Atheists and depression

[Tin Man]

Accept other people's way of thinking, without expecting that they should have to adopt one's own. Also the assumption that others are ignorant closes oneself off the possibility of learning anything - close-mindedness can either come about because one thinks one is all-knowing without qualification, or because one thinks others are completely ignorant without qualification.

Ultimately, to believe, or not believe is a matter of choice, not of knowledge. Some people have a simple faith which does not engage with scientific fact, or a more developed faith. Likewise some people choose not to believe with only a vague tenuous grasp of scientific facts and with a vague tenuous knowledge of religion. This is not necessarily indicative of the validity of their choice, which may be operating on a more personal level, which is why characterising other's choices about atheism/theism as ignorant can only be made in ignorance of the other person. And the personal experience of a person - objective, or subjective is not without value.

I don't expect people to adopt my way of thinking, I would find people very boring if they just agreed with me. However, if someone won't even listen to another's argument, let alone respect it then I don't see what you can learn from them. If someone goes through all their life with eyes shut, I question how much wisdom they have to benefit from.

What I posted wasn't meant to be an attack on Christians. There are many atheists who are close minded just as there are many believers who are open to other ways of thinking.

Reading the OP again, I think I got into the wrong direction, by taking the stance that atheism as a worldview is depressing. I shoud've drive in another direction. Geh, it happens, especialy when I don't even know from where to begin...
[MENTION=5667]Jacobi[/MENTION]
You should say something, instead of being melancholic about your 'great life experiences".
I would suggest to you that being closed-minded does nothing to do with what is the truth. So a closed-minded person is not necessarely false... You are a INTJ, I think you can grasp this difference.
[MENTION=6917]sprinkles[/MENTION]
Please don't "explain" what I meant to say, if you don't have the willingness to quote me.




No.

What's the point? It's unlikely I would change your mind. If someone like [MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION], one of the most open minded people I know, someone who really tried to understand and accept your viewpoint was unable to open your mind even slightly, what chance do I have?

You are correct on one point, however. There's little point in complaining about the way things are; it serves nobody.

 

[LucyJr]

What's the point? It's unlikely I would change your mind. If someone like [MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION], one of the most open minded people I know, someone who really tried to understand and accept your viewpoint was unable to open your mind even slightly, what chance do I have?

You are correct on one point, however. There's little point in complaining about the way things are; it serves nobody.

I think I am correct at more than one point.
closed minded != being false
closed minded != being true
closed minded = closed minded

So, while I think being closed minded does bear some value to it...I think most of the time its just a red hairing. What bears the supreme value in any debate or discussion on this kind is the truth, not being closed minded or not.

If I would use the concept of closed mindness, I could ridicule anyone, and truly so. Because the concept in itself is logically self-refuting.
But I don't use it. Especialy when the discussion is about a specific point, not about being closed minded or not.

And there is something else . Philosophy and religious discussion is not diplomacy...that's a whole other level, the human level. I mean again, closed mindness or open mindness does not equal truth or falsity.

[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION] is indeed very open minded and patience. Thanks Skarekrow for your patience.

 

[Poetic Justice]

Religion is a coping mechanism. It's purpose is to make people feel better about the apparent pointlessness of existence. It makes sense that if you remove someones coping mechanism then they are going to struggle coping.

That in no way means that religion is true. It's a lie people tell themselves to feel better. Some people can't cope with believing that they are never going to see their dear old granny again. Religion says "You will, don't worry about it"

Religion isn't the only way our brains decieve us. For example I'm sure you've heard people say "everything happens for a reason" before. Whenever this happens I ask the person "what reason?" not once has the person been able to answer. Just like religion can't can't stand up to logical questioning, neither can the other coping mechanisms people use.

without comfortable lies we feel less comfortable

 

[muir]

A person decides one day that consciousness exists only within the confines of the skull

They then see everyone else as simply biological machines with a core fundamental programme of passing on their DNA

Everything else they reason is just an illusiory facade overlaying the primary and sole function of passing on DNA

The universe they reason is simply a giant perpetual motion structure that just appeared and just is because...well it just is

There is no purpose to life (except passing on DNA), there is no meaning (except passing on DNA) and anything else is merely an attempt to hide our true selfish DNA passing on programme

Suddenly the person finds themself depressed but can't 'reason' their way out of it...they're in a mental cul de sac and the view isn't so nice

 

[Tin Man]

I think I am correct at more than one point.
closed minded != being false
closed minded != being true
closed minded = closed minded

So, while I think being closed minded does bear some value to it...I think most of the time its just a red hairing. What bears the supreme value in any debate or discussion on this kind is the truth, not being closed minded or not.

If I would use the concept of closed mindness, I could ridicule anyone, and truly so. Because the concept in itself is logically self-refuting.
But I don't use it. Especialy when the discussion is about a specific point, not about being closed minded or not.

And there is something else . Philosophy and religious discussion is not diplomacy...that's a whole other level, the human level. I mean again, closed mindness or open mindness does not equal truth or falsity.

[MENTION=5045]Skarekrow[/MENTION] is indeed very open minded and patience. Thanks Skarekrow for your patience.

[MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION] was right. I did learn something from this. What you believe to be truth didn't come from nowhere, you mentioned you were an atheist once so obviously you've dwelled a lot on these ideas. What I see as close minded in you, another could easily see the same in me. Someone could not simply tell me that I'm being blind when voting pro-choice and expect me to change, just as I can't expect the same from you.

That said, I still think it's important to respect another's opinion even if you believe you know the truth. And what you've said here shows little respect for anyone else's viewpoint.

 

[say what]

I know what you are saying. It boils down to whether you look as the cause for anger as being an objective stimulus, or our subjective response to stimulus. However, this looks as anger as a response. I think some people just decide to be angry - almost arbitrarily - and find some sort of satisfaction in it - either in itself, or because of the effect it has in their dealings.

Perhaps there are two schools of thought - whether all that we do is simply an effect of influences - or whether we can freely decide what to do/feel. I think that both are true, but I get the impression that determinism is the prevailing implicit view in psychology: that people are the way they are because of external causes (present, or historical).

Mmm - There is certainly a difference from external fear and internal fear, and of course different responses. Psychology often evaluates external fear and response, and this is where the fight/flight response comes in, as it's largely physiological responses. I do find it interesting within clinical psychology that they're integrating a lot of mindfulness aspects into treatment and understanding of outcomes- and this is largely what I was talking about. That within ourselves, the fear we hold can manifest in a range of emotions and actions which we don't attribute to fear itself - but I think if we look deep enough, it might be the source.

I think religion - belief or disbelief - may be associated with that fear for some. I believe within myself, my desire to be spiritual and have faith stems from fear, especially of the unknown. Fear isn't always unhealthy though! In fact, from a physiological standpoint, fear was great for our survival!

 

[sprinkles]

A person decides one day that consciousness exists only within the confines of the skull

They then see everyone else as simply biological machines with a core fundamental programme of passing on their DNA

Everything else they reason is just an illusiory facade overlaying the primary and sole function of passing on DNA

The universe they reason is simply a giant perpetual motion structure that just appeared and just is because...well it just is

There is no purpose to life (except passing on DNA), there is no meaning (except passing on DNA) and anything else is merely an attempt to hide our true selfish DNA passing on programme

Suddenly the person finds themself depressed but can't 'reason' their way out of it...they're in a mental cul de sac and the view isn't so nice

What does that have to do with being an atheist?

 

[muir]

What does that have to do with being an atheist?

Many are pretty into the whole 'selfish gene' concept of dawkins

 

[sprinkles]

Many are pretty into the whole 'selfish gene' concept of dawkins

Well I suppose. But how is that any worse than consciousness existing only in the confines of a soul?

How is the sole function of passing on DNA any worse than the sole function of suffering through this life for some "eternal reward"?

 

[muir]

Well I suppose. But how is that any worse than consciousness existing only in the confines of a soul?

How is the sole function of passing on DNA any worse than the sole function of suffering through this life for some "eternal reward"?

I don't really see it as atheism v's christianity

I think both reject a part of themselves

 

[sprinkles]

I don't really see it as atheism v's christianity

But given the context of the thread and some of the posters in it, that is exactly what it is. Even if some of those posters say otherwise, mostly likely this is the comparison they have subconsciously.

For example, saying "anything is better than atheism" doesn't necessarily validate other religions, rather it punches atheism in the face. Because if you were to take atheism out of the picture, that just means the second worst thing ends up derided instead.

 

[LucyJr]

[MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION] was right. I did learn something from this. What you believe to be truth didn't come from nowhere, you mentioned you were an atheist once so obviously you've dwelled a lot on these ideas. What I see as close minded in you, another could easily see the same in me. Someone could not simply tell me that I'm being blind when voting pro-choice and expect me to change, just as I can't expect the same from you.

That said, I still think it's important to respect another's opinion even if you believe you know the truth. And what you've said here shows little respect for anyone else's viewpoint.

Probably you have a point in me being somehow disrespectful toward anyone's else point of view. But I found it interesting that people seem to get annoyed on me, not on many other case's where this disrespectful attitude was being accepted whithout a single problem.
It can't be because of me...it must be because of what I say...translation: I can't say that atheism is depressing, its not ethical! Its not...open mindful!
But the truth is that atheism is depressing...if its not, either one didn't learn it well, doesn't know his atheism, or...he doesn't care.


On the "closed mindness" concept...no, its not about how one view's something, one's perspective. Its about one ultimately taking a side, and thus self-refuting his concept of closed mindness. This is airtight logic, no one can escape the hypocrisy of closed mindness.
As soon as you accuse me or someone of being closed minded, which you did, you are contradicting yourself.

The concept of closed mindness sounds good, even poetic, but it has no intellectual value whatsoever. Its a kind of a compliment, a good sense toward other's opinions and a willingness to show gratitude toward them. Which we can call it "the ethics of discussing truth in a politeful manner" if we want. But...then again, it has nothing to do with truth. And the sad part is that people confuse open mindness with truthhood...

 

[muir]

But given the context of the thread and some of the posters in it, that is exactly what it is. Even if some of those posters say otherwise, mostly likely this is the comparison they have subconsciously.

For example, saying "anything is better than atheism" doesn't necessarily validate other religions, rather it punches atheism in the face. Because if you were to take atheism out of the picture, that just means the second worst thing ends up derided instead.

Well then perhaps they should step out of their subconscious for a minute and let go of the atheism or religion bandwagons and ask what it is they are rejecting?

 

[LucyJr]

Atention: someone will try to refute the truth that atheism is by its very nature depressive by trying to decrease the validity of religious values, aka: making it sound like there is no difference between religion vs atheism, thus even religion being somehow depressive.
Because this is a logical fallacy, to try to invalidate a truth by equating it with another supposed truth, even if religion (ANY religion) has the same value as atheism ( which of course, its not true), that will change nothing of the truth that atheism has a very depressive content as a worldview.

 

[muir]

Atention: someone will try to refute the truth that atheism is by its very nature depressive by trying to decrease the validity of religious values, aka: making it sound like there is no difference between religion vs atheism, thus even religion being somehow depressive.
Because this is a logical fallacy, to try to invalidate a truth by equating it with another supposed truth, even if religion (ANY religion) has the same value as atheism ( which of course, its not true), that will change nothing of the truth that atheism has a very depressive content as a worldview.

When religious people self flagellate they are symbolically rejecting the material body in favour of the spirit

They are saying the body is fallen...matter is evil....i renounce the body...i renounce matter

Atheists on the other hand....their affliction is more than skin deep

They renounce spirit and they embrace the body....they embrace matter

They say: there is nothing but matter. They say: my body is just a DNA coding following its programming

Atheists are far more lost than religious people....their affliction is far more insidious as the guardian on the threshold is their intellect which is a terrible foe indeed!

 

[sprinkles]

When religious people self flagellate they are symbolically rejecting the material body in favour of the spirit

They are saying the body is fallen...matter is evil....i renounce the body...i renounce matter

Moreover, depression is a mental/emotional/subjective phenomenon. Nothing is depressing - people get depressed about things.

So saying that atheism is for a fact depressing is just some "call anything true if it strengthens my claim" rhetoric bullshit.

 

[LucyJr]

When religious people self flagellate they are symbolically rejecting the material body in favour of the spirit

They are saying the body is fallen...matter is evil....i renounce the body...i renounce matter

There is a very easy refutation to this: in any religion, you have something valuable, would it be this life or another one.

But in atheism, you can't eve use the word "better", because better implies a system of values. In atheism a rock is no better than a human being, and neither a human being is better than a rock. Not only that, but nothing is "good" in athesim. Everything is a total mess, the paradigm of absurd...values are but illusions, a deception of our minds. But nothing is ultimately really valuable.
Can one values the absurd, the chaos? I hardly think so, and even if he would...still nothing would have any value.

 

[sprinkles]

When religious people self flagellate they are symbolically rejecting the material body in favour of the spirit

They are saying the body is fallen...matter is evil....i renounce the body...i renounce matter

Atheists on the other hand....their affliction is more than skin deep

They renounce spirit and they embrace the body....they embrace matter

They say: there is nothing but matter. They say: my body is just a DNA coding following its programming

Atheists are far more lost than religious people....their affliction is far more insidious as the guardian on the threshold is their intellect which is a terrible foe indeed!

Is an infant an atheist? Do they believe?
Is a goldfish an atheist? Do they believe?

Humans have retarded brains because they think they have to believe or not believe anything to feel better.

It's not about belief or lack of belief. It's about deep transcendent awareness. It should never be about picking what makes you feel better. It's way more important than that.

The atheist could still know the universe and purpose because god is subjective. It doesn't matter what you call something, what matters is what you do with your mind.

What did your face look like before your parents were born?

 

[muir]

Is an infant an atheist? Do they believe?
Is a goldfish an atheist? Do they believe?

Humans have retarded brains because they think they have to believe or not believe anything to feel better.

It's not about belief or lack of belief. It's about deep transcendent awareness. It should never be about picking what makes you feel better. It's way more important than that.

The atheist could still know the universe and purpose because god is subjective. It doesn't matter what you call something, what matters is what you do with your mind.

What did your face look like before your parents were born?

I think you are confusing me with the christians

I'm not saying you are going to burn for your views

I'm not saying you must believe in anything

I am saying however that by rigidly saying one thing or another that you are rejecting something and that there is usually a cost to that

 

[sprinkles]

I think you are confusing me with the christians

I'm not saying you are going to burn for your views

I'm not saying you must believe in anything

I am saying however that by rigidly saying one thing or another that you are rejecting something and that there is usually a cost to that

I'm not arguing with you, I'm using what you said to make a point for everybody to see. I'm not confusing you with anything.

Edit: also I'm not an atheist so it doesn't really have to do with me, does it?