Creationism works, Atheism does not

[OctoberMist]

Posiedon says:

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.

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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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...

Or maybe we should all just grow thicker skin.

[Conspiracy]

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]

Originally Posted by Solace

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?

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]

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]

Originally Posted by TickTockMan

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]

Originally Posted by Poseidon

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?)

Originally Posted by Poseidon

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.

[Solace]

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]

Originally Posted by Conspiracy

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]

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.

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!