it will benefit us by fulfilling a longing for social justice, or we worship freedom, believing that by devoting our energy to this concept we will attain freedom from our fears of hunger, loneliness, or inability to attain desires.

    This inevitably leads to conflict both within the individual and between individuals because the concepts are manifold and the understanding thereof can shift. I may believe in both social justice and freedom, and then my psyche is losing precious energy debating within itself how to reconcile these two seemingly opposing concepts. Should I make forum posts talking about the virtues of a free market economy, or should I write about the plight of factory workers in Bangladesh? Or who is better, those who worship at the temple of Shiva, or those who go to the temple of Vishnu? Who is better, Thor, or Freya? This divides communities who get lost in debate, as well as individuals who then have to devote more and more processing power to distinguishing and weighing the advantages of different concepts/deities.

         Monotheism solves this problem with a transcendent and all encompassing Creator and Sustainer. God in this sense refers to the eternal, self-sustaining, self-existing reality that transcends space-time. This is the only possibility to serve all equally, and is also the optimum from the limited grasp of human reason pursuing self-interest, because:

1. The law of causality is clearly visible. There is no action but has an effect- there is no perfect vacuum.
2. Therefore, everything is interconnected.
3. Every action will eventually return in some form or forms upon the actor.
4. Actions intended to benefit the actor by devoting energy to a non-transcendent concept/deity are ultimately fruitless, because they prioritize one concept/deity above another thereby creating enmity between them. The more I support democrats, the more insulted republicans are going to feel for my lack of support, thereby leading to conflict and resistance among republicans to the goals I wished to achieve by supporting democrats. If I spend more time in the temple of Athena than the temple of Apollo, my friends in the temple of Apollo are going to feel resentment because I am neglecting the worship of the ideals that they love.
5. Therefore, any action meant to benefit a part of reality in order to benefit myself is in effect an insult or neglect to another part of reality, or the action that is positive towards part of reality is negative towards another part of reality, and this negativity will come back to me due to 2.
6. The larger a portion of reality I devote my energy to, the more benefit I will derive from it. If I support the ruling party in China as a Chinese citizen, I derive much more benefit than if I support a Tibetan resistance movement.
7. The optimum course of action is then to devote my energy to the biggest portion of reality possible. This is variously referred to as Supreme Being, God, Allah, the Creator, the Most High, according to regional variations. Any devotion of energy to any temporal concept will therefore be to my detriment because I will have lost time I could have spent devoting to the Most Beneficial. which encompasses the temporal and non-temporal.

    So even according to limited human reasoning, belief and worship of a concept that transcends the sum of all phenomena is the most beneficial in terms of pure self interest. If we examine the claim that religion is given to us by a transcendent Truth which is conscious, we can see that the conclusion that the worship of the greatest reality is the most beneficial course of action lends credibility to this claim. In short, a religion claiming to be from a the Most Kind, and Most Generous, could only be a religion that is most beneficial to those who practice it. Therefore:

   Any recommendation of worshiping the greatest portion of reality, which is not a portion but greater than the totality is optimally satisfactory to self-interest.
   Any recommendation to worship what is less than the Greatest is less beneficial and therefore not optimal for satisfying the requirements of self-interest.

   This is the criteria for distinguishing Truth from falsehood. According to this criteria worshiping or serving the following is falsehood:
-The moon, sun, or stars.
-Animals, birds, fish, insects, griffons, chimera, humans.
-Fire, water, metals, earth, stones, plants.
-Ideas, constructs, buildings, ideologies.

  The Truth is anything that enjoins the worship of That Which is Greater than all of the above combined.


  As the moral fabric of materialist societies continues to disintegrate, so will social cohesion and the chances of survival of members of those societies. The stronger the belief in the truth of the transcendent Truth, the more actions will be devoted toward the Most Beneficial, and the more benefit will be derived.

And the punchline:

   The fact, as established above, that reality is ordered to the benefit of those who believe in the transcendent Truth, is proof of the existence of this Truth as the source of all phenomena.

  Sorry for going on so long, I understand if anyone skips over this and thank you to anyone who read the whole post. In short, I agree with this problem with atheism, but luckily Camus said in a Summer in Algiers "Nihilism contains the means to move beyond nihilism." Ultimately total selfishness leads to total selflessness, since service to all is of the greatest benefit to the individual. The elegance of this arrangement is sufficient proof. May we be blessed with belief in and understanding of this Truth if we want.

[Spendulus]

.....
But now we know more than we used to....

There is the road to perdition.  We ALWAYS know more than we used to, and you and I are ignorant mystical thinkers to those from tomorrow.  You are not smarter than someone from yesterday or tomorrow.

Tomorrow, there may be higher consciousness than that of man, but we will invent it.

Yesterday, there may have been higher consciousness than that of man, off somewhere far away.

As far as the matter of how much we know...

Now how many planets are in the solar system?

[Mike Christ]

Now how many planets are in the solar system?

One less than before; all depends on what we think constitutes as a planet tomorrow, which I can't predict

Of course, in a thousand years, we'll look back at today and think, "Wow, what a bunch of idiots!"  But I don't believe there's anything wrong with acknowledging the accomplishments we've made from the last thousand years, so long as we understand there will never be an end to what we know.  The point was, if we stop and say, "Well, I don't know how this works or why, so I'll just say God did it", then we stagnate.  If we all did that from a thousand years ago until now, we would be in the same spot we were in a thousand years ago.

It is unfortunate that this thread has devolved into a proof-of-God's-existence thread and has gone completely off-topic.

I believe that the OP's point is that anyone that accepts atheism is faced with the conundrum of nihilism, and that one cannot claim to be an atheist and just ignore nihilism. Also, I believe that the OP means "ideology" instead of "agenda".

This topic is a primary focus of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Unwilling to accept the pessimistic view of nihilism by Schopenhauer, Nietzsche attempts to show that nihilism does not presume that life cannot have value and meaning.

I'm trying to wrap my head around this; so nihilism, in the context of atheism, results from someone first questioning God, realizing their questioning was justified, and then making the decision to be entirely and coldly rational about everything, or selectively be rational about one thing, and then irrational about something else (like karma, or horoscopes)?

[semaforo]

Let me start by making it clear that I am an atheist.
The problem I have with the atheist agenda is that is stops at 'the non existence of God' - the same logic is not applied consistently to the whole of the human condition.
...

It is unfortunate that this thread has devolved into a proof-of-God's-existence thread and has gone completely off-topic.

I believe that the OP's point is that anyone that accepts atheism is faced with the conundrum of nihilism, and that one cannot claim to be an atheist and just ignore nihilism.

This is a primary focus of the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Unwilling to accept the pessimistic view of nihilism by Schopenhauer, Nietzsche attempts to show that nihilism does not presume that life cannot have value and meaning.

   I've read a fair amount of Nietzsche and enjoyed it, and found it not in the least contrary to the possibility of transcendence- rather it is a refutation of the stale morality that ordered society in his time. There are volumes of contradictory interpretations of the sum of Nietzsche's work, and if you view his work as a whole, you will see that his opinions change many times throughout his writing career. He was a self-described seeker of truth, and his advice helped lead me to the truth.

   Nietzsche began not as a philosopher, but as a student of Greek and Roman history and literature. His admiration for these works are part of what inspired him to write "A Genealogy of Morals," which was a harsh critique of monotheism. I believe this was due to what he perceived as being a dark age of monotheism following the literary glories of ancient Greece and Rome, and seeing that the revival of Greek and Roman ideals lead to a rebirth of culture which was his main joy in an otherwise very bleak life. I am equally vehement in refuting the Judeo-Christian worldview because these belief systems, for most of those who follow them, have been corrupted from purity, in the case of Judaism by taking the authority of the Rabbis to be equal to that of the Revelation, and in the case of Christianity with equating a human with divine substance. Both of these arrangements lead to a loss of confidence in the doctrines of the religion that has resulted in the state of affairs today, where most Jews and Christians simply ignore Biblical prohibitions on the making of images and the charging of interest, which is effectively an expression of disbelief in the core tenants of the Revelation.

    Nietzsche's work is very useful for tearing through these lies in the search of the truth. His insistence that the work of art must be taken as separate from the artist is necessary to incorporate his thinking into one's way of life, because his own example is one that I think no one would readily emulate. That is not to detract in the least from the value of his contribution, but Nietzsche himself never claimed any of his works to be authoritative, and was certainly dynamic throughout his career and always ready to admit that he was wrong, although he himself was the only one who was able to refute his own work.

     You spoke from your general impression of Nietzsche, now I have spoken from mine. Nietzsche sought refuge from the oppression of Judeo-Christian society in the ideals of classical thought, and was ultimately destroyed by it, just as Greek and Roman civilizations were destroyed. The odd thing is that these ideals have now been revived and are being pursued with a blind eye turned to the example of history.

[C10H15N]

Let me introduce you to a coolest atheist I know of:  http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmb8hO2ilV9vRa8cilis88A