Atheism, Learned Helplessness, and Clinical Depression

[Al Gammate]

Is atheism a healthy worldview to have? Does atheism lead to learned helplessness? Does it lead to clinical depression? In order to answer these questions, I'm going to first define what I mean by atheism.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the Concise Encyclopedia defines atheism as the following:

"Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Democritus and Epicurus argued for it in the context of materialism. In the 18th century David Hume and Immanuel Kant, though not atheists, argued against traditional proofs for God's existence, making belief a matter of faith alone. Atheists such as Ludwig Feuerbach held that God was a projection of human ideals and that recognizing this fiction made self-realization possible. Marxism exemplified modern materialism. Beginning with Friedrich Nietzsche, existentialist atheism proclaimed the death of God and the human freedom to determine value and meaning. Logical positivism holds that propositions concerning the existence or nonexistence of God are nonsensical or meaningless."

In other words, atheism is strictly defined as the belief that God definitely does not exist. Atheism is not defined as agnosticism, deism, or theism.

Some atheists may claim to be agnostic atheists; some may claim to be deistic atheists; some may even claim to be theistic atheists. What this does is muddy the waters of what atheism really means. In fact, the term "atheism" is becoming such a fuzzy and vague concept that it is quickly becoming meaningless.

Many atheists define atheism as anything they feel it to be at any given moment. But for the sake of a coherent conversation, I'm going to define atheism according to the Concise Encyclopedia of Merriam-Webster Dictionary. I'm going to define atheism as the belief that God definitely does not exist, and the only thing that exists is materialism.

Given this definition of atheism, we can assume that not only does God not exist, but heaven or any other afterlife also does not exist. And that the only things that do exist are what we can see and scientifically prove.

This leads us to the atheistic worldview:

"We live in a universe where God does not exist, and there is no afterlife. When we die, we simply disappear permanently into oblivion, never to be heard from again. Given this, there is no real meaning to life. There is only a very fleeting meaning that we may give it. But in the long run, it does not matter. In fact, nothing matters in the long run. Everything that we do in this life is essentially meaningless. There is no hope in this life. Because nothing can save us from permanently disappearing into oblivion, never to be heard from again. The universe is indeed a very cold and uncaring place. We are doomed. Doomed to nothingness."

Now I'm going to shift to Dr. Martin Seligman's theory of learned helplessness, because it directly relates to the atheistic worldview.

Dr. Seligman did an experiment where he put some dogs in an escapable situation involving electric shock and some in an inescapable situation involving electric shock.

Later on, these same dogs were put in escapable cages that had grids at the bottom where strong currents of electricity can pass through. When Dr. Seligman turned on the electricity, the dogs that were previously in the escapable situation leapt away from the grid and attempted to escape. Nevertheless, the dogs that were previously in the inescapable situation just lay there helplessly on the grid. They seemed to learn to be helpless.

You may be saying right about now: "So what? What's your point? The dogs previously in the escapable situation attempted to escape when placed in escapable cages. But the dogs previously in the inescapable situation lay helplessly on the floor when placed in escapable cages. What does this have to do with the atheistic worldview?"

It has a lot to do with the atheistic worldview, because the dogs previously in the inescapable situation lay helplessly, when placed in escapable cages. They learned to be helpless. Just like atheists learn to be helpless. The atheistic worldview teaches atheists helplessness through hopelessness.

The inescapable situation involving electric shock represents the atheistic worldview; the escapable situation involving electric shock represents the Christian worldview. The atheistic worldview is one of hopelessness; the Christian worldview is one of hope. The atheist will just lie there; the Christian will attempt to escape. Even if the atheist was to be placed in a Christian reality, the atheist will just lie there . . . helplessly . . . hopelessly.

Is learned helplessness the same as clinical depression? Are atheists, in fact, clinically depressed? Did atheism contribute to Friedrich Nietzsche's mental breakdown?

What are your comments on this?

 

[dhh712]

I think it may be possible for it to describe some atheists, yet the majority I don't think it applies to.

This leads us to the atheistic worldview:

"We live in a universe where God does not exist, and there is no afterlife. When we die, we simply disappear permanently into oblivion, never to be heard from again. Given this, there is no real meaning to life. There is only a very fleeting meaning that we may give it. But in the long run, it does not matter. In fact, nothing matters in the long run. Everything that we do in this life is essentially meaningless. There is no hope in this life. Because nothing can save us from permanently disappearing into oblivion, never to be heard from again. The universe is indeed a very cold and uncaring place. We are doomed. Doomed to nothingness."

I think some atheists may be offended by this. Though logically, I don't see what other conclusion may be drawn from the atheistic viewpoint; nonetheless I have spoken with some atheists who take much meaning in something which, according to their worldview, logically progresses to the understanding that there can't possibly be any long-term meaning to life. I guess the short-term meaning is enough for them. From this, I feel they have a naïve viewpoint on the longevity of life. I have not met a single elderly person who hasn't said that life is short and before you know it, you get there (but I don't just take that from their story; I've already lived what will probably be about half of my life. I can't say that it seemed to be a very long time until I was here).

I guess an atheist can drum up some great meaning to their blip of a life, but from a practical viewpoint such a thing is for the most part completely void of any meaning (they usually try to discover meaning in their posterity and/or relatives--or just anyone, but even this is just striving for something which doesn't exist because in a very short while--a few more blips along the massive timeline--even those people will not exist and then the lives of scores of millions and several billions of people will never be remembered by even a visage of a memory).

I think I remember some atheists asking why is it so necessary to the Christian for there to be any other meaning beyond what we have now. That's a good question because as an atheist I was quite satisfied with what I had in the world at the time. It wasn't until I became a Christian that I realized the emptiness of the what this world promises, how the pleasures of it are transient. I guess then it is a matter of if one is satisfied with the world, or if they are taken out of it; I was taken out of the world--given a spiritual life which the contrast to the physical one is striking--so I can see so much more meaning in the next world as compared to this one. The meanings we try to establish for ourselves in this world are so weak from my perspective; they are nothing compared to the meaning of knowing God.

Is learned helplessness the same as clinical depression? Are atheists, in fact, clinically depressed? Did atheism contribute to Friedrich Nietzsche's mental breakdown?

I don't think so. I've met some atheists who are very positive and optimistic people. I know of some Christians who are definitely not (me being one of them). The fact is (as I understand it), many atheists have found hope in the world we live in; a Christian's hope doesn't lie in this world but the next.

 

[quatona]

Is atheism a healthy worldview to have? Does atheism lead to learned helplessness? Does it lead to clinical depression? In order to answer these questions, I'm going to first define what I mean by atheism.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the Concise Encyclopedia defines atheism as the following:

"Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Democritus and Epicurus argued for it in the context of materialism. In the 18th century David Hume and Immanuel Kant, though not atheists, argued against traditional proofs for God's existence, making belief a matter of faith alone. Atheists such as Ludwig Feuerbach held that God was a projection of human ideals and that recognizing this fiction made self-realization possible. Marxism exemplified modern materialism. Beginning with Friedrich Nietzsche, existentialist atheism proclaimed the death of God and the human freedom to determine value and meaning. Logical positivism holds that propositions concerning the existence or nonexistence of God are nonsensical or meaningless."

In other words, atheism is strictly defined as the belief that God definitely does not exist. Atheism is not defined as agnosticism, deism, or theism.

Some atheists may claim to be agnostic atheists; some may claim to be deistic atheists; some may even claim to be theistic atheists. What this does is muddy the waters of what atheism really means. In fact, the term atheism is becoming such a fuzzy and vague concept that it is quickly becoming meaningless.

Many atheists define atheism as anything they feel it to be at any given moment. But for the sake of a coherent conversation, I'm going to define atheism according to the Concise Encyclopedia of Merriam-Webster Dictionary. I'm going to define atheism as the belief that God definitely does not exist, and the only thing that exists is materialism.

Given this definition of atheism, we can assume that not only does God not exist, but heaven or any other afterlife also does not exist. And that the only things that do exist are what we can see and scientifically prove.

This leads us to the atheistic worldview:

"We live in a universe where God does not exist, and there is no afterlife. When we die, we simply disappear permanently into oblivion, never to be heard from again. Given this, there is no real meaning to life. There is only a very fleeting meaning that we may give it. But in the long run, it does not matter. In fact, nothing matters in the long run. Everything that we do in this life is essentially meaningless. There is no hope in this life. Because nothing can save us from permanently disappearing into oblivion, never to be heard from again. The universe is indeed a very cold and uncaring place. We are doomed. Doomed to nothingness."

I think it´s a good idea of you to give your clear definition of the keyword upfront.
The problem, however: Your definition addresses only a small fringe group of those who consider and label themselves "atheists".
Now, you are entitled to jump up and down insisting that their definition is inaccurate - but even if it were inaccurate, this wouldn´t change anything about the fact that your point is one of semantics, and doesn´t affect what self-professing atheists actually believe or don´t believe.

From the perspective of this non-believer (who uses "atheist" as a synonym for "non-believer"), your sermon doesn´t even touch the question whether my worldview (which you don´t even know) is healthy or not - rather, it leaves me with the conclusion that you aren´t talking about me (and the vast majority of self-professing atheists, I may add).

Now I'm going to shift to Dr. Martin Seligman's theory of learned helplessness, because it directly relates to the atheistic worldview.

Dr. Seligman did an experiment where he put some dogs in an escapable situation involving electric shock and some in an inescapable situation involving electric shock.

Later on, these same dogs were put in escapable cages that had grids at the bottom where strong currents of electricity can pass through. When Dr. Seligman turned on the electricity, the dogs that were previously in the escapable situation leapt away from the grid and attempted to escape. Nevertheless, the dogs that were previously in the inescapable situation just lay there helplessly on the grid. They seemed to learn to be helpless.

You may be saying right about now: "So what? What's your point? The dogs previously in the escapable situation attempted to escape when placed in escapable cages. But the dogs previously in the inescapable situation lay helplessly on the floor when placed in escapable cages. What does this have to do with the atheistic worldview?"

It has a lot to do with the atheistic worldview, because the dogs previously in the inescapable situation lay helplessly, when placed in escapable cages. They learned to be helpless. Just like atheists learn to be helpless. The atheistic worldview teaches atheists helplessness through hopelessness.

The inescapable situation involving electric shock represents the atheistic worldview; the escapable situation involving electric shock represents the Christian worldview. The atheistic worldview is one of hopelessness; the Christian worldview is one of hope. The atheist will just lay there; the Christian will attempt to escape. Even if the atheist were to be placed in a Christian reality, the atheist will just lay there . . . helplessly . . . hopelessly.

Is learned helplessness the same as clinical depression? Are atheists, in fact, clinically depressed? Did atheism contribute to Friedrich Nietzsche's mental breakdown?

What are your comments on this?

I guess your creative metaphore will be impressive to those who already believe like you. Everyone else hopefully will notice how it´s loaded and therefore not suited to appear in the key-position of a supposedly logical argument. Anyway, I find it interesting that you think of yourself as a product of classical conditioning.

On another note: Even if all you said here were accurate, it would be an irrelevant point for those who don´t believe what´s most convenient but what appears to be true. IOW: You haven´t made a cause for the existence of a God (and even less the God of your particular faith) - you merely made a case for believing in a God, based on your personal preferences.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

ISome atheists may claim to be agnostic atheists; some may claim to be deistic atheists; some may even claim to be theistic atheists. What this does is muddy the waters of what atheism really means. In fact, the term atheism is becoming such a fuzzy and vague concept that it is quickly becoming meaningless.

It doesn't 'muddy' anything except your attempt at an apologetic, which is your own problem. What it actually does is clarify the fact that while belief is binary, knowledge is a spectrum. Theist/Atheist is a distinction pertaining to belief. Agnostic/Gnostic is a distinction pertaining to knowledge.

Having said that, I don't actually care, as it doesn't make your argument any more credible either way.

Under the category of 'things which I believe to exist', gods are not to be found. Render that into Latin however you like and lets get on with it.

As to your main point, you have it 100% backwards. This idea that an 'afterlife' somehow bestows meaning on our current lives is a vacuous naked assertion. How does it, exactly? Also, following this same course of non-logic, what gives the 'afterlife' meaning? The 'after-afterlife'? Then the 'after-after-afterlife' etc?

Feeling 'depressed' about non-existence is absurd on its face, as there is quite literally nothing to be afraid of. Also, it is precisely because this life is fleeting and temporary that is has its worth. Scarcity is a very basic economic concept. If you find a diamond in the desert, you have something of value. That is life in the temporary view.

If you find a diamond in a desert made of diamonds, on a continent made of diamonds, on a planet made of diamonds, in a universe made of diamonds, you have something worthless. That is life in the eternal view.

Eternity does not elevate life. It utterly cheapens and degrades it.

This is all to say nothing of the fact that there is no good reason whatsoever to suspect there is an afterlife in the first place. And as quatona pointed out, at the very best, even if you could defend your central assertion, all you would have is an argument from consequence fallacy.

Are atheists, in fact, clinically depressed?

No, that is demonstrably false. Thanks for playing.

 

[KCfromNC]

Is atheism a healthy worldview to have?

Atheism isn't a worldview, so the question is a category error.

 

[Received]

No belief system, if we consider it purely as an abstract collection of ideas, yields to learned helplessness more than others. LH is more a result of negative experiences than ideas, although it's true that ideas can lead to negative experiences. Seligman's theory goes further: LH is mediated by what he called "explanatory style," which is how people interpret events. We all interpret good or bad things that happen to us as permanent/impermanent, pervasive/non-pervasive, and personal/non-personal. E.g., I get a bad grade on a test, and if I'm a pessimist I have an explanatory style as follows: this bad grade will last forever (permanent), it affects my life through and through (pervasive), and I totally screwed this up (personal).

Nothing inherent in atheism fits with a negative explanatory style. It's just as true that much of theism is correlated with LH, depending on the experiences its adherents have with their lives.

 

[Cearbhall]

Is atheism a healthy worldview to have?

This is sort of a pointless question. The desirability of a certain position has no effect on the truth of it. I would love for there to be an afterlife, for example, but I don't consider that a good reason to say that there is one.

 

[Paradoxum]

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the Concise Encyclopedia defines atheism as the following:

In other words, atheism is strictly defined as the belief that God definitely does not exist. Atheism is not defined as agnosticism, deism, or theism.

That definition is wrong. Atheism is the lack of belief in God.

I doubt any intelligent atheist would claim that God definitely doesn't exist. If you use a definition that hardly applies to anyone who claim that label, then perhaps you should consider whether your definition is wrong.

If you want more specific language; weak/negative atheism is the lack of belief in God, strong/positive atheism is the belief that there probably/ definitely is no God.

The term 'atheism' in general refers to weak atheism.

In fact, the term atheism is becoming such a fuzzy and vague concept that it is quickly becoming meaningless.

I find that atheists generally do agree on what atheist means. It's a lack of belief in God.

But for the sake of a coherent conversation, I'm going to define atheism according to the Concise Encyclopedia of Merriam-Webster Dictionary. I'm going to define atheism as the belief that God definitely does not exist, and the only thing that exists is materialism.

That isn't the correct definition, but if you want talk about a very strong atheism (that very few atheists would accept) then fair enough. By the way, one doesn't have to be a materialist to be an atheist.

Given this definition of atheism, we can assume that not only does God not exist, but heaven or any other afterlife also does not exist. And that the only things that do exist are what we can see and scientifically prove.

I'll just point out that it is possible for atheists to believe in an afterlife, but without a God.

More importantly, atheism doesn't require a strong empiricism. I'm an atheist (I'd even say there probably is no God), but I'm happy to use reasons as well as evidence (not just evidence).

"We live in a universe where God does not exist, and there is no afterlife. When we die, we simply disappear permanently into oblivion, never to be heard from again. Given this, there is no real meaning to life. There is only a very fleeting meaning that we may give it. But in the long run, it does not matter. In fact, nothing matters in the long run. Everything that we do in this life is essentially meaningless. There is no hope in this life. Because nothing can save us from permanently disappearing into oblivion, never to be heard from again. The universe is indeed a very cold and uncaring place. We are doomed. Doomed to nothingness."

I'd sort of agree. I wouldn't say life is meaningless though. There may be no objective meaning... but I'm not sure theists could justifiably claim there is objective meaning.

They learned to be helpless. Just like atheists learn to be helpless. The atheistic worldview teaches atheists helplessness through hopelessness.

Well we will die, so on that one issue we can't do anything about it. Though science could extend life.

The inescapable situation involving electric shock represents the atheistic worldview; the escapable situation involving electric shock represents the Christian worldview. The atheistic worldview is one of hopelessness; the Christian worldview is one of hope. The atheist will just lie there; the Christian will attempt to escape. Even if the atheist was to be placed in a Christian reality, the atheist will just lie there . . . helplessly . . . hopelessly.

The dog experiment is about conditioning behaviour. You shock dogs, and make it so they actually CAN'T escape.

Atheists aren't repeatedly killed, leading to non-existence. In fact doing this repeatedly would defeat the point of it (since being killed, then brought back to life, would seem to give hope).

So I don't think you can compare the two situations, since no atheist has been repeatedly made non-exist in an inescapable way.

What matters is what the truth is. If everyone will die, there's no point trying to escape by praying to Zeus, because there is no Zeus or heavenly Mt Olympus.

Is learned helplessness the same as clinical depression? Are atheists, in fact, clinically depressed? Did atheism contribute to Friedrich Nietzsche's mental breakdown?

No, all atheists aren't clinically depressed. This is something you could test. I'm little different from when I was a Christian.

Also, you know Christians can have 'mental breakdowns'?

What are your comments on this?

I think you are drawing strange conclusions.

 

[Received]

A brain tumor contributed to Nietzsche's breakdown.

I know more Christians who appear to have brain tumors than atheists.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

This leads us to the atheistic worldview:

"We live in a universe where God does not exist, and there is no afterlife. When we die, we simply disappear permanently into oblivion, never to be heard from again. Given this, there is no real meaning to life. There is only a very fleeting meaning that we may give it. But in the long run, it does not matter. In fact, nothing matters in the long run. Everything that we do in this life is essentially meaningless. There is no hope in this life. Because nothing can save us from permanently disappearing into oblivion, never to be heard from again. The universe is indeed a very cold and uncaring place. We are doomed. Doomed to nothingness."

No. Emphatically, no. I completely reject this notion of "unless something lasts forever, it counts for nothing." It's nonsensical.

Meaning and purpose exist in the here and now. They don't need to be absolute, eternal, or imposed by some inescapably powerful external force. If you care about it now, it has meaning. The fact that it won't matter ten million years after the sun explodes shouldn't make the slightest bit of difference unless you insist that the entire universe should care about the same things you do for all of time and beyond. That strikes me as unbelievably arrogant. Yeah, someone who thought that way probably would be depressed, but there's no reason that an atheist (or anyone) should feel that way.

Even if everything is meaningless and nothing matters (not true), the fact that nothing matters also doesn't matter! A true nihilist has nothing to be depressed about.

It has a lot to do with the atheistic worldview, because the dogs previously in the inescapable situation lay helplessly, when placed in escapable cages. They learned to be helpless. Just like atheists learn to be helpless. The atheistic worldview teaches atheists helplessness through hopelessness.

"Just like atheists learn to be helpless"! What atheists? Where? The most hope-filled and inspired people I know are atheists, and the most doom-saying, gloomy people I know are theists who think that everything is doomed to get worse and worse until some sort of divine savior comes to kill all the bad guys and fix everything with magic.

If there are atheists who are helpless and hopeless it's probably the fault of the nonsense and lies told to them by theists who insist that nothing matters unless an all-powerful person tells, no, commands them to believe it matters. And those people are just vultures.

 

[BL2KTN]

Atheism is the lack of belief in God.

That's actually incorrect. Agnosticism is the lack of belief in a god. Atheism is the disbelief of a god. Theism is the belief of a god. Polytheism is the belief of many gods. Very few people who call themselves atheists are, in fact, atheists. Even Richard Dawkins says that he is an agnostic, but labels himself an atheist because he is more sure that there is no god than he is unsure. I think he says he's a 6 on a scale to 7 of disbelief.

 

[Paradoxum]

That's actually incorrect. Agnosticism is the lack of belief in a god. Atheism is the disbelief of a god.

Well, the truth is probably that there isn't a fully accepted single definition of either.

Agnosticism can me lacking a belief, but it can also be the opinion that the existence of God is fundamentally knowledgeable. Atheism (strong/positive atheism) can mean the belief that there is no God, but it can also mean a lack of belief in God (weak/negative atheism.

Theism is the belief of a god.

Though it can also mean the belief in a personal god. Opposed to deism which says God is impersonal.

Polytheism is the belief of many gods. Very few people who call themselves atheists are, in fact, atheists. Even Richard Dawkins says that he is an agnostic, but labels himself an atheist because he is more sure that there is no god than he is unsure. I think he says he's a 6 on a scale to 7 of disbelief.

I think a spectrum of beliefs might be a better way of thinking about it.

When I was losing faith, I thought about it in terms of percentage of belief, and even figured out roughly how quick I was losing faith (about 15% per year).

I actually called myself a Christian-skeptic, agnostic, then atheist, as I lost faith. But the reason I used the term agnostic was because I wasn't quite ready to admit I was atheist.

Now I'd be a 6 on the spectrum below. I don't believe in God, like I don't believe in fairies. I think some people who claim to be agnostic are De facto atheists. They don't believe in God like they don't believe in all magically beings. Few people would claim they were agnostic towards fairies. People just don't think fairies exist.

Spectrum of theistic probability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[BL2KTN]

I'm agnostic towards fairies. The universe is so many billions times more expansive than what we typically perceive, I'm completely cool with the thought that winged-bipedal creatures with higher intelligence exist(ed) somewhere out there. Therefore I'm not afairy.

 

[Paradoxum]

I'm agnostic towards fairies. The universe is so many billions times more expansive than what we typically perceive, I'm completely cool with the thought that winged-bipedal creatures with higher intelligence exist(ed) somewhere out there. Therefore I'm not afairy.

Fairies tend to be magical. So I'd include that in the definition. I suppose it then come down to if you are agnostic about magic.

I'm afairy like I'm atheist. I don't think invisible, intangible, magical beings are on earth. I think it's unlikely, like I think God's existence is unlikely. Though fairies might be more likely than God.

Why are you deist? Why do you believe in a God?

 

[quatona]

"We live in a universe where God does not exist, and there is no afterlife. When we die, we simply disappear permanently into oblivion, never to be heard from again. Given this, there is no real meaning to life. There is only a very fleeting meaning that we may give it. But in the long run, it does not matter. In fact, nothing matters in the long run. Everything that we do in this life is essentially meaningless. There is no hope in this life. Because nothing can save us from permanently disappearing into oblivion, never to be heard from again. The universe is indeed a very cold and uncaring place. We are doomed. Doomed to nothingness."

I understand how all that can be depressing to a person who expects and wishes there to be some kind of eternal meaning from an assumed perspective from beyond our existence as the frame of reference.
For me, our existence has always been the frame of reference of my hopes, my meanings, etc. Of course there is "hope in this life" - there´s just no hope beyond this life. I have never perceived this as a problem, since I don´t believe there is such a beyond point of view.
I do understand how theology and theism solve the problems that wouldn´t even exist without them. But for me, the non-theist, there isn´t even a problem. What you call "essential" I call "absurd".

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The notion that atheism must make someone depressed doesn't arise from atheism itself, but from theism. It's the theist who would be severely disappointed to learn that a god or an afterlife occupied by that god does not exist. The notion of atheists being depressed thus seems to arise only when theists try to imagine themselves as atheists. They can't do it because they're still clinging to the assumptions of their theism. Rather than imagining what life would look like without the theistic lens, the theist imagines what life what would look like through a cracked theistic lens: broken, obscured, distorted.

 

[Cearbhall]

I'm agnostic towards fairies. The universe is so many billions times more expansive than what we typically perceive, I'm completely cool with the thought that winged-bipedal creatures with higher intelligence exist(ed) somewhere out there. Therefore I'm not afairy.

Good point. Neither am I, come to think of it.

 

[JGG]

I'm agnostic towards fairies. The universe is so many billions times more expansive than what we typically perceive, I'm completely cool with the thought that winged-bipedal creatures with higher intelligence exist(ed) somewhere out there. Therefore I'm not afairy.

Ah, but are you a fairyist? Do you claim that fairies do, in fact, exist?

 

[Gladius]

Is atheism a healthy worldview to have? Does atheism lead to learned helplessness? Does it lead to clinical depression? In order to answer these questions, I'm going to first define what I mean by atheism.

According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, the Concise Encyclopedia defines atheism as the following:

"Critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or divine beings. Unlike agnosticism, which leaves open the question of whether there is a God, atheism is a positive denial. It is rooted in an array of philosophical systems. Ancient Greek philosophers such as Democritus and Epicurus argued for it in the context of materialism. In the 18th century David Hume and Immanuel Kant, though not atheists, argued against traditional proofs for God's existence, making belief a matter of faith alone. Atheists such as Ludwig Feuerbach held that God was a projection of human ideals and that recognizing this fiction made self-realization possible. Marxism exemplified modern materialism. Beginning with Friedrich Nietzsche, existentialist atheism proclaimed the death of God and the human freedom to determine value and meaning. Logical positivism holds that propositions concerning the existence or nonexistence of God are nonsensical or meaningless."

In other words, atheism is strictly defined as the belief that God definitely does not exist. Atheism is not defined as agnosticism, deism, or theism.

Some atheists may claim to be agnostic atheists; some may claim to be deistic atheists; some may even claim to be theistic atheists. What this does is muddy the waters of what atheism really means. In fact, the term "atheism" is becoming such a fuzzy and vague concept that it is quickly becoming meaningless.

Many atheists define atheism as anything they feel it to be at any given moment. But for the sake of a coherent conversation, I'm going to define atheism according to the Concise Encyclopedia of Merriam-Webster Dictionary. I'm going to define atheism as the belief that God definitely does not exist, and the only thing that exists is materialism.

Given this definition of atheism, we can assume that not only does God not exist, but heaven or any other afterlife also does not exist. And that the only things that do exist are what we can see and scientifically prove.

This leads us to the atheistic worldview:

"We live in a universe where God does not exist, and there is no afterlife. When we die, we simply disappear permanently into oblivion, never to be heard from again. Given this, there is no real meaning to life. There is only a very fleeting meaning that we may give it. But in the long run, it does not matter. In fact, nothing matters in the long run. Everything that we do in this life is essentially meaningless. There is no hope in this life. Because nothing can save us from permanently disappearing into oblivion, never to be heard from again. The universe is indeed a very cold and uncaring place. We are doomed. Doomed to nothingness."

Now I'm going to shift to Dr. Martin Seligman's theory of learned helplessness, because it directly relates to the atheistic worldview.

Dr. Seligman did an experiment where he put some dogs in an escapable situation involving electric shock and some in an inescapable situation involving electric shock.

Later on, these same dogs were put in escapable cages that had grids at the bottom where strong currents of electricity can pass through. When Dr. Seligman turned on the electricity, the dogs that were previously in the escapable situation leapt away from the grid and attempted to escape. Nevertheless, the dogs that were previously in the inescapable situation just lay there helplessly on the grid. They seemed to learn to be helpless.

You may be saying right about now: "So what? What's your point? The dogs previously in the escapable situation attempted to escape when placed in escapable cages. But the dogs previously in the inescapable situation lay helplessly on the floor when placed in escapable cages. What does this have to do with the atheistic worldview?"

It has a lot to do with the atheistic worldview, because the dogs previously in the inescapable situation lay helplessly, when placed in escapable cages. They learned to be helpless. Just like atheists learn to be helpless. The atheistic worldview teaches atheists helplessness through hopelessness.

The inescapable situation involving electric shock represents the atheistic worldview; the escapable situation involving electric shock represents the Christian worldview. The atheistic worldview is one of hopelessness; the Christian worldview is one of hope. The atheist will just lie there; the Christian will attempt to escape. Even if the atheist was to be placed in a Christian reality, the atheist will just lie there . . . helplessly . . . hopelessly.

Is learned helplessness the same as clinical depression? Are atheists, in fact, clinically depressed? Did atheism contribute to Friedrich Nietzsche's mental breakdown?

What are your comments on this?

Wow, just wow.

Firstly, I agree with your definition of atheist and I am one. It has nothing to do with philosophy though, it is the natural position of every non-indoctrinated human being that has ever lived. You are atheist to any God that isn't yours. I am atheist to all of them.

Secondly, how do you get from non-belief/agreement in your God to a meaningless life? Is belief in your God the only possible purpose to life that a human could imagine? For one example, there's millions of Buddhists (atheist religion) that would disagree with you.

The arrogance of the position "unless you believe what I believe your life can not possibly have any meaning", is extraordinary.

Whether you agree an atheist's meaning/purpose to their life is 'sufficient' for you is one thing, but to deny outright that they can even come up with a purpose is just outright insulting and logically ridiculous.

Finally, you have completely misconstrued a scientific experiment which merely established that animals (and only possibly humans) who are conditioned via pain to believe that their situation is inescapable, continue to believe that even when they have method of escape (much like fear of eternal damnation implanted in early childhood prevents many otherwise reasoning adult humans to retain a semblance of commitment to a religion, even though they have an escape).


No atheist I am aware of denies the existence of God because they have been painfully conditioned to do so. Not many of them walk around feeling/believing their lives are meaningless either. That is simply an erroneous assumption of the theists, who seem unable to mentally process how a human could hold an atheist world-view and not suffer from some mental illness (like depression).

Mental illness often (but not always) has the effect of altering or removing rationality. Much closer to a description of theism than atheism.

 

[BL2KTN]

Fairies tend to be magical. So I'd include that in the definition. I suppose it then come down to if you are agnostic about magic.

I'm afairy like I'm atheist. I don't think invisible, intangible, magical beings are on earth. I think it's unlikely, like I think God's existence is unlikely. Though fairies might be more likely than God.

Why are you deist? Why do you believe in a God?

Meh, I think that's burdening our little alien faerie friends too much. I don't believe in magic, so I don't think applying "magic" as an attribute to anything is quite fair. It would be like me saying, "elephants are magical, so therefore I will not believe they exist". Now gremlins on the other hand... *shutters*... let us hope that they do not exist anywhere in the universe. I hear they have awful breath and are a nightmare to clean up after. I suspect neither lives on Earth, however, just as I suspect flying spaghetti monsters aren't in our atmosphere, but I wouldn't rule out their likenesses on the billions of habitable planets and billions of years they could have existed upon/within.

I'm a deist because I think the laws of physics are unnecessarily complex. I'm also completely okay with the idea this is all a simulated universe. The cosmological argument appeals to me, and I disagree with Dawkins about a creator being unlikely because it is a more complex issue to answer. We're a more complex issue to answer, yet here we are against the odds, and I think a creator may be similarly unlikely yet actual.

Does String Theory Show a Programmer?