Thank You. You hit the proverbial nail on the Head. Kudos.:detective:

William

What does this thread have to do with Existentialism?

Hey Poseidon, I'll engage you on this,



Not true. Dangling a reward for people to do go never has made much of a difference. There have been millions (billions?) who've committed great evil despite this belief, and perhaps even more who've committed evil in the name of their theology. Now, there are a great many good, decent, productive and loving theists. But to broadly categorize them, despite what history and human behavior shows is doesn't follow, it incorrect.



Another fallacy; it just doesn't follow. Human beings being good, nice, compassionate and just has been around a lot longer than any creationism. As a matter of fact, there are a whole lot of folks who are quite-the-better for not buying in. This argument is almost, if you'll excuse the term, adolescent and purile. The fact of the matter is that whether or not you're 'good' or 'bad' (by anyone's standard) is more of a product of your values, teachings and upbringing than any theological view. Further, it follows logically that if one believes this to be their only existence - their only life - they're just as likely to live it *more* humanely, *more* compassionately and *more* justly as not.



Given the weak, illogical and doesn't-follow nature of what you're put forth so far, you might want to re-think this.



You're proud of this methinks, yes? Well, again I'm happy for you. You seem to have found some grounding; something to believe in, something 'greater than oneself' to cling to. Well good! But saying "creationism is functional" is incorrect; not because creationists aren't functional, but because it's faulty logic - once again, because one doesn't follow the other. These are matters of belief and preference in our imperfect state. When you say this, you elevate yourself (and those who believe likewise) to a supposed state of superiority. Now, aside from the fact that this isn't correct, it's borderline bigotry. Please try to assimilate the idea that belief structures are just that and generally don't conform to people being "functional" or not. Another term - probably a better one - is stereotyping.

Your belief is your own, your values are your own and a product of your own mind and heart. I respect that; heck, I'm happy for you. But it's the product of a closed mind that exclusively equates *one-view* to 'ordered' and 'just' behavior. If I take your intent right (which might more accurately be called "the utility of creationism belief in the just-life"), holding to these sets of behavioral should make someone better, yes? The problem is that fear of retribution is a poor motivator, and the prospect of eternal rewards - for something we have a hard time grasping - is even poorer.

So yea, if you feel you live a good life for holding to this belief; congrats! But please know that it is not the *only* way for people to be 'good'.

Thanks

I am not religious yet I do good and live a good life. I give to the poor, I try to teach people, I help wherever I can, I respect people's rights and beliefs. If all people in the world would be non-religious and good, like myself, we would live in a good world.

Poseidon,
Please forgive me for not commenting on this earlier. I was just acknowledging the wisdom of the statement you made concering the "affects" of the grave.

If you will allow me to offer my thoughts, good and evil are constructs of man and are extremely subjective and can be interpreted in a million different ways. In my opinion we are still defining what is truth, right and good. It will never be determined from "the self" for that in and of itself is too bias to receive any kind of acknowledgement from any one. Once we allow all to speak and be free will we determine what is "good, right, just and true for all. Until then, I offer to refrain from using those subjective terms and rely on offering your opinions as to what we can do to set those foundations that will allow man to be free that will enable him to speak and the "majority" will define that for us. We can only hope those decisions will be right, just, good and true.IMHO

William

To deconstruct: Ones existence is affected by one's belief. The classic existential crisis, revolves around the meaning of one's existence. Ultimately; is this life all there is for me? And if this is all, then that is just depressing.
................................




Quote:
Originally Posted by Poseidon
If you believe the basic tennets of theology, that life after death is the reward of good people, then we will live in a good world.

Not true. Dangling a reward for people to do go never has made much of a difference. There have been millions (billions?) who've committed great evil despite this belief, and perhaps even more who've committed evil in the name of their theology. Now, there are a great many good, decent, productive and loving theists. But to broadly categorize them, despite what history and human behavior shows is doesn't follow, it incorrect.

Just because a person holds up a religious symbol, does not mean that they actually DO believe. Hypocrites and false prophets are they that do evil in the name of God. They do this simply because they see that religion has better immediate survival value. They go to church for the free handouts, then go rob people on Monday. Appearance is not reality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poseidon
If you accept that your death is the end of you, then you have no reason at all to not destroy everything in a crass attempt to live just a little bit longer.

Another fallacy; it just doesn't follow. Human beings being good, nice, compassionate and just has been around a lot longer than any creationism. As a matter of fact, there are a whole lot of folks who are quite-the-better for not buying in. This argument is almost, if you'll excuse the term, adolescent and purile. The fact of the matter is that whether or not you're 'good' or 'bad' (by anyone's standard) is more of a product of your values, teachings and upbringing than any theological view. Further, it follows logically that if one believes this to be their only existence - their only life - they're just as likely to live it *more* humanely, *more* compassionately and *more* justly as not.

As you speak the English language, your values are informed by centuries of Christian beliefs, almost all your ancestors for at least 500 years were Christian. Just because you are too lazy to read the Bible and feel comfortable living off their laurels and morals, does not mean that your children will be better off than you. Take a look around you sometime. Our Western civilisation is decaying. At an ever decreasing exponential rate.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poseidon
Seeing as though, very roughly speaking, our world (mostly) does advance, and our lives do improve, due to the goodness of others, one can only conclude that Creationism is better than Atheism, regardless of which is true or not.

Given the weak, (ad hominem) illogical (ad hominem) and doesn't-follow nature (ad hominem) of what you're put forth so far, you might want to re-think this.

Given that you attack the person, and not debate the argument, you are the one being childish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poseidon
And seeing as though creationism is functional, whereas atheism is dysfunctional, we can only conclude that Creationism is THE TRUTH.

You're proud of this methinks, yes? Well, again I'm happy for you. (you do not sound it) You seem to have found some grounding; something to believe in, something 'greater than oneself' to cling to. (You missed the point, its all about not clinging. Its atheism that clings to life at any cost - even the death of the whole world. It has no Darwinian survival value) Well good! But saying "creationism is functional" is incorrect; not because creationists aren't functional, but because it's faulty logic (why?) - once again, because one doesn't follow the other. (begging the question) These are matters of belief and preference in our imperfect state. When you say this, you elevate yourself (and those who believe likewise) to a supposed state of superiority.

Any debate assumes a position of being better than the counter-argument, otherwise you yourself would not be resorting to counter it. Instead, follow the point. Its not principally about logic. Its about functionalism.

Now, aside from the fact that this isn't correct, (prove it, don't just claim it) it's borderline bigotry.

A bigot is someone who does not allow the opinons of others. I allow you your opinion; I am just claiming that it is dysfunctional. Thus you choose vague contradictions like 'its illogical' without proving your point in the slightest.

Please try to assimilate the idea that belief structures are just that and generally don't conform to people being "functional" or not.
So if one believes that water is poison, one is going to be just as functional as not? Belief structures are the primary difference between survival and extinction.

Another term - probably a better one - is stereotyping.
The term Archetypying is more apt for what I am saying.

Your belief is your own,
As this is a public forum, they are shared beliefs. The same way that all language is a shared system of beliefs

your values are your own and a product of your own mind and heart.
They are a product of many things, especially conversations with others, but yes, mind and heart too.

I respect that; heck, I'm happy for you. But it's the product of a closed mind
ad hominem

that exclusively equates *one-view* to 'ordered' and 'just' behavior.
and this is just what you are doing by saying I am illogical. Thus you contradict yourself, whilst elevating your own opinions, which again is another contradiction. And you do not back up your claims at all. You just beligerate your contradiction. However my claim is not one-sided. Being able to debate a point to its rational conclusion would be a priori to that conclusion. I am not talking about blind belief at all. I am talking about wide-eyed belief.

If I take your intent right (which might more accurately be called "the utility of creationism belief in the just-life"),
not quite, try :
'the functionalism of creationist belief in the AFTER-life'

holding to these sets of behavioral should make someone better, yes?
As I said, genuinely holding to them, and pretending to hold to them are quite different. It is better to truthfully claim atheism than to falsely claim theism. For then one is still open to honest debate.

The problem is that fear of retribution is a poor motivator,
It is the only motivator. But it can be expressed positively too : fortune favours the brave, for eg. Those who fear death, are never as brave as those who do not. Logically.
Because 'fear is the mind killer'. - Frank Herbert

and the prospect of eternal rewards - for something we have a hard time grasping - is even poorer.
Science advances. In a thousand years we will have the tech to bring back the dead, given the speed of exponentially faster computer processing and medical break throughs. Would you bring back Adolph or Jesus?

But here is another point. Neither of us can really ever be certain 100% of wether there is an afterlife or not. 99% of the time it does not matter too much. But when death stares you in the face, then you have to make a hair-trigger decision. You have to take a chance one way or the other. Are you betting on life? Or are you betting on death?

So yea, if you feel you live a good life for holding to this belief; congrats! But please know that it is not the *only* way for people to be 'good'.

Thanks

It is not the only way, you are correct. But when the poo hits the fan, then it is the only way.

For those that fear the unkown flee and cower and stab their fellows in the back. They will sell their families to save themselves. They will eat their children when their food runs out. They coerce their daughters into abortions so that they can harvest stem cells. They kill the unborn to save the almost dead.

Whereas the true believers, stand firm. Unafraid. Willing to die so that others may live.


Eternal are the Martyrs of God.


Its only been a pleasure.

The fact remains that actual believers have done bad things. Your argument that some people that do bad things aren't actual believers does not refute this argument, unless you're making the claim that all "religious" people that do bad things aren't actual believers, which is a ridiculous assertion that you can't possibly prove. The fact that many religions have a large focus on the repenting of sins, shows that even most religions acknowledge that believers can do bad things.


Poseidon, what makes you think that Khethil has not read the Bible, and further, that the reason is b/c he is lazy? This is an ad hominem, and an unfounded one as far as I can tell, at that.


What you've done here is interesting.... you've mislabelled points of Khethil as as hominems, and then proceeded to call him childish which actually IS an ad hominem. An ad hominem occurs when "a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument." Khethil's above points are clearly regarding your argument, and not your character, and thus cannot be considered ad homs. You calling him childish is an attack on his character (the second so far by my count) and qualifies as an ad hom.


You've asked "why" when Kethil clearly states the reason - your conclusion doesn't follow, making it a non sequitur. You've then labelled his point as begging the question, which it isn't, as he was pointing out that you haven't sufficiently established the premises and therefore the conclusion for the argument that "christianity is functional". The only premise I see that you've attempted to establish for that argument is your statement that

but this is itself clearly a non sequitur and a point that you've in no way substantiated. You haven't offered any proof that this claim is correct; apparently the reader is just expected to take your word for it that we will live in a good world if we believe in the basic tenets of theology. That's not good argumentation. You should be attempting to establish reason for accepting your premises, not simply asking the reader to believe you.


I think Khethil meant "religious" belief structures, not "beliefs" such as whether water is poison or not.


Your beliefs are "shared" in the sense that you have shared them with us and that some others may believe the same as you, but they are not "shared" in the sense that we all believe them. In other words, your beliefs are your own.


Fear of retribution is not the only motivator. Another one for example, is the desire to achieve your own goals. In the above paragraph you've also shifted the type of fear being discussed (from fear of retribution to fear of death) and then ended up posting (ironically) a quote that affirms Khethil's point. If "fear is the mind killer" then living your life in fear of retribution kills your mind. That point is bad for your argument.


I'm sorry, I fail to see how your statement has anything to do with what he has said.


Is this some kind of version of Pascal's wager?
You have to make a hair trigger decision when death stares you in the face? Why? What if you die so quickly you don't even have time for a decision? If I'm a sinner, but at the last second I decide to believe in an afterlife, I'm not getting into heaven regardless of whether it exists or not, am I? So what's the point of the decision?

Most of us (particularly those that post on forums such as this) think about stuff like this well before death stares us in the face.


No, it's really not. Contentment can be achieved different ways for different people. Your plan may work for you, but it doesn't work for everyone.


Goodness gracious! Who eats their children for food and coerces their daughters into abortions for stem cells? Those that fear the unknown, you say? Who specifically are these people and where are they at? I've never heard of such general practices even amongst the great many people that fear the unknown. Do you have any news stories or any sort of documentation of people doing this?

OK - back to your original post to make a few more points.


As has already been mentioned you should offer some evidence as to why someone should think that belieiving in some basic theological tenets will result in a good world. You haven't done that so far.


Destroying everything isn't a good way to live longer so you don't have to really worry about that. Also, even if it was, you can still have reasons not to do it. People have morals and standards without religion, and many have even argued that morality developed apart from religious doctrines is the most humane and ethical type of morality because you aren't basing it upon premises that you cannot prove.

But if atheism results in immorality, wouldn't we have a greater percentage of atheists in prison? Probably, but it's not the case.
In 1997 the U.S. Federal Bureau of Prisons reported that 83.761% of inmates were identified as Christians, while only 0.209% were identified as atheists. (source - The results of the Christians vs atheists in prison investigation.) But about 77% of Americans are Christians, while about 14% are atheists, so this shows that Christians are actually over-represented in the prison population, while atheists are under-represented in the prison population. (source - Atheist Empire: Atheist Population Statistics) This information seems not only to refute your point, but actually to lend credence to the opposite point (that religion actually leads to immorality)!

Well, if atheism results in immorality, wouldn't a greater percentage of them get divorces? Most likely, but it's not the case.
"Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience." (source - U.S. divorce rates: for various faith groups, age groups and geographical areas)

"To make matters even more distressing for believers, atheists/agnostics had the lowest rate of divorce 21 percent." (source - Barna survey: Baptists have highest divorce rate)

If atheism results in immorality, wouldn't we see more problems with homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems in more secular areas of the U.S.? It would be logical, but it isn't the case.
"There is evidence that within the U.S. strong disparities in religious belief versus acceptance of evolution are correlated with similarly varying rates of societal dysfunction, the strongly theistic, anti-evolution south and mid-west having markedly worse homicide, mortality, STD, youth pregnancy, marital and related problems than the northeast where societal conditions, secularization, and acceptance of evolution approach European norms (Aral and Holmes; Beeghley, Doyle, 2002)." (source - Journal of Religion and Society)

Wow, not only are things not looking bad for atheism, they actually ARE looking bad for Christianity!


Non sequitur. The conclusion obviously doesn't follow from the premises. Just b/c we experience some level of advancement, in no way implies that this has anything to do with Creationism.


You haven't proven that creationism is functional, I HAVE proven that atheism in NOT dysfunctional, and even IF you had proven that creationism was functional and atheism dysfunctional, that would not imply that creationism is the truth. That would be another non sequitur. If you had proven your points (which you didn't) I could see you making the argument that creationism is better for society, but that still wouldn't make it true. However, it appears from the information that I've provided that it's actually creationism that does not work, and atheism that does.

I suppose there have been isolated incidents that could be found, but one rarely hears of atheist suicide bombers.

I think I will hang off a limb here, when I ask that you all sit quietly down and refrain fom this pea shooting match back and forth across the room. You lack both the accuracy and talent to form any fold or engage that of another. The only people who subscribe to such falicies are idolatrists and extremists. You think this isn't you, read over your statements and just see how ridiculous they seem.

Theology, goodness equals an afterlife.
No theology, no afterlife equals evil.

Poseidon, this is your opening statement in a nut shell. I know that is not how you believe, because you go on to explain yourself in rebutting Khethil, in his arguement to that which you claim. Your only claim to fame here has been your comment on the fact that many people of today speak without the hindsight of the generations of religious backing in their comments. It is like believing that the Declaration of Independance is a script that had no influence from outside sources, such as the Bible or even the Magna Carta. By the way, "fear is the LITTLE mind killer". Frank Herbert. It is the frank recognition of conscious and sub conscious.

Khethil, though I do not rebut your comments, Posiedon is correct in labelling you as he has done. Sometimes it pays to question one's comments before you condense them into your own narrative.

If there is an afterlife it exists for all and if their is none then neither are excluded. Life is to be lived. Theology is there for those who wish to pursue a question in faith and evil doing is that which we all do, Christians believe this otherwise Christ did not die for them and believing in such as him would be a sin, they could in fact deny Christ.

Wow, lots of posts here.

It appears, Poseidon, that this might be a bit too much of an emotionally-loaded issue for you. I can't speak for others, but I've not impugned you at all in my reply; only the logic of your arguments. I took great care to considerately engage you on this made many concessions (quite honestly) that I respect your beliefs!

I don't wish to change your mind; nor should any of us! We're just sharing here. Perhaps some time you might want to sit down and read some of this in the light that no one's coming after you. I certainly am not! You seemed honest and sharing in your original post, I'm saddened that an honest, frank, concessionary reply has inflamed you so.

So let's share as we can, but in this place that's all we're doing, sharing.

Be good!

It's hard for a believer ("believer" in its truest sense, an individual holding something in mind as being true, without the possibility of ever proving it to be true) not to get emotional, especially when it come to believing in a supreme being. That would be a 'core belief', or if I may, a basic belief in the sense of being a base for other principles and beliefs to be "built" on this base. Like a castle made of cards.

In most cases, when subjected to a stream of information that comes contrary to this well ingrained 'core belief', this individual will not only (even if subconsciously) outright dismiss the information as false, but will also actively (and emotionally) defend his 'core belief', his castle.

Khethil you're asking quite a lot from Poseidon.

Ariciunervos, try this question on and then try to make the same statement you just did.

What is the difference between a fanatic, an extremist and an English Football fan.

The truth is .

. that it stands true for all of them ? What are you getting at ?

You were justifying the actions in your comment, with the acceptance of tolerance for these forms of behaviour. It was not directly but it was apparent none the less.

Ridiculous.

Not only do most people value many things over their own survival, but the mechanisms are in place to prevent something like this from happening.

I have yet to hear of a atheistic "I'm about to die" shooting spree.



Or we can conclude that humans have evolved social tendencies which lead them what you call "good" behavior and allow them to grow and improve their lives together as social units.

Really, we can observe this in any number of species which are very unlikely to be Christian.



Creationism does not imply the assumptions you have made. I believe that you conflate the prescripts of christianity with creationism. Unfortunately for that argument, neither evolution or creationism conflict with those prescripts. Even if we were to judge their truth via their utility and that creationism did possess more utility (it doesn't because it is not a part of any predictive science), it would not be due to any relationship to an eternal reward for good living.

Heh. Far from me the idea to defend irrational behaviour. I was merely stating my opinion on how the psychic works and why some ideas that contradict a well ingrained belief won't be dealt with, in most cases, in a rational and calm manner, especially if it's a religious matter. Tolerance ? Yes, why not. It's not like the subject himself has much of a say in it. He is, more or less, brainwashed.

I don't see that Ariciunervos, that they are brainwashed. In that I condensed Poseidons opening statement, I did still continue to read into his work. For the same reason I have read into yours and I get your point but I could easily just have attacked you for what I seen in the image of your words. It could seem that you would appear as faith driven as the next in whatever your faith entails, be it religion or science or something else, like Manchester United. It was your acceptance in the defining of behavioralisms that I highlighted.

People attack the notion of Creationism, mostly because it is though their Bible is trying to deny science by including discovery and new knowledge, when that is part of the beauty of Creationism. Another point is where it will lead the imaginations of those who will believe in it and in return share with others of their insights.

I get what you're saying. But while I base my "faith" in science (in this particular case) on empirical, direct observations of religious persons' behaviour (observations made by myself personally), a religious person's faith, in most cases, grows from being exposed to a dogma from small age, dogma thought up by some church somewhere, that is, nonsense, based on texts conceived and written by men thousands of years ago.

If my "faith in science", as you put it, is shaken by a scientific revolution, during which everything I "believed in" is proven not to be true, I will take it well. New discoveries! Progress! On the other hand, if you can prove beyond any doubt to a religious person that their deity can't possibly exist (and that person honestly, truly, believes you - which will probably never happen), and those beliefs were "core beliefs", that is, the person was quite religious, at that moment that person's psychic will suffer a breakdown. Suddenly being godless is traumatizing for a religious person. Defending one's faith isn't about defending the faith itself, it's self defense. That's why most religious people take it so personally when you "attack their faith". Infidel! Burn him at the stake! :poke-eye:

"And seeing as though creationism is functional, whereas atheism is dysfunctional, we can only conclude that Creationism is THE TRUTH."

The original premises of the argument seemed to be dependent on a group believing in rewards and punishments in an afterlife, not that they believed in creationism, which is altogether a different thing.

What we can conclude is that one or the other group is more functional than the other, not that the end or the means by which their functionality is TRUE.