Creationism works, Atheism does not

[Khethil]

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!

[ariciunervos]

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.

[urangutan]

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 .

[ariciunervos]

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

[urangutan]

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.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

[ariciunervos]

Originally Posted by urangutan

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.

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.

[urangutan]

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.

[ariciunervos]

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!

[jgweed]

"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.