Existential atheism in Jean-Paul Sartre

This thesis is about Sartre's existential atheism. Existentialism is one of the movements that still maintains its influence today. Existentialism generally stands out with its individual-centered nature and the principle of the priority of existence over essence. In particular, the issue of the priority of existence over essence has been one of the key points of Sartre's philosophy. In the first part of this thesis, what existentialism is and briefly its history are given. Then, the differences between theist and atheist existentialism, which are two different wings of existentialism, and the important thinkers representing them were introduced. In the second part, the phenomenological method used by Sartre was discussed. It has been revealed that the phenomenological method is the activity of comprehending things as they are. Then, Sartre's understanding of ontology was explained. According to Sartre, who basically divides existence into two, being is defined as being-in-itself and being-for-itself. Being-in-itself symbolizes the world of objects, and being-for-itself symbolizes man. However, Sartre distinguished these two types of existence in very sharp terms and introduced the concept of nothingness as a compensation for this. According to him, these two entities, which seem completely independent of each other, can interact through nothingness. According to Sartre, who builds his philosophy on freedom, human beings cannot be thought without freedom. If a human being exists, he can only exist freely; otherwise, freedom is an essential feature of humans. According to Sartre, human beings are condemned to freedom. In the third chapter, Sartre's understanding of religion and God and his criticisms of religion were revealed. Finally, it was examined what the criticisms against Sartre were and whether they were justified. The focus of criticism is that the understanding of ethics is unclear and that it condemns people to both freedom and endless responsibility. Although I agree with these criticisms, it is still worth noting that the philosophy he puts forward is very valuable.