Atheism, Learned Helplessness, and Clinical Depression

[BL2KTN]

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

I might be if I knew the probability of their existence given enough evolution on enough planets. I lack the variables, however. I totally do believe in Batman on some planet though. Variables be damned.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Is atheism a healthy worldview to have?

Atheism isn't a worldview. However, I am an atheist, and my atheistic worldview has been healthy.

Does atheism lead to learned helplessness? Does it lead to clinical depression?

Does Christianity lead to learned helplessness? Or depression? I have known Christians who have exhibited both.

I am an atheist, and I am a proactive person, and am not clinically depressed.

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.

No, it clarifies. It makes important distinctions without which the waters are muddied.

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.

It's a poor definition. Atheists are not necessarily "materialists". There is nothing inconsistent with an atheist believing in an afterlife.

And that the only things that do exist are what we can see and scientifically prove.

Atheism =/= scientism.

This leads us to the atheistic worldview:

There is no such thing as "the" atheistic worldview. There are many.

"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."

You get a score of F.

Atheism does not imply that "there is no real meaning to life", or the glass-is-half-empty view that "we are doomed to nothingness".

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.

Were these atheistic dogs or Christian dogs? I mean seriously. How is an experiment on dogs supposed to resolve anything for human psychologies? Should we do an experiment on ants to see if Christians are just followers?

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.

I have not learned to be helpless. I have taken action on an important life issue earlier today.

The inescapable situation involving electric shock represents the atheistic worldview

Except that it doesn't. My worldview says that initiative in life is a beneficial thing.

What are your comments on this?

You are just out to slam atheists, and you aren't interested in the truth about atheists. I can't take your post seriously. It comes across as trollish.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

That's actually incorrect.

Not according to the vast majority of atheists that I have spoken with over the years. An atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods. An agnostic is someone who lacks knowledge of whether or not gods exist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[FireDragon76]

For one example, there's millions of Buddhists (atheist religion) that would disagree with you.

Buddhism, as practiced (not the interpretations found on message boards on the internet, coming from western dilettantes), is not "atheistitc" as would be understood by most of the atheists participating in this discussion. It would be more proper to call it "non-theistic". Some have described Buddhism as a non-theistic transcendentalism. As atheists usually deny the existence of a transcendent reality, this makes Buddhism not exactly "atheistic" as usually understood.

Religious belief is definitely correlated with increased mental health, and more religious societies tend to have happier people with less suicide (for instance, Italy vs. Finland). However, I suspect the difference is less down to the "ultimate meaning" of things in the philosophical sense, and simply because human beings are goal-oriented and task-oriented by nature, and having a life structure by goals contributes to less anomie than a life without these reference points.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Buddhism, as practiced (not the interpretations found on message boards on the internet, coming from western dilettantes), is not "atheistitc" as would be understood by most of the atheists participating in this discussion. It would be more proper to call it "non-theistic". Some have described Buddhism as a non-theistic transcendentalism. As atheists usually deny the existence of a transcendent reality, this makes Buddhism not exactly "atheistic" as usually understood.

That depends on what is meant by 'transcendent reality'.

Religious belief is definitely correlated with increased mental health, and more religious societies tend to have happier people with less suicide (for instance, Italy vs. Finland).

Perhaps at a population-level. At an individual-level, however, thoughts of blasphemy can be crippling in the context of OCD.

However, I suspect the difference is less down to the "ultimate meaning" of things in the philosophical sense, and simply because human beings are goal-oriented and task-oriented by nature, and having a life structure by goals contributes to less anomie than a life without these reference points.

Religion is not the only means by which one can have structure in one's life.

 

[Syd the Human]

Buddhism, as practiced (not the interpretations found on message boards on the internet, coming from western dilettantes), is not "atheistitc" as would be understood by most of the atheists participating in this discussion. It would be more proper to call it "non-theistic". Some have described Buddhism as a non-theistic transcendentalism. As atheists usually deny the existence of a transcendent reality, this makes Buddhism not exactly "atheistic" as usually understood.

Religious belief is definitely correlated with increased mental health, and more religious societies tend to have happier people with less suicide (for instance, Italy vs. Finland). However, I suspect the difference is less down to the "ultimate meaning" of things in the philosophical sense, and simply because human beings are goal-oriented and task-oriented by nature, and having a life structure by goals contributes to less anomie than a life without these reference points.

I've always heard that Finland had a sizable population of atheist/agnostic/non-believers. Where did you get that information?

Adherents.com: Atheist Statistics | Agnostic

"tran·scen·dent adjective \-dənt\
: going beyond the limits of ordinary experience

: far better or greater than what is usual

Full Definition of TRANSCENDENT

1
a : exceeding usual limits : surpassing
b : extending or lying beyond the limits of ordinary experience
c in Kantian philosophy : being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge
2
: being beyond comprehension
3
: transcending the universe or material existence — compare immanent 2
4
: universally applicable or significant <the antislavery movement…recognized the transcendent importance of liberty — L. H. Tribe>"

Why can't atheists accept or believe in any of those definitions? I am sure there are atheists who believe in ghosts or ESP etc etc. Atheism is about no belief in a god or gods.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Religious belief is definitely correlated with increased mental health, and more religious societies tend to have happier people with less suicide (for instance, Italy vs. Finland).

Finland is much further up north. My guess is that Finland's suicide rate is influenced by the long, dark winter nights, something that affects both Christians and atheists. As a resident of Sweden, I have experience with this and its effects on one's mind.

Why are you singling out atheism here? Do you have any statistics that show that it is specifically the atheists of both Italy and Finland that commit suicide in significantly greater proportions than theists?

However, I suspect the difference is less down to the "ultimate meaning" of things in the philosophical sense, and simply because human beings are goal-oriented and task-oriented by nature, and having a life structure by goals contributes to less anomie than a life without these reference points.

I have goals that matter to me in a way that transcends arbitrary choice.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

Last I heard, Denmark was the happiest country in the world and has the highest level of atheism.

 

[BL2KTN]

Not according to the vast majority of atheists that I have spoken with over the years. An atheist is someone who lacks belief in gods. An agnostic is someone who lacks knowledge of whether or not gods exist.

It really doesn't matter what people have told you, what matters is the meaning of the word. Theism refers to the belief in the divine, but if you add an "a" to the beginning it changes it to the negative: a disbelief. It doesn't mean a lack of belief.

Theism = Belief in divine
Agnosticism = Lack of belief in divine
Atheism = Disbelief in divine

It's very simple.

 

[Received]

It really doesn't matter what people have told you, what matters is the meaning of the word. Theism refers to the belief in the divine, but if you add an "a" to the beginning it changes it to the negative: a disbelief. It doesn't mean a lack of belief.

Theism = Belief in divine
Agnosticism = Lack of belief in divine
Atheism = Disbelief in divine

It's very simple.

Agnosticism stands for lack of knowledge regarding the divine. It's a blurry term in comparison with atheism, especially given that there are some theists who claim to be agnostic, claiming that true, justified belief of God (i.e., knowledge) isn't possible.

 

[BL2KTN]

[quote="Received']Agnosticism stands for lack of knowledge regarding the divine. It's a blurry term in comparison with atheism, especially given that there are some theists who claim to be agnostic, claiming that true, justified belief of God (i.e., knowledge) isn't possible.[/quote]

What you have said is exactly what I have just posted. There are many people who view their position as being mostly theistic or mostly atheistic, but acknowledge being somewhat agnostic. People can and do often fit on a scale, not cleanly in one of the categories.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It really doesn't matter what people have told you, what matters is the meaning of the word. Theism refers to the belief in the divine, but if you add an "a" to the beginning it changes it to the negative: a disbelief. It doesn't mean a lack of belief.

Theism = Belief in divine
Agnosticism = Lack of belief in divine
Atheism = Disbelief in divine

It's very simple.

It's very simplistic, and wrong.

 

[Received]

What you have said is exactly what I have just posted. There are many people who view their position as being mostly theistic or mostly atheistic, but acknowledge being somewhat agnostic. People can and do often fit on a scale, not cleanly in one of the categories.

Yeah, but you defined agnosticism as lack of belief. Belief and knowledge are two different things. One stands for attempted representation of something as it is, the other as accurately representing something on an adequate basis of reasoning or authority.

 

[BL2KTN]

It's very simplistic, and wrong.

Typically when one declares another wrong, they do so with reasoning.

Yeah, but you defined agnosticism as lack of belief. Belief and knowledge are two different things. One stands for attempted representation of something as it is, the other as accurately representing something on an adequate basis of reasoning or authority.

Most agnostics would say they lack belief because they lack knowledge/facts/information. Others would sight a lack of desire to investigate the issue.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It really doesn't matter what people have told you, what matters is the meaning of the word.

I know what the meaning of the word is, and I dispute your meaning. Your definition of agnostic is particularly bad, since "gnostic" refers to gnosis which refers to knowledge, not belief.

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

Theism refers to the belief in the divine, but if you add an "a" to the beginning it changes it to the negative: a disbelief. It doesn't mean a lack of belief.

The privative a- is used to indicate absence or negation, and is well captured in the word "not" or "non". An atheist is not-a-theist or a "non-theist".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privative_a

That is perfectly consistent with lacking a belief in gods. Another possible translation is "godless", which is also consistent with lacking belief in gods.

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

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]

The term atheism originated from the Greek &#7940;&#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[BL2KTN]

I know what the meaning of the word is, and I dispute your meaning. Your definition of agnostic is particularly bad, since "gnostic" refers to gnosis which refers to knowledge, not belief.

Gnostic, coming from the word gnosis, and farther back, gnovi, does refer to knowledge, facts, information, etc. However, agnostics and agnosticism posits that a lack of knowledge, facts, information, etc, is what disallows a definitive belief.

The privative a- is used to indicate absence or negation, and is well captured in the word "not" or "non". An atheist is not-a-theist or a "non-theist".

Yes. Therefore, since a theist is a believer-in-the-divine, an atheist is a not-a-believer-in-the-divine. An agnostic remains a lacker-of-belief-in-the-divine. This continues to agree with what I originally said.

That is perfectly consistent with lacking a belief in gods. Another possible translation is "godless", which is also consistent with lacking belief in gods.

You're playing semantics. Atheists do not simply lack a belief in gods, they disbelieve there are gods at all.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[9][10]

The term atheism originated from the Greek &#7940;&#952;&#949;&#959;&#962; (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society.

I agree with Wikipedia.

 

[Paradoxum]

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.

Okay.

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.

Why do you think the laws of physics are unnecessarily complex? We don't fully understand the nature of the universe, so it would seem to be jumping to conclusions. There could be a natural reason for why the laws are as they are, or there could be many universes.

The cosmological argument used to appeal to me, but that was only because I was biased in favour of God belief. Without that bias I don't see how it proves anything. The universe could come about naturally.

 

[BL2KTN]

Why do you think the laws of physics are unnecessarily complex? We don't fully understand the nature of the universe, so it would seem to be jumping to conclusions. There could be a natural reason for why the laws are as they are, or there could be many universes.

Did you see the youtube video I provided you in this thread featuring Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson?

The cosmological argument used to appeal to me, but that was only because I was biased in favour of God belief. Without that bias I don't see how it proves anything. The universe could come about naturally.

So then you do not believe there was an original cause/action?

 

[BL2KTN]

Why do you think the laws of physics are unnecessarily complex? We don't fully understand the nature of the universe, so it would seem to be jumping to conclusions. There could be a natural reason for why the laws are as they are, or there could be many universes.

Did you see the youtube video I provided you in this thread featuring Dr. Neil DeGrasse Tyson?

The cosmological argument used to appeal to me, but that was only because I was biased in favour of God belief. Without that bias I don't see how it proves anything. The universe could come about naturally.

So then you do not believe there was an original cause/action?

 

[Eudaimonist]

So then you do not believe there was an original cause/action?

Scientists don't know for certain if the past is infinite or finite. I lean towards finite, but in that case I don't think that there was an original cause of physical reality as such. It would simply have been in the nature of whatever existed at that earliest instant of time to change.


eudaimonia,

Mark