# Is the atheist worldview depressing? **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [June 4, 2019, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-atheist-worldview-depressing/834996 "2019-06-04T02:59:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 6:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-atheist-worldview-depressing/834996/101 "2019-06-05T06:41:32Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Yet they remain curiously incapable of growing back lost limbs. Mysterious ways indeed. That’s why they should worship the Salamander God. > [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > I once had one such person tell me: Well, if you have a relationship with _god_ and your sister sees how happy it makes you, she’ll starting believing in _god_ and stop being a lesbian. > > I cannot begin to tell you what is wrong with that statement. Make her head explode. Tell her that seeing how happy your sister is with her partner is what made you believe that there is a God. > [@Hermitian](#): > > I am very hesitant to post in this thread, but since it is probably lacking in non-atheist perspective, I will. I am not even going to power up the personal battle shields, because I am not looking for a battle. > > I am a devout Christian and I imagine\* the atheist worldview would be depressing. I am not looking for a battle, but only to expand your imagination from someone who does not find the atheist worldview depressing. > [@](#): > > A couple thoughts: > > In the atheistic worldview I am reduced from a body with an eternal soul to just a body. And lets face it, a body is basically a bag of very complex chemical reactions. That went through an amazing journey to make you who you are today. I find that learning how those complex chemicals interact, and how they evolved, and even possibly one day knowing for sure how it all started adds far more richness to my life than considering all that to be just the works of a superior being. > [@](#): > > My wife, daughter and son are just smaller bags of complex chemical reactions. Love, hate, and life are nothing more than these reactions. You have the free will to choose whether to love or to hate. You have the power to create life. Giving the credit of the benefits of your decisions and the decisions of those who came before you to an unknowable and unfathomable being is to shortchange yourself. > [@](#): > > If I am not concerned when a chemical reaction in a vat ceases, why should I be concerned if people’s reactions (lives) stop? There is nothing more to it. Won’t you miss them? > [@](#): > > The Earth gets reduced to a meaningless speck of dust in a very very huge universe. We have no evidence to believe we are not alone (or at least far enough away to be functionally alone). The meaningless becomes even more profound. Go forth and multiply is both God’s command and a natural imperative of life. You want meaning? We are meant to fill up this massive universe with life. IMHO, in my philosophy, that is our purpose. With that as a goal and a purpose, I can make decisions in my life that furthers that goal. If believing in God gives you a purpose, that is no different than some random guy on the internet’s arbitrary opinion giving you a purpose. It is something to guide your decisions, even help to define your moral code. We can find our own meaning in life, and I find that to be much more fulfilling than being told how to find meaning. > [@](#): > > For many people the idea (whether it is real or not) of an eternal more blissful existence after death is very comforting. Just like the idea of Christmas coming transforms the entire month of December for kids. But that’s because they haven’t thought it through. What is eternal bliss? Shove an electrode in the right spot in my brain (according to Niven, who gets some stuff wrong, so I will not be offended by a correction on this), and I will be in bliss. The right drugs will make me feel blissful for what may seem an eternity. But, I can’t see how I wouldn’t eventually get tired of bliss. The only way I would not go insane in such an environment is that if what is me at that point is fundamentally different from who I am now, and if it is not who I am now, then knowing that zombie me will be stoned out of his gourd and unaware of the passage of time for all eternity actually doesn’t excite me all that much. > [@](#): > > Last, but not least, I have seen how Christianity has had a very positive effect on my family and other families. I have personally seen how how it has brought life back into people that had almost none left. I have seen how it has guided men\*\* to be better husbands and better fathers. Without that, I think it would be depressing to see. Religion comes with community and people like community. It’s good and healthy to be around people, and it’s fun to sing and chant. I actually do think that religion has historically done more good than harm, in holding communities and even nations together, giving them a shared purpose and belief. Governments make their legitimacy through having a monopoly on violence within their jurisdiction. The Church asserted their legitimacy through having a monopoly on your soul. The church leaders were often relatively educated people who could give helpful advice and even act as therapists for individuals or families. They served a useful and beneficial purpose, except of course, when the were corrupt, and wearing the cloth and a crucifix does not make one immune to corruption. > [@](#): > > - Note that I didn’t say you should feel it is depressing nor am I trying to convince you it should be. I am not saying your thoughts are invalid. Trying to prove my thoughts wrong will not make you the winner. Not looking for any prizes on the internet, just looking to provide you a perspective. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > How do religionists avoid thinking about whether they picked the right god to believe in? I would find it depressing to think that the primary reason I believed in the god of a certain sect was because I was exposed to it by region and/or upbringing, and that I might be angering some supernatural entity by doing/saying/believing false teachings. Less Pascal’s wager, more Pascal’s roulette wheel. (and in looking up to see if that phrase had been used before, I find that Pascal invented the roulette wheel.[and that the phrase had been used before]) > [@Czarcasm](#): > > Some are benevolent, some are vindictive, some are indifferent, some are pretty, some are witty and some are wise…but they are all equally without evidence of their existence, and I am atheist in regard to them all until the situation changes. Or one gets enough followers to impose a theocracy and require you to observe their rituals or be burned as a heretic. Probably wouldn’t make me believe, but may make me not admit that. > [@Thudlow\_Boink](#): > > So whether a _theistic_ worldview is depressing, or comforting, or invigorating, or scary, or joyful, or… is going to depend on _what_ God the theist believes in, and what they believe about that God. > > Some atheists come to atheism by rejecting or relinquishing belief in a formerly-held theistic worldview. Whether they feel depression or liberation or grief or joy or relief or nothing much at all about that rejection is going to depend on how they feel about the God they rejected. I think I was depressed at first. When I believed in God, but didn’t _believe_ in God. I was supposed to have this personal relationship that I didn’t feel. I went through the motions, studied the Bible, extensively, and never found myself compelled to take it seriously. The more I studied the church, and chrisitanity, and theology in general, the more I lost faith that it actually could have anything to do with a benevolent deity. Giving up the search for something that, if found, would only disappoint, made me much happier. > [@Helmut\_Doork](#): > > whose to say there isn’t a non-christian based afterlife that’s more awesome than heaven? why cant there be something after death that isn’t religion based? The only afterlife that I find plausible is that, when we die, we see a screen that says, “You have died. Reincarnate:3 credits.” Of course, we have to start counting turtles then. > [@CookingWithGas](#): > > I would find it depressing to think that we were all created by a god just so there would be someone to worship him, and the purpose of our lives would be to live up to his arbitrary code of behavior, and he loves us all but will send us to hell if we don’t do what he wants, and even the people that believe in him do not agree on just what does he want, and there is no reason to believe any of this whatsoever except what certain people invent in their heads and sometimes write down. > > That’s what _I_ find depressing. And maybe it’s a super powerful but not supernatural being that loves the taste of a righteous person’s soul. We are encouraged to live good lives to make us tastier. Actually makes more sense than the eternal bliss scenario. > [@Voyager](#): > > When someone talks about positive atheism, you know he is either an idiot or constructing a strawman. Positive atheists are scarcer than hen’s teeth in the real world. I don’t remember even a single Doper with this position. In 45 years of discussing religion on line I remember maybe one person who made that claim, and he was denounced by atheists, not theists. I’ve been listening to a lot of atheist YouTube videos, and their hosts - to a person - specifically deny being positive atheists. I think some of younger and newer atheists are positive atheists. College age people questioning the beliefs that they grew up with. Rather than just being dismissive of the beliefs when the find the answers lacking, sometimes they become angry about it. It’s how people are, my neighbor threw a week long tantrum when he found that there was no Santa. Learning that there is no god or afterlife can cause some people to lash out. They aren’t many, but they are vocal, and they have the internet now to put out their views. Most tend to simmer down when they realize that there actually already is a fairly large atheist community, and that that community is not going to get behind them. Being a positive atheist in your early 20’s makes you a misguided asshole. Past 25 and you’re just an asshole. > [@CookingWithGas](#): > > What do you call a person who is certain there is no god? Someone who can bring the same empirical evidence to prove their beliefs as someone who is certain that there is. > [@skyr](#): > > I do think that life is harder and sadder in some ways for atheists. > > I think it is unquestionably harder to cope with the loss of someone you love if you do not believe in an afterlife. Yes, people who are religious absolutely do grieve for their loved ones, of course, but I think it does provide some comfort and a reason to keep going if you truly think that someday you will see that person again. If you think that wonderful person is gone forever, it is harder - not impossible, but harder. I thought about it when my best friend died. He was religious, I was not. I actually considered joining his church from the standpoint of getting to go wherever he went. But then, there are many things I wish for, and if not getting what I wish for made me sad, then I’d never get out of bed. I have his memories, I know his friends. We all still remember him and talk of him. I hear stories about him that I didn’t know, and tell stories of things that we did together. Isn’t that enough? I’d like to go back in time and do something to save him, or bring him back, or at least get to spend time with him once again, but I don’t see wishing for an afterlife being any more productive than wishing for a pimped out Delorean. Does that make me sad? Sure, sometimes, right now in fact, but depressed, not any more so than someone who thinks that they have to jump the right hurdles and chant the right chants to have a chance of seeing them again. How depressing would it be to become a believer in the hopes of seeing your loved ones again, only to have to worry that even if your faith is vindicated in the afterlife, you may fail to make the grade for entry? > [@](#): > > I know someone who has experienced several truly devastating losses in her life, far more than anyone should have to deal with, and I think the only reason she has been able to survive such grief is because she has enough religious faith to believe her lost loved ones are in heaven and watching over her. I don’t even know if she would consider herself all THAT religious, but she is religious enough to believe in heaven, and I think that’s important in her case. And believing that they are watching her may keep her on the right path, but the anxiety of knowing she is being watched may devastate her further if she doesn’t live up to those expectations. > [@](#): > > Just think about the Rainbow Bridge poem that is popular with people who have lost pets. Do I ACTUALLY BELIEVE that there is a rainbow bridge and that I will get to have a joyous reunion with my pets who have died? No, but wouldn’t it WONDERFUL if it was true? I wish it was true, and I think just about everyone else who has ever loved an animal does too. Yeah, there’s some sort of weird religion thing growing up around pet owners. What was once just some cutesy stuff to console others for a loss that most do not find important enough to show true sympathy, they went a bit overboard with the religious imagery, and there are some who are starting to take it a bit more seriously than I personally feel is healthy. But, back to the point, you earlier said that religion gives one comfort that they will see their loved ones again, and I do love my pets. So, do I not see my loved ones again, or do dogs go to heaven? > [@](#): > > I especially wish that heaven was real for the sake of babies and children who died before they had a chance to live a full life. Regardless of whether you think it is possible or likely that Heaven is real, I think it is undeniable that life would seem kinder and more fair if we had a way of knowing that innocent children who died too soon here are in a happier place. Doing what, being in eternal bliss? Sure, just like the pets, it’s something nice we say to help our grief. Grief is real, and it is not rational, and doesn’t respond any better to logic than it does to belief. You want to believe that your child who was taken too soon is in a better place, I have no desire to disabuse you of that notion. But if you try to console my grief with a similar platitude, I will not take it as a kindness, but rather, a plaintive rote saying that is used to feign sympathy for someone’s suffering. I wouldn’t be angry, of course, but no more impressed than had you picked a random greeting card off the rack. It’s the thought that counts, and I suppose I appreciate it, but what is it actually doing to alleviate my grief? > [@](#): > > Another thing I have come to believe as I have gotten older is that just about everyone is happier if they feel a sense of purpose or meaning in their life. Religion is not THE ONLY way to have meaning in your life, but it is a way that many people do derive meaning. Some find meaning themselves, others find it elsewhere. Nothing wrong with finding meaning in religion if it inspires you to improve the world, but there have been those who have found meaning from religion that were less productive. > [@](#): > > Now of course there are some people who are worse off because of religion - especially if they belong to a very harsh or cult-y religion. However, I think there are also a lot of people who are happier because they feel like no matter what else happens to them, God will never abandon them and will always love them. Happier than what? Happier than they would be without believing in God, or happier than atheists? I can agree to the first, even if it is just a delusion, it may be that that delusion is what gets them through the day. The second, what this thread is about, I do not agree with, and see no evidence of. > [@](#): > > I see several people in here referring to some of the negatives that can come from religion, but I think it’s really not honest if you can’t admit that there ARE some positives that come with being religious. There is a reason why religion has endured over so many centuries and has been adopted by billions of people. I have said that it has done good things at certain times and places, and it is my opinion that overall, it has done more to hold civilization together than to drive it apart. That doesn’t mean that it necessary now. > [@](#): > > Even though Christianity is on the decline right now, that doesn’t mean atheism is taking its place. From the projections I’ve seen, it looks like Islam will simply become the dominant religion in Christianity’s absence. Like to see where you are seeing these projections. Where do most atheists come from? Countries that are not theocracies that discourage such heretical beliefs. If a community does not enforce belief, whether through law or peer pressure, and encourages critical thinking and sciences, it’s going to start producing more and more atheists, no matter what base religion that it had in its past. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-atheist-worldview-depressing/834996/102 "2019-06-05T06:51:28Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > No. Non-theism because the very idea of deity put forward is incoherent is _not_ the same thing as being an atheist because of, say, the Problem of Evil or the Problem of Shoddy Design.It’s a different category of argument from the atheist one. Is the proper term semantic pedantry, or pedantry semantics? ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-atheist-worldview-depressing/834996/103 "2019-06-05T08:09:56Z")
> [@begbert2](#): > > I consider babies to be atheists, I consider rocks to be atheists. That renders the term absolutely meaningless in any serious discussion about what or why people believe (or not). ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-atheist-worldview-depressing/834996/104 "2019-06-05T08:12:45Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Is the proper term semantic pedantry, or pedantry semantics? Ask the other guy, he’s the one hung up on some absolutist binary definition of theist/atheist. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 8:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-atheist-worldview-depressing/834996/105 "2019-06-05T08:50:05Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Nope. Common mistake. the a- in atheist isn’t a negation of theism. ἄθεος had a much more complex meaning than that to start with. One could very much believe in the gods and yet still be ἄθεος. The mistake is in thinking that words have set meaning. They don’t, they have usage. Etymology tells us how a word was developed, not how it is used. We are using the word “atheist” not the orginal “atheos” but even “atheos” means. literally “without gods”. When I call someone a “thug” I think we all understand that I refer to a present day violent person. Not an Indian sub-continent robber and swindler. That modern usage is better understood with reference to Wikipedia which, in the first sentence of the [article](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) clearly states. > [@](#): > > Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities That’s how I understand it, it seems to be how pretty much everyone else in this thread understands it and is using it. And it applies perfectly to describe your state. You have an absence of belief, you are an atheist. It is the starting point. How you got to that point can be described and debated and is an interesting discussion in itself but it changes not at all the amount or quality of non-belief that you have. If I show you an empty jar with no sweets in it. It is clear that I have no sweets. It is empty. The quality and amount of that emptiness is not changed by the type of sweets that I don’t have or by the fact that in one case my brother might have eaten them all or a seagull flew in the window and scoffed them, or that I never had any in the first place. All of that might be interesting as a side-discussion but when you ask me "what sweets do you have? " I’ll say “none” as an accurate descriptor. You are free of course to try and promote your own usage of “atheist” but it seems unnecessarily confusing. What I think you are doing is considering “not believing”, as being something qualitatively different to “not having a belief” but I can’t understand the distinction you are making as both lead to the same belief state. Perhaps an analogy would help? > [@](#): > > Funny, you won’t take me at my word that I’m not an atheist… It is reasonable to label you as someone with no belief in a god when you have clearly stated multiple times that you have no belief in a god or gods. you clearly don’t like it and I don’t know why but there is no other term that fits. > [@](#): > > I don’t take a stance on belief. That’s \*not \*the same thing as not believing or lacking belief. Yes it is. You cannot avoid taking a stance on belief whether you choose to or not. By default, if you do not take a stance of having an active belief in god then you are without a belief, you are very clearly _lacking a belief_ and so are an atheist. You can only believe or not, there isn’t a middle option. You can qualify why you are where you are but that is a separate discussion. > [@](#): > > You’re probably one of those people who thinks there can’t be real agnostics as well, aren’t you? no, as I stated in a previous post to **CookingWithGas** > [@](#): > > No, but the two are often wrongly conflated. Atheism is merely about whether one holds a belief or not. Agnosticism relates to not thinking it is possible to know anything about god. An atheist might be described as an agnostic, Indeed you can be a theist agnostic as well. > [@](#): > > And I’ll continue to deny it and furthermore, think your posting such as quite rude for continuing to deny me agency. I’m using the word to describe a binary state that you yourself have clearly admitted to. I cannot and would not prevent you from describing the complexities regarding how you arrived at, or have not moved from, that position. > [@](#): > > Because I’ve never had god adequately defined for me, other than the trite “God is Love” and “God is The Universe” kind of dreck. Or the concrete “god is this statue we worship” kind of thing, so no, I guess you’re right, I’m merely an atheist about those. > But that’s disingenuous, because that’s not the concept of deity people who are theists, and people who are atheists, are talking about in threads like this one. It’s always the incoherent one. And I’m not atheist about that one. I think such trite concepts are absolutely part of this discussion, they are common enough, and seriously held, beliefs on what god means to some people. In fact they are probably of greater relevance to a thread such as this because it provides an area in which atheist and theist views may well find common ground. > [@](#): > > [Most of my friends are atheists, there’s no stigma to it in my circles. It just doesn’t accurately describe my stance. It perfectly and accurately describes your base state of belief and it has the benefit of being widely understood. It doesn’t fully describe your stance to the same extent that “theist” doesn’t fully describe the stances of hindus, muslims, jews and christians etc. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 8:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-atheist-worldview-depressing/834996/106 "2019-06-05T08:53:18Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > That renders the term absolutely meaningless in any serious discussion about what or why people believe (or not). Who is the one trying to introduce a “why” into this discussion? I’ve said time and time again that “why” you are an atheist is a separate discussion from \*whether \*you are an atheist. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 8:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-atheist-worldview-depressing/834996/107 "2019-06-05T08:55:05Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > Ask the other guy, he’s the one hung up on some absolutist binary definition of theist/atheist. It is binary, there are only two choices. If there is another one do tell. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 10:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-atheist-worldview-depressing/834996/108 "2019-06-05T10:09:46Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > The mistake is in thinking that words have set meaning. They don’t, they have usage. Agreed. That’s my point. It’s a mistake to think the general usage of “atheist” is the same as the specialised usage of the same term in philosophical debate > [@](#): > > Etymology tells us how a word was developed, not how it is used. We are using the word “atheist” not the orginal “atheos” I think a look at differing meanings over time is a perfectly valid response to an argument that boils down to “atheist means not a theist” as though that were the only meaning > [@](#): > > but even “atheos” means. literally “without gods”. Another translation would be “_against_ the _State_ gods” - witness the Trial of Socrates, where the accusation isn’t that he doesn’t believe in any gods. It was ‘Socrates is an evil-doer and corrupter of the youth, who does not receive the gods whom the state receives, but introduces other new divinities.’ Now, the specific charge there was ἀσέβεια, but the word ἄθεος is used as well. > [@](#): > > That modern usage is better understood with reference to Wikipedia Are you _trying_ to make me laugh? Wikipedia should never be your fist go-to for serious philosophical debate. Me, I prefer [Stanford](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#DefiAthe). Therefore, in philosophy at least, atheism should be construed as the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, the proposition that there are no gods). > [@](#): > > And it applies perfectly to describe your state. You have an absence of belief, you are an atheist. I don’t have an absence of belief. I have no stance on the issue of belief at all. This is not the same thing. > [@](#): > > If I show you an empty jar […] when you ask me "what sweets do you have? " I’ll say “none” as an accurate descriptor. That’s nice an all, but concrete metaphors aren’t relevant. You’re not going “What sweets do you have”, you’re going “What xhwjhjhcwij do you have?” Do you think “None” is a meaningful answer to _that_ question? Rather than “What the hell are you talking about, mate?” > [@](#): > > You are free of course to try and promote your own usage of “atheist” but it seems unnecessarily confusing. _Again_ with the strawman that this is my idiosyncratic belief? Theological noncognitivism is a well-established school of thought in the philosophy of religion. > [@](#): > > What I think you are doing is considering “not believing”, as being something qualitatively different to “not having a belief” but I can’t understand the distinction you are making as both lead to the same belief state. Perhaps an analogy would help? It’s not “not having a belief”, it’s not considering the issue one in which one _can_ have a belief. And no, I think analogy breaks down when you’re talking about incoherence - see my reply to your sweets analogy. > [@](#): > > It is reasonable to label you as someone with no belief in a god when you have clearly stated multiple times that you have no belief in a god or gods. Where have I “clearly stated” this? Never mind multiple times. I have clearly said I’m not a theist, but once only, I believe. Much less than the number of times I’ve also clearly said I’m not an atheist, though. > [@](#): > > you clearly don’t like it Because it’s inaccurate. > [@](#): > > and I don’t know why but there is no other term that fits. Theological noncognitivist works just fine. Ignostic, if you need something pithy, although they’re not exactly the same thing. > [@](#): > > Yes it is. You cannot avoid taking a stance on belief whether you choose to or not. Of course you can. > [@](#): > > By default, if you do not take a stance of having an active belief in god then you are without a belief I disagree. You can only have belief or lack thereof in propositions of which you are aware. “Lack of belief” is _not_ the default state. It’s a _response_ to a proposition - “a deity exists”, in this case - not a ground state you change from only when you start believing a proposition true. This is also why rocks can’t be said to have a lack of belief in deity - they are unaware the proposition even exists. Just like they’re unaware of everything else. > [@](#): > > You can only believe or not, there isn’t a middle option. Of _course_ there is - ignorance of the proposition is not the same thing as non-belief in the truth value of said proposition. > [@](#): > > no, as I stated in a previous post to **CookingWithGas** So you acknowledge that it’s possible to be neither atheist not theist? Or did you read something other than I did by “real agnostic”, there? > [@](#): > > I’m using the word to describe a binary state that you yourself have clearly admitted to. I have not, and that comes dangerously close to putting words in my mouth. I’ve vehemently denied that it’s as simple as a binary. Four positions are possible in relation to the “God exists” proposition. They are mutually exclusive: true, false, not enough evidence, or incoherent statement. There’s no overlap there. > [@](#): > > I think such trite concepts are absolutely part of this discussion, You really think the OP had “this statue is _not_ a god”-atheists in mind when he asked his inane question? > [@](#): > > It perfectly and accurately describes your base state of belief No, it does not. > [@](#): > > and it has the benefit of being widely understood. You’re missing a “mis”- there… ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-atheist-worldview-depressing/834996/109 "2019-06-05T10:14:06Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > It is binary, there are only two choices. If there is another one do tell. False dichotomy - like I said, there are _4_ valid positions to take on the proposition “God exists” ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-atheist-worldview-depressing/834996/110 "2019-06-05T10:15:16Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > Who is the one trying to introduce a “why” into this discussion? I’ve said time and time again that “why” you are an atheist is a separate discussion from \*whether \*you are an atheist. The discussion I’m having with you is not the only discussion happening in this thread, and “why” has already been touched on multiple times. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-atheist-worldview-depressing/834996/111 "2019-06-05T11:52:05Z")
> [@](#): > > You can only have belief or lack thereof in propositions of which you are aware. “Lack of belief” is _not_ the default state. It’s a _response_ to a proposition - “a deity exists”, in this case - not a ground state you change from only when you start believing a proposition true. I disagree. Not having a belief in something is the ground state. I do not believe in anything until given reason to do so. My current state of dress is “not wearing a hat” I’m not wearing mythical hats, unknown hats, historical hats to the same degree that I’m not wearing the actual fez that I can see on the coatstand in the corner. “Ah! but are you wearing a smmmhey? you may ask” I don’t know what it is but I don’t have to in order to confidently state that…no, I’m not wearing it. I don’t have to wait for someone to come up to me and suggest that I wear a hat in order for my hatlessness to be a meaningful thing. I have a lack of hat, I am a-hatted. If you don’t accept that then I can’t put it any clearer and no progress is possible. ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 11:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-atheist-worldview-depressing/834996/112 "2019-06-05T11:57:11Z")
> [@MrDibble](#): > > False dichotomy - like I said, there are _4_ valid positions to take on the proposition “God exists” Irrelevant. If you believe in a god…for whatever reason, you are a theist. If you don’t…for whatever reason…you are an atheist. ---
**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-atheist-worldview-depressing/834996/113 "2019-06-05T13:32:19Z")
Let’s face one crucial fact here: Some of the most hideous things have been done in the name of religion. Now that’s depressing. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-atheist-worldview-depressing/834996/114 "2019-06-05T13:35:00Z")
I find it depressing. But then theism can be depressing too. And whether or not one finds it depressing has no bearing on whether or not it’s correct. ---
**Author:** ![Helmut\_Doork](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e8c25b/32.png) [@Helmut\_Doork](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Helmut_Doork)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-atheist-worldview-depressing/834996/115 "2019-06-05T14:44:09Z")
> [@Roderick\_Femm](#): > > You mean something not supernatural? Something for which it should be possible at some point to find observable evidence, or at least some plausible (i.e. not contradicted by anything that we already know) theory? I am open to any possibility- this could all be a video game and if you make it a certain amount of years without dying, you could unlock the super cool eternal bonus level for all I (or anyone) know(s). Something started life, no reason to automatically think it ends with this round, or level. If you believe there was nothing at all, then a big bang created life from nothing, to me that is just as wonky as belief in a christian god- how does nothing create something? ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-atheist-worldview-depressing/834996/116 "2019-06-05T15:03:32Z")
I still don’t know what the atheist world view is, but in this incredibly messed up world it would be more depressing to think some deity did this to us on purpose. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 3:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-atheist-worldview-depressing/834996/117 "2019-06-05T15:05:17Z")
> [@Annie-Xmas](#): > > Let’s face one crucial fact here: Some of the most hideous things have been done in the name of religion. > > Now that’s depressing. And some in the name of destroying religion. So? ---
**Author:** ![Novelty\_Bobble](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Novelty\_Bobble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Novelty_Bobble)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 3:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-atheist-worldview-depressing/834996/118 "2019-06-05T15:29:21Z")
> [@Helmut\_Doork](#): > > If you believe there was nothing at all, then a big bang created life from nothing, to me that is just as wonky as belief in a christian god- how does nothing create something? For some theists that remains a big problem. If a god can come from nothing then the universe can come from nothing (and it has the benefit of being a much, much simpler answer) If they don’t like that and claim that their god has always existed, well that raises the possibility that the universe has always existed (and it has the benefit of being a much. much simpler answer) In short, whatever origins they claim for god you can also claim for the universe. The latter having the added benefit of not needing to create a complicated god as well as whatever universe that god put into motion. Now if they introduce some form of special pleading to say that the origin state can only apply to their god, well you can safely stop listening. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-atheist-worldview-depressing/834996/119 "2019-06-05T15:51:51Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I still don’t know what the atheist world view is, but in this incredibly messed up world it would be more depressing to think some deity did this to us on purpose. Which is similar to this: > [@Marcus from Babylon 5](#): > > You know, I used to think it was awful that life was so unfair. Then I thought, wouldn’t it be much worse if life were fair, and all the terrible things that happen to us come because we actually deserve them? So, now I take great comfort in the general hostility and unfairness of the universe. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [June 5, 2019, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-atheist-worldview-depressing/834996/120 "2019-06-05T16:03:14Z")
> [@Novelty\_Bobble](#): > > It is binary, there are only two choices. If there is another one do tell. Define “god”. I’m an atheist with respect to some definitions. I’m an agnostic with respect to other definitions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-atheist-worldview-depressing/834996.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-the-atheist-worldview-depressing/834996.md?page=7)