"German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) wrote in The Gay Science (1882) that “God is dead”. This quote is often thrown around by atheists as a sort of war trophy (a severed head of one’s enemy, if you will).

The intent of the passage, however, is almost the exact opposite. Nietzsche writes “Where has God gone? [...] I shall tell you. We have killed him – you and I. We are his murderers.” This is a direct challenge and call to arms for atheists.

But how is God dead if he never lived in the first place (as little empirical evidence exists for either Christ’s divinity or resurrection) ? Nietzsche’s assertion that  humanity has become the murderer of God indicates that society has, in many ways, evolved beyond the base biological need for a religious outlet (which in earlier times would have most likely meant the difference between life and death for any number of reasons)."

How will atheists adapt to the new, "free" existence of humanity?

(Original Article): http://quietmike.org/2014/06/18/refutation-young-earth-creationism/ 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHxuA8ZNvlU

Tags: Atheism, Culture, Death, Empiricism, God, Knowledge, Nietzsche, Society

Views: 337

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I read the "god is dead" line in Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra.

He gave the line to an insane man, which gave FN an answer for xians who attacked him.

He could reply "Only the insane think god is dead."

Sic semper der ubermann.

Nietzsche often has a way of working in meaningful "contradictions" (much in the sense of the Zen Koan) so as to illustrate human experience.

You are also right that this type of thinking is present throughout his work, however the very first instance of the phrase "God is dead" by Nietzsche in print was The Gay Science.

How will atheists adapt to the new, "free" existence of humanity?

I never read The Gay Science, but my understanding is that Nietzsche also said we'd have to deal with God's shadow for some time. I don't know that we are free from God's shadow just yet.

I also don't know that atheism is a freer position. God is an entity which can break reality as we experience it. Miraculous things which other wise defy explanation can be attributed to gods. While human behaviour still sets limits on how wishy-washy gods can be, those of us without any gods at all cannot lean on the supernatural in the slightest.

What's left to us then? We have to deal with the natural universe in front of us. Not a natural universe which reveals things to us through revelations to prophets, but the natural universe which all of us experience. There is far less room to carve out our own realities or create alternative interpretations of what's what. If I want to claim X is moral, people will ask me why, and I can't turn to anything higher than the reality we all share to back me up. If it weren't for the imperfections in the way humans process reality, there'd be no wiggle room at all. 

Indeed, I see atheism as just another point on a much longer ideological spectrum of slow change. The reason for the quotes around the term "free" consists in an effort on my part to illustrate both the subjective nature of human definition as well as the interesting practice (of which Nietzsche was fond) of criticizing the inherent-validity of linguistic claims. God will inevitably be around in one form or another for a very long time to come (barring some horrible catastrophe), although you are correct in the assertion that mankind will be required to transcend its baser, systemically-derived tendencies toward theistic practices.

How can something that never existed die ? 

That's kind of the whole point.

God doesn't exist empirically, he never did. However, we did not always have an empirical understanding of the world. We have killed God by making him irrelevant

I'll take the wine, you have the bread.
Is god alive or is god dead?

I'm sorry, I've been listening to Ozzy all weekend.

If Atheists had an official musical and lyrical genius, I'd vote for Ozzy Osbourne!

I do think that, as a species, we need to replace our gods with something else.  I've said for years that a fully established civilization would have goals and a plan.  What is our goal?  To consume all available resources as fast as possible?  What is our 'plan'?  Perhaps; Fish it, log it, mine it, pave it.

Gods just provided what the sentient mind realized was missing: a point to all this.  Gods were ok when a few could placate the masses with fairy stories.  Now we need something juicier - an engineered future that provides for everyone, an off-world beachhead (maybe on Mars), sustainable resource management.  Fairy stories are much easier though, I suppose.

Yes, religion does serve a purpose. Unfortunately, it's a double edged sword. While it serves as a moral compass for masses who need it, religion also is probably the cause of more deaths than anything else in human history. While we may part company on your view of "an engineered future that provides for everyone", we are one when it comes to your assessment that mankind will likely always have religion (of some sort) around to artificially inject purpose, support, and higher meaning to the emotionally and/or intellectually weak majority of us.

RSS

Forum

The Shinto Flower among the Weeds of Religion

Started by Cato Rigas in Advice. Last reply by Ward Cressin 23 minutes ago. 7 Replies

In Defense of ‘Islamophobia’

Started by Brian Daurelle in Society. Last reply by Erock68la 2 hours ago. 46 Replies

Awe struck

Started by Davis Goodman in Small Talk. Last reply by Unseen 3 hours ago. 20 Replies

Blog Posts

Life Condensed

Posted by Cato Rigas on October 19, 2014 at 8:30pm 3 Comments

Cool Vehicle Inspection!

Posted by Ed on October 18, 2014 at 9:03am 2 Comments

Services we love!

We are in love with our Amazon

Book Store!

Gadget Nerd? Check out Giz Gad!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

In need a of a professional web site? Check out the good folks at Clear Space Media

© 2014   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service