Creationism works, Atheism does not

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

BrightNoon
 
Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 11:18 pm
@urangutan,
Good God, only someone certain of eternal life would waste time in this manner.


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.

What is good? There are various and contradictory answers.

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.

Yes, the atheist has no obligation to act in a 'moral' fashion, though he may. In my experience, most do. Note: I personally, raise no objection to crass destrution for selfish purposes, though I would do such things not to live longer, but to live better.

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.

1) I see no reason to believe that 'our lives improve due to the goodness of others.' Modern prosperity is rather the cumulative effect of selfishness: capitalism.
2) Even if that were the case, what do you mean by better: survival of the species? That is not good, only desireable: to most anyhow.

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

1) Belief in creationism, belief in God, is not necessarily better for the species, as I said above. Even if it were, survival of the species is not somehow, in a general sense, better than its demise. Functionality is not better than dysfuntionality.
2) Even if beleif in God made the world better, in some universal moral sense, which it does not, and whih universal moral sense does not exist, that still does not prove that the doctrine of creationism is true. A belief can be essential for survival and still be false.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 06:20 am
@BrightNoon,
Well, it's all good. We have our own views I suppose.[INDENT]I do wish this wasn't so vitriolic an issue
I really wish such an abysmal rift didn't short-circuit sharing
And I hope for more opportunities to share and debate in a context that's absent of mean-spirited judgments.
[/INDENT]I'll always work to kill prejudicial judgment because I think it injures us all; but it's such a fine line. By refuting hatefulness, often times folk become even more rancorous and the cycle refreshes anew; snowballing and feeding on itself. Suddenly, ones brought to a realization that even by engaging with honest and courteous talk; mixed with sincere concessions, the fire still burns and swells.

I suppose one can only do so much to bring divergent views together, but I ain't giving up Smile

Cheers!
 
boagie
 
Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 07:50 am
@Khethil,
YO!Smile

One must ask themself, would I rather live happily within an illusion, or unhappily perhaps with stark reality, does truth have any survival value, does intellectual intrigity have any value. The cost of delusion might prove to high ---for some!
 
Trevor C
 
Reply Sat 25 Oct, 2008 07:27 am
@Poseidon,
Originally posted by Poseidon.
Quote:
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.
All of my life I have been hearing quotes similar to this one. Do you really think that a person needs to believe in theology to live a good life and live in a good world? I am an atheist, and have been all of my life. I consider myself to be a good person, and Australia where I live is mostly secular going by the last count, and I cannot think of a better place I would rather live. And no! I promise you that I will not run a muck and try to destroy the world because I do not believe in life after death. Laughing
 
TickTockMan
 
Reply Sat 25 Oct, 2008 12:48 pm
@Trevor C,
Maybe if we all just got together and sang . . . where's my guitar . . . okay, and-a-one, and-a-two:

"Michael row your boat ashore, Hallelujah! Come on, everybody! Michael row your boat ashore, Halleluuuuuuujah . . . anybody? No?"

(slinks away, vaguely embarrassed by his sarcasm and lack of a helpful contribution)
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Sat 25 Oct, 2008 01:37 pm
@Poseidon,
The thing I do not get in all of this, is that this whole thread makes no sense. The basis of creationism works, atheism does not has fundamental concepts out of whack. Creationism and atheism are not mutually exclusive, nor jointly exhaustive ideas. Creationism is the idea that a creator god created everything. You can believe in god but not believe that the god created the universe. Many god believers would probably be insulted to be falsely classified as atheists by virtue of not believing in the tenets of creationism.
 
ali jamieson
 
Reply Sun 26 Oct, 2008 06:19 am
@Poseidon,
That's like the Ontological argument [which IMHO is bull****]. I think there are a few assumptions and there's an example of a slippery slope argument.

Poseidon wrote:
If you believe the basic tennets [sic] of theology, that life after death is the reward of good people, then we will live in a good world.


Okay, accepted, however how do you determine good and bad? Moral absolutism has to kind of be pre-excepted for this.

Poseidon wrote:
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.


Yes you have no reason, but also no drive. This also assumes the premise that we live in a dog-eat-dog world and that in order to survive longer, we *have* to destroy...

Poseidon wrote:
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.


Weather or not your life does/does not advance I still don't see how this would make Creationism any more viable? It might make it a better option, or more a wishful think approach, but this lacks substance.

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


This assumed LIFE is functional, in-which I would debate off topic.

From other posts:

Poseidon wrote:
...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...


Exactly, not wanting to get into it, but most every religion discriminates against something which we basically accept [secularists, homosexuals, women etc] because we are sentient 21st Century non-idiots. So many creeds are stuck in the dark ages, and actually halt the development of society and the human-race as a whole [ethically speaking].

I think religion was needed to start a set of morale codes, give people and example and a primitive meaning for 'it all'... but it needs to be re-assesed. I am not religious, but I am agnostic in my approach to 'greater being', however, Creationism has never done it for me.

Ali
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 12:14 pm
@Poseidon,
Poseidon;26013 wrote:
If you believe the basic tennets of theology... one can only conclude that Creationism is better than Atheism
That seems self-evident. But keep in mind that your conclusion is contingent upon someone having a preexisting theism.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 6 Nov, 2008 06:36 pm
@Aedes,
Doesn't seem self evident to me. Depends on who's theology we're talking about.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 07:05 am
@Poseidon,
Just because theology can be diverse, in certain conversational contexts it is pretty obvious that common Christian ideas are the reference..
 
OctoberMist
 
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 03:19 am
@Poseidon,
Posiedon says:

Quote:

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."



The 'basic tennets of theology'? -- Precisely whose theology are you refering to? I wasn't aware that there was a universally-accepted theology.

Quote:

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."



No offense, but you're making a classic Strawman Argument here: you've unilaterally defined certain terms and are trying to force everyone into your terms. If people believe that death is the end of them, why do you assume that they automatically must accept your premise of 'destroying everything in an attempt to live longer'? -- Other than your claim, there is no justification for this premise.

The atheistic standpoint is not a unified one as your argument presumes. Atheism, also, does not speak to ontology in any capacity; it is simply a theisic theory.

Quote:

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.


Huh?? How is Creationism directly responsible for altruism? And, what makes you think that altruism and atheism are mutually exclusive? -- Your argument doesn't support this at all.

Quote:

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


Again, no offense, but you make some bold statements that are not supported by anything. Exactly how is atheism "dysfunctional" and on what grounds?
 
Solace
 
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 03:57 pm
@ariciunervos,
ariciunervos wrote:
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. Smile


So then what's an atheists excuse for why they so often react to theists in an untoward, condescending and even downright insulting manner? Cuz I sure would like to see some of those volatile posts around here justified as well...:listening:

Or maybe we should all just grow thicker skin.
 
Conspiracy
 
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 01:43 pm
@Poseidon,
I disagree. I am an atheist and I do not intend to live to be extremely old. I personally think the best way to live is to die at the peak of your life so that your reputation and your glory are entirely intact. I don't want to be one of those people who live to be over one hundred and are living in a nursing home under constant care. I think the best way to die is like the way Julius Caesar or Abe Lincoln died. An assassination at the height of your power.

Atheists can still have purpose in their life. I have nothing against the religious, some people find comfort in religious belief and I am completely accepting of that. However, that does not mean atheists have no purpose in their life. Atheism is not dysfunctional. Many atheists are good people. And furthermore because something is popular belief doesn't necessarily make it true. The majority of the world's population used to think the earth was flat.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 03:23 pm
@Solace,
Solace wrote:
So then what's an atheists excuse for why they so often react to theists in an untoward, condescending and even downright insulting manner? Cuz I sure would like to see some of those volatile posts around here justified as well...


This feels like stereotyping. Not all atheists react in an untoward, condescending manner. Likewise, not all theists react similarly towards atheists. Some of us work very hard to get along in a cordial, respectful manner. But... I'm sorry, I'm preaching aren't I? Smile

I think the answer to your question (the "why") comes from bitterness: Various statements - from any opposing theologies - can come across negatively when one is striking out from some sort of bitterness, resentment or hurt. At least this why I see it to be so.

Just my thoughts. Thanks for your question
 
Solace
 
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 04:38 pm
@Khethil,
It's not stereotyping. I'm not implying that all atheists behave in such a way. Most are like yourself, Khethil, civil even in the face of perceived backward thinking. But there are those here who don't know how to treat a person's beliefs with the least iota of decency, yet expect others to listen intently to what they have to say. I see no reason not to dismiss their opinions as quickly as they would dismiss mine.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2008 09:22 am
@TickTockMan,
TickTockMan wrote:
I suppose there have been isolated incidents that could be found, but one rarely hears of atheist suicide bombers.

Up until the outbreak of the current war in Iraq the movement who had carried out the most suicide bombings (and pretty much invented the strategy and equipment used by suicide bombers) were the Tamil Tigers, who were secular Marxists by and large.
 
Dave Allen
 
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2008 10:02 am
@Poseidon,
Poseidon wrote:
This is an existantial argument from functionalism.

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.


Many theologies do not hold that life after death is a basic tenant, I can think of at least one in which the aim of following the theology is to achieve a kind of eternal oblivion (Buddhism). Some might strike many people as very immoral and violent (Valhalla and the war of Ragnarok in Norse mythology).

Even amongst those that do believe in life after death the hope of a holy reward can be a motivator for good acts and evil ones.

I am sure that many members of organisations involved in inquisitions, witch hunts and holy wars thought that they were genuinely serving God and ensuring the salvation of souls - despite the fact that their actions caused great suffering.

Even some of the more intractable problems in the world today could be cast as the result of people who sincerely believe they are serving God - Zionist Settlers in the Occupied Territories and the Palastinian Islamic Militants who oppose them, the various actors in the War on Terror, and so on.

This isn't to say that secular thinking hasn't caused similar suffering or that all those involved in conflicts are sincere in their beliefs, but the evidence seems to suggest that belief in an afterlife isn't synonymous with good behaviour, and can lead to some very poor behaviour.

Poseidon wrote:
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.


But your death does not mean the end of everything you care about or stand for. Many athiests have strong beliefs or bonds that have little to do with religion.

For a (highly negative) example I would once again mention the Tamil Tigers, who were willing to lay down their lives (in the act of killing others regrettably) in the hope of bringing about a socialist utopia - presumably so that their relations, friends and relatives could enjoy a "better world".

If a disbeliever in an afterlife (which is not the same thing as an athiest as far as I understand it) were to only behave in a selfish manner how does one explain such a phenomenon?

Also, what about athiests who succumb to ennui or despair? Why would they destroy just to live a little longer?

Poseidon wrote:
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.


Creationism is not synonymous with belief in an afterlife. Many monotheists exist who believe in an afterlife, but who take Genesis stories with a pinch of salt. I know of a great many people who are fundamentally reconciled to Darwinian ideas about the creation of the earth and the origin of life, but who feel that a God was the prime mover behind such acts.

I would not say the world has "advanced" as such, twentieth century history has seen far more destructive wars, genocides and periods of slavery than any previous century. Our management of our environment is so appalling that we risk destroying our civilisation. Scientific advances do not promise to bring people back from the dead (given debates on nature vs nurture, would a clone of Hitler even be Hitler - he was a product of his environment as much as of his genes surely?)

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


I don't see that you have made an argument in favour of creationism, but only in support of the idea that having a belief in some kind of eternal reward encourages people to behave well.

Also you don't define what creationism is for you. Young Earth creationism? Intelligent design? A sort of deism that can comfortably accomodate Darwinian thought? Strictly as described in Genesis? Creation as understood by the Hindus? The Vikings?

Seeing as many athiests also seek a sort of purpose to their lives, and might like to think that they have "left the world a better place" I can't see how your argument concludes that belief in an afterlife leads to good behaviour and that therefore creationism is an apparent truth.

Would love to hear any further thoughts on the subject though.

Smile
 
Solace
 
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2008 12:29 pm
@Dave Allen,
Quote:

Many athiests have strong beliefs or bonds that have little to do with religion.



Many religious people have strong beliefs or bonds that have little to do with religion as well. They should try to take a step back and realize that sometime. Maybe then they wouldn't be so quick to suggest that an atheist has nothing to live for.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Fri 14 Nov, 2008 12:40 pm
@Conspiracy,
Conspiracy;32417 wrote:
I personally think the best way to live is to die at the peak of your life so that your reputation and your glory are entirely intact. I don't want to be one of those people who live to be over one hundred and are living in a nursing home under constant care. I think the best way to die is like the way Julius Caesar or Abe Lincoln died.
So you'd idealize dying while your kids are young, depriving them of a father and a role model, depriving them of a connection to their ancestry, depriving their kids of a grandfather, even potentially dying before your own parents, just to die at the height of your "glory"?

That sounds pathologic to me. Many people have died at the height of their careers -- good people like Martin Luther King and Mozart; and bad people like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini and the 9/11 hijackers. That ideal of dying in glory was drummed into the heads of poor Japanese and German 18 year olds during WWII, which was the only way to get kids emerging into adulthood to participate in hopeless military campaigns.
 
Henrik phil
 
Reply Tue 18 Nov, 2008 04:59 am
@Poseidon,
Poseidon;26013 wrote:

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.

If everyone thinks so, everybody will also suffer the consequences of it. Therefore, everybody should take care of each other, and stop those who try to act selfish.
You have a reason!
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/20/2021 at 10:55:54