NationStates Jolt Archive

This is indeed a paradox, but as you have read in the title, I am an atheist in favor of organized religion. Let me explain why: It seems that religion can be the best thing for a nation-state, as organized religion tends to instill a sense of hope and liveliness in the citizens of their respective nation-states. This is essential for the survival of nation-states, and that's why nations in Western Europe, which have low feelings of religiosity are in decline. They're not reproducing, they are bending over for the muslims at every chance they get, and their economies are beginning to rot(although that's more a result of having the welfare state). Nietzche was right when he bemoaned the fact that god is dead.

I particularly like Judaism, since it's pro-capitalist, and seems to coexist within liberal democracies, and I like Buddhism, since it's not so hung up on evolution. Christianity at its core is anti-capitalist, but when moderated, most Christians are actually pro-market, and Christianity along with Judaism are the forerunners of Western Civilization, so I guess any of these three religions are fine with me. Hinduism, Sikhism, I don't really know very much about, but I'll go for those also. However, Islam and Scientology(and cults like it)are the two religions I'm definetely against. Islam is too violent and revolting, and Scientology is simply too ridiculous. So, besides Islam and Scientology, I'm in favor of the major modern day religions.

What do you think?

I believe in faeries that live in my garden. I want a church and a tax exemption.

This is indeed a paradox, but as you have read in the title, I am an atheist in favor of organized religion. Let me explain why: It seems that religion can be the best thing for a nation-state, as organized religion tends to instill a sense of hope and liveliness in the citizens of their respective nation-states. This is essential for the survival of nation-states, and that's why nations in Western Europe, which have low feelings of religiosity are in decline. They're not reproducing, they are bending over for the muslims at every chance they get, and their economies are beginning to rot(although that's more a result of having the welfare state). Nietzche was right when he bemoaned the fact that god is dead.

I particularly like Judaism, since it's pro-capitalist, and seems to coexist within liberal democracies, and I like Buddhism, since it's not so hung up on evolution. Christianity at its core is anti-capitalist, but when moderated, most Christians are actually pro-market, and Christianity along with Judaism are the forerunners of Western Civilization, so I guess any of these three religions are fine with me. Hinduism, Sikhism, I don't really know very much about, but I'll go for those also. However, Islam and Scientology(and cults like it)are the two religions I'm definetely against. Islam is too violent and revolting, and Scientology is simply too ridiculous. So, besides Islam and Scientology, I'm in favor of the major modern day religions.

What do you think?what do I think...

*give you flame retardant suit.*

Good luck. oh, and nice sentiment.

*sits back with popcorn to watch the show.* http://www.world-of-smilies.com/html/images/smilies/sonstige/popc.gif

Organized Religion has it's strengths, obviously. However, in the modern immigration-heavy age, monocultural nations are on the decline. The trend in religion is to emphasize spirituality without the dogma of organized religion. Those who follow organized religion flock to the timelessness and moral grounding of it. However, this unabashed religiocentrism (I don't know if that's even a real word, but I'll use it) weakens any fabric of any multicultural nation.

There are few nations in the world that won't be touched by multiculturalism.

I believe in faeries that live in my garden. I want a church and a tax exemption.
I think you will have to get many, many other people to believe the same;)

I believe in faeries that live in my garden. I want a church and a tax exemption.

Feisty tonight.

I think you will have to get many, many other people to believe the same;)
How about the entire readership of the National Enquirer? I'm sure we'd outnumber the Jains.

Organized Religion has it's strengths, obviously. However, in the modern immigration-heavy age, monocultural nations are on the decline. The trend in religion is to emphasize spirituality without the dogma of organized religion. Those who follow organized religion flock to the timelessness and moral grounding of it. However, this unabashed religiocentrism (I don't know if that's even a real word, but I'll use it) weakens any fabric of any multicultural nation.

There are few nations in the world that won't be touched by multiculturalism.
That's basically what I'm trying to say. A lot of people go to church mainly because it's a good social function. Or mosque, or synagogue...

Feisty tonight.
Start me a hot topic, I'm on a roll...

How about the entire readership of the National Enquirer? I'm sure we'd outnumber the Jains.
You'll have to excuse my ignorance, but What's the National Enquirer?

If I can't get tax exempt status for my church, then no one should. :mad:

You'll have to excuse my ignorance, but What's the National Enquirer?

Yup, that's ignorance...

A supermarket tabloid that sells gossip; particularly about celebrities. Or maybe it's the tabloid that sells stories about UFO's. I can't remember.

This is indeed a paradox, but as you have read in the title, I am an atheist in favor of organized religion. Let me explain why: It seems that religion can be the best thing for a nation-state, as organized religion tends to instill a sense of hope and liveliness in the citizens of their respective nation-states.

Why do you think that the only alternative to religion is nihilism?

This is essential for the survival of nation-states, and that's why nations in Western Europe, which have low feelings of religiosity are in decline. They're not reproducing,

And what's wrong with zero population growth?

they are bending over for the muslims at every chance they get,

:rolleyes:

and their economies are beginning to rot(although that's more a result of having the welfare state).

So if even you admit that the economic stagnation of Europe has little to do with religion, you brought it up because...?

Nietzche was right when he bemoaned the fact that god is dead.

Nietzsche, interestingly, being a perfect example of someone who pointed out a way to escape nihilism in a post-religious society. Not a way we would accept, necessarily, but a way.

I particularly like Judaism, since it's pro-capitalist,

Not necessarily. It is in favor of social welfare and in favor of the regular redistribution of wealth.

and seems to coexist within liberal democracies,

Most religions do.

However, Islam and Scientology(and cults like it)are the two religions I'm definetely against. Islam is too violent and revolting,

Any more than Christianity and Judaism are?

and Scientology is simply too ridiculous.

You do have a point there.

I came to this thread thinking there was actually an athiest who would proclaim they were tolerant of religion... but no, it's just a matter of who can ally with you for your capitalism and crap like that.

There are few nations in the world that won't be touched by multiculturalism.
And America isn't one of them, though a lot of Republican politicians seem to wish it was.

That's basically what I'm trying to say. A lot of people go to church mainly because it's a good social function. Or mosque, or synagogue...
A huge concert, a mass orgy, a rally, these things would be good alternative social functions.

You'll have to excuse my ignorance, but What's the National Enquirer?
*chokes on popcorn*
Where are you from!?!

Hey buddy, I'm an atheist, and I'm tolerant of religion...there are plenty of us as a matter of fact. Do your thing, we do ours, and life is good.

I came to this thread thinking there was actually an athiest who would proclaim they were tolerant of religion... but no, it's just a matter of who can ally with you for your capitalism and crap like that.


And America isn't one of them, though a lot of Republican politicians seem to wish it was.

I missed the part where the OP mentioned capitalism.

And any American who doesn't believe in a degree of multi-culturalism has their head in the sand.

Hey buddy, I'm an atheist, and I'm tolerant of religion...there are plenty of us as a matter of fact. Do your thing, we do ours, and life is good.
Hey Atheist, I'm a Christian... want some popcorn?

*offers bag of popcorn*

A huge concert, a mass orgy, a rally, these things would be good alternative social functions.

Hmmm...

I've been to a couple of huge concerts, and I've been to a rally...

I missed the part where the OP mentioned capitalism.

You did?

I particularly like Judaism, since it's pro-capitalist

Christianity at its core is anti-capitalist, but when moderated, most Christians are actually pro-market

I believe in faeries that live in my garden. I want a church and a tax exemption.

The Holy Pixies were forced from the Garden of Sinuhue by the infidel Faeries!

As for organized religion, I like it because at least one day a week, we know where all the crazy people are.

You did?

I've been drinking. So sorry.

Hey buddy, I'm an atheist, and I'm tolerant of religion...there are plenty of us as a matter of fact. Do your thing, we do ours, and life is good.
I know, I'm not saying that I think athiests are inherently intolerant of religion (one of my good friends is an athiest, and ironically, he hangs out largely with the church crowd), but that on these forums it seems rare to hear an athiest advocating tolerance. I guess they kinda get drowned out by the ones who just like shouting.
I missed the part where the OP mentioned capitalism.
I particularly like Judaism, since it's pro-capitalist, and seems to coexist within liberal democracies, and I like Buddhism, since it's not so hung up on evolution. Christianity at its core is anti-capitalist, but when moderated, most Christians are actually pro-market, and Christianity along with Judaism are the forerunners of Western Civilization, so I guess any of these three religions are fine with me.

Why do you think that the only alternative to religion is nihilism?
And what's wrong with zero population growth?
:rolleyes:
So if even you admit that the economic stagnation of Europe has little to do with religion, you brought it up because...?
Nietzsche, interestingly, being a perfect example of someone who pointed out a way to escape nihilism in a post-religious society. Not a way we would accept, necessarily, but a way.Not necessarily. It is in favor of social welfare and in favor of the regular redistribution of wealth. Most religions do.Any more than Christianity and Judaism are?You do have a point there.
The only alternative is not nihilism. I myself tend to be optimistic, although I don't follow any religion(they're too corrupt, and ego-centric), but many secular do seem to resort to nihilism, and that is the problem. Europe's economic stagnation? I brought it up because it seemed to go well with my message that Europe is declining.

Interesting point about Nietzsche. Perhaps you could tell me more?
In theory, Judaism and Christianity are for the redistribution of wealth, but in practice, they are the opposite. I also agree that most religions are compatible with liberal democracy, but Islam is not one of these.

Zero population growth is a bad thing because it leads to less people in the workforce, and the few that do work have to pay more and more into social security for the ones that are too old to do so. Besides, in Europe, we're talking about negative population growth.

I've been drinking. So sorry.
Oh, I wonder if I can goad you into getting really involved in a contraversial thread then...now what would a good topic be?

*chokes on popcorn*
Where are you from!?!
The United States. Yes, I'm the obligatory right-wing American madman.

Oh, I wonder if I can goad you into getting really involved in a contraversial thread then...now what would a good topic be?

Since it's well past my bed-time, I'd be more than happy to make an ass of myself in any controversial thread...

Why, I haven't develped a rep for being a cautious debator have I?

I know, I'm not saying that I think athiests are inherently intolerant of religion (one of my good friends is an athiest, and ironically, he hangs out largely with the church crowd), but that on these forums it seems rare to hear an athiest advocating tolerance. I guess they kinda get drowned out by the ones who just like shouting.

I hope I didn't come across like I was shouting. I'm Canadian. Wouldn't like to be considered impolite or anything. Would ruin our national reputation and all.

Since it's well past my bed-time, I'd be more than happy to make an ass of myself in any controversial thread...

Why, I haven't develped a rep for being a cautious debator have I?
Um, actually....*bursts your bubble*

I missed the part where the OP mentioned capitalism.

And any American who doesn't believe in a degree of multi-culturalism has their head in the sand.
Well, I actually believe more in assimilation than multi culturalism. Multi culturalism says that you have to respect other cultures, even as they cynically attempt to undermine your society. Assimilation states that all the cultures blend in to make one homogenous culture.

The only alternative is not nihilism. I myself tend to be optimistic, although I don't follow any religion(they're too corrupt, and ego-centric), but many secular do seem to resort to nihilism, and that is the problem. Europe's economic stagnation? I brought it up because it seemed to go well with my message that Europe is declining.

Interesting point about Nietzsche. Perhaps you could tell me more?
In theory, Judaism and Christianity are for the redistribution of wealth, but in practice, they are the opposite. I also agree that most religions are compatible with liberal democracy, but Islam is not one of these.

Zero population growth is a bad thing because it leads to less people in the workforce, and the few that do work have to pay more and more into social security for the ones that are too old to do so. Besides, in Europe, we're talking about negative population growth.
Ok, I know plenty of Muslims who live in America, enjoy the [sad excuse for] democracy we have here, and of whom a number are liberal. Guess your point is gone. At any rate, if you'd looked at Christianity five hundred years ago (Spanish Inquisition, anyone?) you would have determined that it was too hateful and dogmatic to function within a liberal, democratic society.

Zero population growth is just damned fine-- if it happens all over. But when it happens only in the countries that are well-established economically, while massive population booms and consequent famines are going on in sub-Saharan Africa, China, and India, then it doesn't help a whole lot.

Hey buddy, I'm an atheist, and I'm tolerant of religion...there are plenty of us as a matter of fact. Do your thing, we do ours, and life is good.
Are you referring to me? Because I too, am an atheist, but there are certain benefits of religion that not even I can deny, so I figure root for the one that has the most benefits. Namely, the one that is most likely to accept things like gay marriage, women's rights, rational science, etc...

Well, I actually believe more in assimilation than multi culturalism. Multi culturalism says that you have to respect other cultures, even as they cynically attempt to undermine your society. Assimilation states that all the cultures blend in to make one homogenous culture.
And assimilation sucks. I like my Mexican food, and I like my Chinese food, and I really don't mind traveling to different parts of the country that have different culture.

The only alternative is not nihilism. I myself tend to be optimistic, although I don't follow any religion(they're too corrupt, and ego-centric), but many secular do seem to resort to nihilism, and that is the problem.

No, they don't. There are very few who "resort to nihilism."

Interesting point about Nietzsche. Perhaps you could tell me more?

Nieztsche held that the proper next step for human beings was the rejection of the "slave morality" inspired by Christianity - moral notions like meekness, humility, compassion, etc., which he saw as the glorification of weakness - and their replacement with a "master morality" advocating self-affirmation, which he saw as the glorification of strength.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nieztsche

In theory, Judaism and Christianity are for the redistribution of wealth, but in practice, they are the opposite.

No. In practice, their followers ignore the teachings of their own religion because of their own selfishness. Judaism and Christianity don't stop advocating what they've always advocated.

I also agree that most religions are compatible with liberal democracy, but Islam is not one of these.

Why not? It's not that different from either Judaism or Christianity.

Zero population growth is a bad thing because it leads to less people in the workforce, and the few that do work have to pay more and more into social security for the ones that are too old to do so.

It's a bad thing economically in the short term, maybe (because of the demographic consequences you mention), but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing for society in the long run.

Besides, in Europe, we're talking about negative population growth.

A good reason for increasing immigration. Oh, sorry, I forgot; the dirty Muslims aren't compatible with liberal democracy. :rolleyes:

The United States. Yes, I'm the obligatory right-wing American madman.
and you never heard of the NATIONAL ENQUIRER?

Well, I actually believe more in assimilation than multi culturalism. Multi culturalism says that you have to respect other cultures, even as they cynically attempt to undermine your society. Assimilation states that all the cultures blend in to make one homogenous culture.

I get where you're coming from. But multi-culturalism is a fact of the modern world. Assimilation is a global process in this day in age. While we are busy building multicultural societies, the world will be adopting a monocultural pop culture.

Um, actually....*bursts your bubble*

Hmmm... being that I have a couple of pints in me and I'm not entirely sure that you're telling me that 'yes, I'm a debating sissy' I'll take you up on it.

What 'controversial topic' are you up for?

I get where you're coming from. But multi-culturalism is a fact of the modern world. Assimilation is a global process in this day in age. While we are busy building multicultural societies, the world will be adopting a monocultural pop culture.
Frighteningly true... I went to Costa Rica and heard Christina Aguilera on the radio. Went to New Zealand and heard Madonna. I suppose Norway is next on my travel list, because at least there'll be some Metallica.

Ok, I know plenty of Muslims who live in America, enjoy the [sad excuse for] democracy we have here, and of whom a number are liberal. Guess your point is gone. At any rate, if you'd looked at Christianity five hundred years ago (Spanish Inquisition, anyone?) you would have determined that it was too hateful and dogmatic to function within a liberal, democratic society.

Zero population growth is just damned fine-- if it happens all over. But when it happens only in the countries that are well-established economically, while massive population booms and consequent famines are going on in sub-Saharan Africa, China, and India, then it doesn't help a whole lot.
I know plenty of Muslims too. I have 2 Muslim friends, and they are normal decent people. It is my belief that the Muslims here are the most assimilated group of Muslims in the western world. HOWEVER, the jihadists aren't exactly a fringe element, and most Muslims won't criticize them unless you talk to them very, very, privately. It's this silent acceptance of radical Islam that exasparates me to no end. I'll agree that Christianity has its dark spots, but look at Islam: Ever since the beginning, it's been spread by wars, and when you look at the conflicts going on in the world today, you begin to see a general pattern: Muslims against Jews in the Middle East, Muslims against Hindus in Kashmir, Muslims against Christians in Nigeria, Muslims against Russians in Chechnya, Muslims against Americans in Iraq, as well as other Muslims. See? They can't even get along with each other.

Zero population growth, DOESN'T happen all over, and therein lies the problem.

No, they don't. There are very few who "resort to nihilism."

Nieztsche held that the proper next step for human beings was the rejection of the "slave morality" inspired by Christianity - moral notions like meekness, humility, compassion, etc., which he saw as the glorification of weakness - and their replacement with a "master morality" advocating self-affirmation, which he saw as the glorification of strength.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nieztsche

No. In practice, their followers ignore the teachings of their own religion because of their own selfishness. Judaism and Christianity don't stop advocating what they've always advocated.

Why not? It's not that different from either Judaism or Christianity.

It's a bad thing economically in the short term, maybe (because of the demographic consequences you mention), but that doesn't mean it's a bad thing for society in the long run.

A good reason for increasing immigration. Oh, sorry, I forgot; the dirty Muslims aren't compatible with liberal democracy. :rolleyes:
1. Then explain the negative population growth of Europe, and the self-hatred the Europeans have for themselves.
2. About judaism and christianity-basically what I was trying to say. But hey, it's good for the economy!!
3. Not that different? Other than the fact that it implores its followers to kill the infidel and make muslims out of everyone.
4. It's not bad ecnomocally, it's CATASTROPHIC. And yes, it's a bad thing for society in the long run, because when the economy is destroyed, so are people's livelihoods.
5. If the majority of Muslims want sharia law, as they do in Britain, for example, then no, I'm sorry, they're not compatible with liberal democracy.

1. Then explain the negative population growth of Europe, and the self-hatred the Europeans have for themselves.
2. About judaism and christianity-basically what I was trying to say. But hey, it's good for the economy!!
3. Not that different? Other than the fact that it implores its followers to kill the infidel and make muslims out of everyone.
4. It's not bad ecnomocally, it's CATASTROPHIC. And yes, it's a bad thing for society in the long run, because when the economy is destroyed, so are people's livelihoods.
5. If the majority of Muslims want sharia law, as they do in Britain, for example, then no, I'm sorry, they're not compatible with liberal democracy.
I think you need to support points 1 & 5, in particular. I wasn't aware that all Europeans hated themselves. Nor was I aware of any studies in Britain showing majority support for Sharia law (though it's possible, I want some verification)

I think you need to support points 1 & 5, in particular. I wasn't aware that all Europeans hated themselves. Nor was I aware of any studies in Britain showing majority support for Sharia law (though it's possible, I want some verification)
The Europeans are unwilling to defend themselves. They just don't have the motivation. Whenever there's a bombing or a plot unfoiled, as in Canada(which is more euro in its attitudes than USA), they get a nice speech about what a peaceful religion Islam is, and they are told not to criticize Islam, because that would be racist, and could cause a Muslim backlash. That's just insane.

I heard it on tv. So I guess you're gonna have to take my word for it.

1. Then explain the negative population growth of Europe,

Birth control combined with a lack of religious fundamentalism. It has nothing to do with nihilism.

and the self-hatred the Europeans have for themselves.

Europeans do not have self-hatred for themselves.

2. About judaism and christianity-basically what I was trying to say. But hey, it's good for the economy!!

No, it's not. But I digress.

3. Not that different? Other than the fact that it implores its followers to kill the infidel and make muslims out of everyone.

Well, no, it doesn't. In fact the Quran says explicitly that if your enemies offer you peace in good faith, you are obligated to accept.

4. It's not bad ecnomocally, it's CATASTROPHIC.

How so? It reduces the use of resources, thus promoting long-term stability.

If the majority of Muslims want sharia law, as they do in Britain, for example, then no, I'm sorry, they're not compatible with liberal democracy.

"Sharia law" for whom?

Birth control combined with a lack of religious fundamentalism. It has nothing to do with nihilism.

Europeans do not have self-hatred for themselves.

No, it's not. But I digress.

Well, no, it doesn't. In fact the Quran says explicitly that if your enemies offer you peace in good faith, you are obligated to accept.

How so? It reduces the use of resources, thus promoting long-term stability.

"Sharia law" for whom?
1. And yet the euros hate their nation's militaries, and they are willing to see their national identity dissolved by minority groups demanding special rights-well, one minority group in particular.
2. Yes, it is good for the economy, because it encourages the free market.
3. Ha!!Do you know what that means? If "your enemies offer you peace in good faith" is another way of saying that when your enemies can no longer fight you because you've 1) slaughtered all of them, or 2) slaughtered most of them, then you must let the few miserable survivors live out the rest of their pathetic lives. Read on to what it says afterwards-that dhimmis(non muslims in muslim societies) are required to pay a special tax, not allowed to marry other muslims(however, a muslim man can marry a non muslim woman), and are not allowed to carry weapons. Makes the Old South under Jim Crow look like a utopian paradise, don't it?

1. And yet the euros hate their nation's militaries, and they are willing to see their national identity dissolved by minority groups demanding special rights-well, one minority group in particular.

Ah, I see. This is just anti-Muslim paranoia on your part.

2. Yes, it is good for the economy, because it encourages the free market.

It's bad for anyone lacking the privileges of the religious elites who renounce the teachings of the religion in which they claim to believe. Which is, of course, why those tachings existed in the first place.

3. Ha!!Do you know what that means? If "your enemies offer you peace in good faith" is another way of saying that when your enemies can no longer fight you because you've 1) slaughtered all of them, or 2) slaughtered most of them, then you must let the few miserable survivors live out the rest of their pathetic lives.

Making up stuff is not a decent way to make an argument.

Read on to what it says afterwards-that dhimmis(non muslims in muslim societies) are required to pay a special tax, not allowed to marry other muslims(however, a muslim man can marry a non muslim woman), and are not allowed to carry weapons. Makes the Old South under Jim Crow look like a utopian paradise, don't it?

All religions have a degree of intolerance towards other religions. Plenty of religions have existed fine under liberal democracies.

Ah, I see. This is just anti-Muslim paranoia on your part.
It's bad for anyone lacking the privileges of the religious elites who renounce the teachings of the religion in which they claim to believe. Which is, of course, why those tachings existed in the first place.
Making up stuff is not a decent way to make an argument.
All religions have a degree of intolerance towards other religions. Plenty of religions have existed fine under liberal democracies.
It's not paranoia. You know, even after 911, I thought it was just a few lunatics. But after the cartoon fiasco, after seeing how people who criticize Islam get death threats, I've come to realize this problem is more widespread than I first realized.

Spare me your righteous bullshit. Most of the poor are poor because they're losers. They're either uneducated, drug addicts, lazy, or had too many kids that they now can't even feed.

I hate to break this to you, but everything I said about dhimmis, was absolutely true. Ask any Muslim. Or look it up yourself.

I agree that all religions are intolerant, to a point. But some are more intolerant than others. Islam is especially so.

This is indeed a paradox, but as you have read in the title, I am an atheist in favor of organized religion.

What do you think?
I think that your opinions are neither new nor shocking. I agree that religions do help society, and that Christianity is not capitalist.

Spare me your righteous bullshit. Most of the poor are poor because they're losers. They're either uneducated, drug addicts, lazy, or had too many kids that they now can't even feed.

Considering your OP I would think that those who have more than the standard 1.9 children deserve support? After all, they're keeping the civilisation going.

What do you think?
Your ideas are in complete opposition to my own. You see the social aspect and the psychological manipulation of religion as its value while rejecting the conceptual thinking as without worth. To me, the philosophy of speculative religion is where the notion should stop, but is itself a valuable venture, whereas the role of religion in society has always been and will most likely always continue to be an unending source of community tribalism, autocratic oppression and personal deprivation.

Christianity at its core is anti-capitalist

I don't think thats true. I think that it thinks capitalism is fine, but making it your life isnt. IE Making money your obsession.

1. Then explain the negative population growth of Europe, and the self-hatred the Europeans have for themselves.

I dont think Europeans have self hatered. What they have is a somewhat aloof attitude to patriotism (in continetnatal Europe anyway) because of what they have seen it do in the past. That is why the world cup is so important to Europe, along with other sporting events.

Of the philosophies that exist in the world or have existed I particularly enjoy existentialism which brings up some pretty good points. For anybody who has no idea what existentialism is, it's a difficult concept, so I'll give you part of the Wikipedia definition that I think will explain it better than I can:

"Some of the tenets associated with the existentialism of Jean-Paul Sartre include:
Existence precedes essence: This is a reversal of the Aristotlean premise that essence precedes existence, where man is created to fulfil some telos and life consists of fulfilling that goal. Unlike tools that are created to fulfill a purpose (e.g. a scissor is created for the express purpose to cut things), Sartrean existentialism argues man exists without purpose, finds himself in the world and defines the meaning of his existence.
Identities are constructed by the individual consciousness only: As an extension of the first tenet, the individual consciousness constructs a "self" or "identity" for itself. An "identity" can include beliefs, projects, and various other things of value. Sartre argues that no one else, including God if He existed, can choose your "identity" for you. Kierkegaard's knight of faith and Nietzsche's Übermensch are some such examples of those who create their own "identity".
Values are subjective: Sartre accepts the premise that something is valuable because the individual consciousness chooses to value it. Sartre denies there are any objective standards on which to base values.
Responsiblity for choices: The individual consciousness is responsible for all the choices he/she makes, regardless of the consequences. Sartre claims that to deny the responsibility is to be in bad faith. Here, existentialists draw on psychological concepts to investigate feelings such as angst and despair that arise by being in bad faith. Kierkegaard's works The Concept of Anxiety and The Sickness Unto Death are works that deal with such feelings.
Condemned to be free: Because our actions and choices are ours and ours alone, we are condemned to be responsible for our free choices.[/I]

There are several terms Sartre uses in his works. Being in-itself are objects that are not free and cannot change its essence. Being for-itself are free: it does not need to be what it is and can change into what it is not. Consciousness is usually considered being for-itself. Sartre distinguishes between positional and non-positional consciousness. Non-positional consciousness is being merely conscious of one's surroundings. Positional consciousness puts consciousness into relation of one's surroundings. This entails an explicit awareness of being conscious of one's surroundings. Sartre argues identity is constructed by this explicit awareness of consciousness.
In Repetition, Kierkegaard wrote:
How did I get into the world? Why was I not asked about it, why was I not informed of the rules and regulations but just thrust into the ranks as if I had been bought by a peddling shanghaier of human beings? How did I get involved in this big enterprise called actuality? Why should I be involved? Isn't it a matter of choice? And if I am compelled to be involved, where is the manager—I have something to say about this. Is there no manager? To whom shall I make my complaint? [3]"

I know that's rather long, but it's the shortest explanation I could find. When I learned about it, my teacher pretty much said that if you understand it and believe it, you're an existentialist. Otherwise, you aren't and can't ever hope to be, but that's fine.

I know this was a discussion on religion and I think that this ties in very well with organized religion because one branch of it definitely believes in a god/gods. Anyone who is an atheist or agnostic, it is absolutely fascinating to read about this subject because it proposes a philosophy that is not commonly believed in. Plus,:), to call yourself an existentialist is way cooler than the cliched "atheist" or even "agnostic".:cool:

Christianity is far more cult than Islam.