Dr. Hobart Mowrer / the philosophy of atheism

[Genersis]

Haven't we had this thread like...three times already?

 

[Elioenai26]

We speak for ourselves, not atheists.

But do tell what you think from us that all atheists are like. You can't leave us guessing.

If you do not know what you yourself are, then how can I tell you?

 

[Elioenai26]

Let's have it all out here and now, "apologist" - what exactly do you think you have learned?

Everything you have taught me.

 

[Skavau]

If you do not know what you yourself are, then how can I tell you?

I know what I am myself.

I'm left wondering what I am. What did you learn about atheists, pray tell?

 

[Gadarene]

Everything you have taught me.

Again, all you do is repeat the same tired misrepresenations of atheists.

You haven't learned much if you think that still behaving the way you did when you first arrived is still acceptable.

Or are you just evading yet another question, Eliarenai?

 

[Gadarene]

Orval Hobart Mowrer, atheistic psychologist and professor of Johns Hopkins University, one time professor at Harvard, one time professor at Yale, one time President of the American Psychologist Association, who before he killed himself at the age of 75, wrote in an article, "Sin, the Lesser of Two Evils":

Ah yes, good old "atheistic psychology", that well known field

"For several decades we psychologists have looked upon the whole matter of sin and moral accountability as a great incubus and we have acclaimed our freedom from it as epic making. But at length we have discovered to be free in this sense to have the excuse of being sick rather than being sinful is to also court the danger of becoming lost. In becoming amoral, ethically neutral and free, we have cut the very roots of our being, lost our deepest sense of selfhood and identity. And with neurotics themselves, asking, "Who am I? What is my deepest destiny? And what does living really mean?" (“Sin, the Lesser of Two Evils,” American Psychologist, 15 (1960): 301-304)

I'd settle for knowing what this quote is actually supposed to mean.

One can explain, punish, account for, and rehabilitate people and their deep-seated issues without needing a concept such as sin.

And dispensing with such a concept does not necessarily imply becoming amoral and ethically neutral.

This is remarkable insight into the philosophy and ideology of postmodern thought which seeks to convince us that there are no absoulutes and that there are no longer vices that should be called "sins". It is the insight into a philosophy that is wooing a culture into believing that the perpetrator is actually the victim and the victim is the perpetrator. It is the complete and total reversal of all that has been taken as self-evident for thousands of years regarding morality and it's implications on the human race.

No where is this more clearly seen than in the morally relativistic landscape that is becoming increasingly pervasive throughout western culture whose impetus is a godless, meaningless, purposeless existence built upon the unsubstantiated, baseless, groundless theories of a few who have taken it upon themselves to "redefine" what it means to be human.​

​

Well, this is nice.

What does postmodernism have to do with atheism again?

Are you presuming that we're all postmodernists or that atheism is necessarily postmodern? Both are unwise.

I'm afraid it has everything to do with atheism and it's logical ramifications. If you say that it does'nt, that is your opinion. However, a good argument can be made for maintaining that atheism is a way of looking at the world, albeit, however varied and discordant individual views within it's overarching framework may be.

No, it can't - doing so frequently results in swallowing a bunch of theistic assumptions in the process about morals, meaning, etc.

In fact sir, one thing you fail to understand is that since atheism is itself so broad a category, she has a very great many children who use her to get what they want from her. Kind of like spoiled children who continually use their mother as their authenticating and self-approving mainstay.

More applicable to Christianity, given how laughably fragmented the "one true faith" is.

You are patently wrong here sir.

Atheism entails everything that is a ramification of not believing in God.

The desacrilization of human life, the meaning, purpose, and destiny of humanity is all adversely affected by the logical outworkings and ramifications of a godless worldview.

And this statement operates entirely on the unjustified presumptions that human life is "sacred", and that there definitely exists an overarching meaning, purpose and destiny for it.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here - you should probably back those assertions up first before proceeding.

Just because you say that atheism entails nothing does not mean that it does'nt.

It says everything about a person's worldview. For from the issue of God's existence or non-existence flow the most meaningful and indispensible questions of life. Every important aspect of a person's life is affected by their affirmation or denial of God.

I am surprised that you do not know this.

It's amazing how many atheists don't seem to know their own thoughts, but apparently some apologist wannabe with an internet connection and a lousy attitude does.

It has everything to do with atheism because Dr. Mowrer understood what the logical ramifications of a godless worldview entailed.

In fact, it was unsuccessful attempts at dealing with depression which were fostered by his own view that to endure and overcome such depression would ultimately be an exercise in futility that was no doubt a factor in him committing suicide.

I'm not really going to take the opinion of someone who was suffering from considerable emotional distress as the most rational of voices on the matter, thanks very much.

If you do not think that life is meaningless without God, then any meaning you assign to life is only illusory Paradoxum, it is not real and is not based or founded in reality, for reality is that the universe is an accident brought about by blind random forces with no design, no purpose, no intent, no ultimate meaning, no concern.

Ask Nietzsche, ask Russell, ask Dawkins, what life is, I am sure they will tell you that it ultimately is meaningless and nothingness on the atheistic worldview.

Now, you can pretend that life is meaningful if that helps you cope with life, this is what atheists do, but pretending that life is meaningful does not make it so.

So at best, on the atheistic view, life can be meaningful only insofar as we give it our own meaning which is completely subjective.

If that is all the meaning we can hope for, then it is meaningful. Your problem is that you have swallowed an unjustified assumption that something is only meaningful if a deity tells you it is.

 

[quatona]

And you, and ToddNotTodd, and quatona, and everyone else who has been posting here for the past several weeks who are atheists. That is why I thank you gentlemen so very much for helping me to understand what atheism is and how people who are atheists think, feel, and look at things. Very beneficial for me.

Just so you don´t jump to conclusions: At no point did I mean to speak on behalf of atheism.
In return, I am giving every theist the benefit of the doubt that they aren´t represented by you.

 

[Elioenai26]

Just so you don´t jump to conclusions: At no point did I mean to speak on behalf of atheism.
In return, I am giving every theist the benefit of the doubt that they aren´t represented by you.

It seems quite odd to me that atheists when challenged, seem to try to distance themselves from the very worldview their namesake claims!

If you are an atheist, then you are an adherent to atheism. This seems so logically self-evident that maybe atheists in some stange illogical way really are not atheists, but if they are not atheists, then.... well what are they?

Does anyone want to venture to answer this?

 

[Eudaimonist]

If you are an atheist, then you are an adherent to atheism.

This is not a definition of atheism with which I'm familiar. There is no philosophy of atheism to adhere to!

This seems so logically self-evident

Only to people who don't understand atheism, or don't want to.

if they are not atheists, then.... well what are they?

Has it occurred to you that you are mistaken on what atheists are?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

This is not a definition of atheism with which I'm familiar. There is no philosophy of atheism to adhere to!



Only to people who don't understand atheism, or don't want to.



Has it occurred to you that you are mistaken on what atheists are?


eudaimonia,

Mark

What is atheism then? And you do not have to give me the usual lack of belief in gods or God, I know that.

What I mean to ask is: what is atheism?

Is it a psychological condition, a worldview, a philosophy, what is it?

 

[Gadarene]

What is atheism then? And you do not have to give me the usual lack of belief in gods or God, I know that.

What I mean to ask is: what is atheism?

Is it a psychological condition, a worldview, a philosophy, what is it?

Oh, you meant atheism, not atheism?



It's a statement about one's belief or lack thereof in god/gods.

 

[Gadarene]

It seems quite odd to me that atheists when challenged, seem to try to distance themselves from the very worldview their namesake claims!

...
Does anyone want to venture to answer this?

It means you have lousy reading comprehension. Not claiming to be representative of all atheists does not mean you are suddenly distancing yourself from being an atheist.

If you are an atheist, then you are an adherent to atheism. This seems so logically self-evident that maybe atheists in some stange illogical way really are not atheists, but if they are not atheists, then.... well what are they?

As much as there can said to be "atheism". It is hardly a system, at most it is is a statement on lacking belief in gods.

Again, you seem to be projecting what Christians do onto atheists.

 

[Genersis]

...
Is it a psychological condition, a worldview, a philosophy, what is it?

Not having a belief in something doesn't really fall under any of those.
I'm not even sure what it would fall under, or even if a negative like non-belief can fall into something...

 

[Elioenai26]

It means you have lousy reading comprehension. Not claiming to be representative of all atheists does not mean you are suddenly distancing yourself from being an atheist.



As much as there can said to be "atheism". It is hardly a system, at most it is is a statement on lacking belief in gods.

Again, you seem to be projecting what Christians do onto atheists.

So you would agree that if it is a statement, then it is a position one has regarding his understanding of reality? For statements about reality can only be made from one's position on their view of reality. In other words, our statements and judgments are based upon a set of ideals that we have about reality.

Right or wrong?

 

[Gadarene]

So you would agree that if it is a statement, then it is a position one has regarding his understanding of reality? For statements about reality can only be made from one's position on their view of reality. In other words, our statements and judgments are based upon a set of ideals that we have about reality.

Right or wrong?

It is a statement on reality in that gods are claimed to be part of reality. But it doesn't go any further than that. It is not a philosophy or a world view as you are so insistent on strawmanning it to.

The idea that gods have any bearing on morals, meaning etc are theistic presumptions. Why you expect atheists to hold theistic assumptions is beyond me. We don't think of life having no meaning because there are no gods dictating it to us because we don't recognise that concept as a viable means of attributing meaning in the first place, because gods don't exist. If we did, we'd still be thinking along very theistic lines. You only think gods are necessary for morals etc because we have thought like this for so long, and religion is in a position of social privilege in this regard.

I'm sure there have been a few atheists who have taken the non-existence of god to imply life is meaningless and terrible, but I would argue they are very confused atheists.

 

[quatona]

It seems quite odd to me that atheists when challenged, seem to try to distance themselves from the very worldview their namesake claims!

I don´t know where you have observed this. I am not aware that I don´t distance myself from the fact that I don´t believe in any of the god concepts I am familiar with. However, this is not a worldview - this is a very insignificant detail about me. I don´t tend to define myself by the stuff I don´t believe.
In my previous post I didn´t distance myself from anything. I just told you that I was not speaking on behalf of atheism. Just like I didn´t speak on behalf of guitarists, males or Germans. I´m sure that with a bit of effort you will understand the differennce.

If you are an atheist, then you are an adherent to atheism.

And as long as you don´t make more of it than I intend to say by it ("I don´t believe in any of the God concepts I am familiar with") we are fine. This however, is a single statement about one particular and to me insignificant aspect of my person. It is nothing to "adhere to", in the same way calling my lack of belief in the tooth fairy a worldview or calling me an "adherent of atoothfairianism" would help to making more of this aspect of my person than there actually is.
I have no emotional or other inclination towards the term atheism. We can completely drop it if that helps you out of your confusion. I just don´t believe in any of the god concepts I am familiar with. If you think atheism means more than that you are not talking about what I mean when - for brevity´s sake - I say I am an "atheists". If you insist that "atheist" means more than that I am not an atheist by your definition. That´s no problem for me.

This seems so logically self-evident that maybe atheists in some stange illogical way really are not atheists, but if they are not atheists, then.... well what are they?

Does anyone want to venture to answer this?

Well, your misconceptions about atheism have been addressed countless times in all the threads you created about this atheism you are so obsessed with, you have countless claimed that you have grasped it, and each time you return with the same tired misrepresentations.
It´s all been said. Reread it. Don´t waste our time. Please.

 

[quatona]

Is it a psychological condition, a worldview, a philosophy, what is it?

None of it.
It´s the rejection of a single claim.
Theists are people who assert the existence of some sort of god, atheists are those who say "We don´t believe you".

 

[Paradoxum]

If you do not think that life is meaningless without God, then any meaning you assign to life is only illusory Paradoxum, it is not real and is not based or founded in reality, for reality is that the universe is an accident brought about by blind random forces with no design, no purpose, no intent, no ultimate meaning, no concern.

The universe has no purpose, but I am more than mere matter and can transcend my physical limitations through my conscious thought and values.

Ask Nietzsche, ask Russell, ask Dawkins, what life is, I am sure they will tell you that it ultimately is meaningless and nothingness on the atheistic worldview.

Well it depends what you mean by meaning. I don't care much for getting worldview from Nietzsche, and nor do I care that much what Dawkins has to say about philosophy. I don't know what Russell's opinion on the meaning of life was.

Now, you can pretend that life is meaningful if that helps you cope with life, this is what atheists do, but pretending that life is meaningful does not make it so.

Well we have to ask what it means for it to be meaningful. Is it enough that it is meaningful to me. Something can be beautiful without God.

So at best, on the atheistic view, life can be meaningful only insofar as we give it our own meaning which is completely subjective.

It is.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What is atheism then? And you do not have to give me the usual lack of belief in gods or God, I know that.

But that's what it is. Don't overcomplicate it.

Is it a psychological condition, a worldview, a philosophy, what is it?

It's lacking belief in gods or God, whatever your worldview, philosophy, or personal psychology happen to be like. If your worldview does not contain a belief in the existence of divine beings, it's an atheistic worldview -- it is "godless" -- and that means you're an atheist. More precisely, atheism simply means that one is unconvinced that any gods exist.

Ask yourself what theism is. It think you'll find that it's not a philosophy, since religions can encompass a variety of different philosophies. It's not a worldview for similar reasons. It's not a psychological condition, or at least a specific one. It simply means that one's worldview contains belief in at least one deity. Theism is the belief that at least one deity exists.

I suppose you could consider atheism and theism to be a belief status, if you must have a term for that, where atheism's belief status means that a belief in deities does not exist, and theism's belief status means that at least one does exist.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Elioenai26]

It is a statement on reality.... because gods don't exist. If we did, we'd still be thinking along very theistic lines..

Ok.

This is what I thought. A statetment about reality which says that gods don't exist. In other words you do not believe in God and this is your view of reality. This is your view of the world in which we live. This is your worldview that says God does not exist.

This is what I have been saying but I am consistently over and over again told that this is incorrect!

It seems to me that you are attempting to be exempt from being labeled. Why would you not want to be labeled as having a worldview?

Do you not understand that everyone in this world has a worldview? If you live in the world, you view the world in a certain way, or through a certain established set of ideals and interpretations and perceptions.

Atheism is the worldview through which one sees reality without God. In other words atheim is a godless worldview. It is the lens through which one looks at the world and God is no where to be found because the lens says that God does not exist.

Is this right or wrong?