Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
JGG said:Ah, but are you a fairyist? Do you claim that fairies do, in fact, exist?
Is atheism a healthy worldview to have?
Does atheism lead to learned helplessness? Does it lead to clinical depression?
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.
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."
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.
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
What are your comments on this?
That's actually incorrect.
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.
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.
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.
Eudamoist said: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.
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.
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.
Archeaoptryx said:It's very simplistic, and wrong.
Received said: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.
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.
Eudaimonist said: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.
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".
That is perfectly consistent with lacking a belief in gods. Another possible translation is "godless", which is also consistent with lacking belief in gods.
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 ἄθεος (atheos), meaning "without god(s)", used as a pejorative term applied to those thought to reject the gods worshipped by the larger society.
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.
Paradoxum said: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.
Paradoxum said: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.
So then you do not believe there was an original cause/action?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?