Near perfect existence

[bhsmte]

Or you could just pick anything anyone says and claim that's what you "expected" to happen.

"See! I knew that a male would bring up "pickles" first! That's the truth I was trying to prove..."

If you had at least told a non participant what you were hoping to prove here, you'd appear credible...but you didn't think to do that either. Im pretty sure I know why too....

Looks like a bible prophecy.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Looks like a bible prophecy.

This is my favorite part of the whole OP...

"I would ask that the first honest person (either atheist or theist) who observes the demonstrated truth to then at that time comment and reveal what the truth is that will be demonstrated."

Gee...it's almost as if he expected a theist to jump into the conversation (and one does...lol) and reveal this "truth" that he "observed" being demonstrated.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Yes, I believe in an objective discussion about a perfect society/existence, atheists will be the first to bring God into the discussion

And yet I didn't.

Eudoieme

Who? I assume you mean me. It may be better for you to call me Mark.

implied a perfect society would only be possible if there were no criminals.

You defined a "perfect" society as one which is peaceful. I simply made the obvious observation using the standard that you had provided to me, which is that violent people ("criminals") would disturb the peace.

God will condemn all those who reject His truth, leaving only those who believe in Jesus to enter into perfect heaven. See the resemblance?

No, actually I don't see any resemblance. Rejecting "truth" doesn't necessarily make one violent. That is a big stretch.

Perhaps I should have specified "violent criminals" to distinguish them from other sorts of criminals, such as thought criminals, but I thought that would be obvious in context. I was talking about a libertarian society, not an Orwellian one.

Context. Context. Context.

In any case, keep in mind that you brought up peace first, and a peaceful society has no necessary relation to Christian theological concepts. Any rational political philosophy is going to care about peace to some extent simply because human beings are involved. The common factor is human beings, not Christian theology.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ana the Ist]

Eudoieme implied a perfect society would only be possible if there were no criminals. God will condemn all those who reject His truth, leaving only those who believe in Jesus to enter into perfect heaven. See the resemblance?

Here we have what I believe the OP's "truth" was intended to be from the start. It wasn't going his way though, so Peacefulways jumped in to try to help get it back on track.

When I noticed that, I asked if Peaceful was the one who was supposed to reveal the "truth"....which effectively ruined the whole set-up. Upset at me for spoiling the game, Chriliman tried to change his truth to some nonsense about me mentioning god "first"...which made sense to no one.

 

[paulm50]

Well, thanks for your input. still doesn't change the fact that I always notice athiests mentioning God as some kind of defense for their non-belief in God, which doesn't make any sense to me.

And Christians use it as defence against any criticism of their belief, rather than real evidence.

 

[paulm50]

But you specifically didn't engage believers. You asked, as you know, only "honest atheists"; so, a more objective way would be to simply ask everyone without regards to their theology or lack thereof to discuss their idea of a perfect society. Wouldn't that be more honest and more objective?

A more perfect society would be where we have freedom to believe whatever we choose, joined with religions providing proof they're not an organisation to make money.

Today's secular societies are closer to perfect than any religious based one. So no religion has the basis to claim they can do it better.

 

[paulm50]

My point is that the forum was specifically about perfect existence/society. It wasn't specifically about the existence of God. The reason for the forum was to determine if an athiest would needlessly mention God or gods and if they did why? Still searching for the answer as to why.

Because your replies, were guiding it in that direction.

You win we mentioned god, before you did. You win. Now tell us your idea of a perfect existence/society.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Because your replies, were guiding it in that direction.

You win we mentioned god, before you did. You win. Now tell us your idea of a perfect existence/society.

This is the real "truth" he was trying to steer us towards...

"Eudoieme implied a perfect society would only be possible if there were no criminals. God will condemn all those whoreject His truth, leaving only those who believe in Jesus to enter into perfect heaven. See the resemblance? "

Go back and read the first three pages. He's trying to steer us into saying that you can't have a "perfect world" with bad people in it. Once we say that, that's when Peacefulways was going to pop in and say that it resembles the way god keeps the bad people out of heaven (his idea of a perfect existence).

That's why he kept asking for "honest atheists". In his mind, if we were honest we'd admit it resembles the christian heaven...a place without bad people.

That's why he ignored any posts that didn't have to do with people all getting along peacefully together without crime or violence.

That's why Peacefulways posted about the OP, he was trying to get the discussion back on track.

That's why Peacefulways basically gave him the answer he was looking for...then Chriliman wanted to use it as an example of a perfect world.

That's why when I blew Peacefulways' cover as a theist who just wandered into the thread, Chriliman got upset and changed his "truth" to something that makes no sense at all.

I mean seriously, who is Peacefulways anyway? He never posts in the Philosophy section...look at his thread history. He was planted here by the OP.

That's how I know Chriliman has been lying ever since.

 

[quatona]

I noticed athiests bring God into the conversation for no apparent reason which is what inspired me to make this thread and see if I could actually see it happen while expecting it and it did happen.

Yes, I think some mention "God" occasionally without an apparent reason and possibly even though it´s apparently off-topic. Same happens when a theist defends his theism by bringing up evolution theory or naturalism or materialism or moral relativism... even though nobody had promoted these.

You want to be explained possible reasons? I can do that for you (without necessarly claiming that these are particularly good reasons):

1. Many have been here for a long time; just like you had your idea about how threads develop over time, they have theirs; and occasionally they act in anticipation of what they think will be coming sooner or later. Sometimes they even have their idea what might be the actual point behind a thread (and this assumption may not be accurate).
2. Plus we have come to know your tactics. As far as I can tell, right from the first thread you had in philosophy, your trademark was: Pretending to seek intellectual talk about a philosophical/epistemological issue in your OP (without mentioning "God"), just to finally end up introducing your belief and doing heavy apologetics and preaching.
3. Even though you later claimed your thread was about society, your thread title read "Near perfect existence", and your OP also only used that term. This kind of superlative ("perfect") in conjunction with an unframed abstraction ("existence") is so theist-speak and makes sense only from a theist perspective. Have you even seen an atheist talk about "(near) perfect existence" all by himself? I haven´t. So introducing an inherently theistic concept is, of course, likely to give you responses that address theism and thus "God".

Now, let´s be clear: Even though we might agree that acting in anticipation that way isn´t a particularly good approach, I´m not seeing how this is worth the fuzz you make of it. People from all positions do it all the time in these discussions.
Your goal ("demonstrating a truth", as you pompously announced it in your OP), however, was to single out one group and to prove a pattern about this particular group (unfortunately, though, you persistently change your claim which exact pattern that was supposed to be - once your previous claim has been shown to be wrong).
Unfortunately your thread rather suggests the opposite than the pattern you intended to demonstrate: There have been dozens of posts from atheists before one mentioned "God", and after that there have still been plenty of responses which didn´t mention "God".

So what´s left of your point? Some atheists - just like some theists or members of any other given group - occasionally aren´t as focussed on the topic as they should be. Bummer.

What do you mean by "its inevitable"?

See post #284.
Give me an example how you´d go about explaining/defending your non-belief in X without mentioning X.

 

[quatona]

In this forum I would like to engage honest atheists in a conversation about near perfect existence. I would like honest atheists to describe their versions of what near perfect existence would or should be like.

If you're an honest theist, I'd like you to just observe this thread as objectively as possible because a truth will be demonstrated eventually. I would ask that the first honest person (either atheist or theist) who observes the demonstrated truth to then at that time comment and reveal what the truth is that will be demonstrated.

Understand I'm making a prediction that a truth will be demonstrated through this forum, if my prediction is correct anyone is welcome verify by conducting a similar thread in an attempt to falsify the demonstrated truth.

So I'm asking all atheists to describe their ideas about what near perfect existence could or should be like, that is if you even believe near perfect existence is achievable by humans.

Thanks!

Now that you have revealed in later posts that you meant to ask about a "near perfect society":
Societies are living systems, and thus necessarily dynamic. "Perfection" is a static ideal, and thus can only apply to dead systems.
Consequently, "perfection" has no place in the way I think about societies.

 

[paulm50]

It would be so nice if someone could stand up and point to a wonderful perfect existence/society led by a religious movement.

Reality is they can't and everytime we look at a society run by a religious movement, we see the opposite of a perfect existence/society. Not that atheist can claim a better way.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, I think some mention "God" occasionally without an apparent reason and possibly even though it´s apparently off-topic. Same happens when a theist defends his theism by bringing up evolution theory or naturalism or materialism or moral relativism... even though nobody had promoted these.

You want to be explained possible reasons? I can do that for you (without necessarly claiming that these are particularly good reasons):

1. Many have been here for a long time; just like you had your idea about how threads develop over time, they have theirs; and occasionally they act in anticipation of what they think will be coming sooner or later. Sometimes they even have their idea what might be the actual point behind a thread (and this assumption may not be accurate).
2. Plus we have come to know your tactics. As far as I can tell, right from the first thread you had in philosophy, your trademark was: Pretending to seek intellectual talk about a philosophical/epistemological issue in your OP (without mentioning "God"), just to finally end up introducing your belief and doing heavy apologetics and preaching.
3. Even though you later claimed your thread was about society, your thread title read "Near perfect existence", and your OP also only used that term. This kind of superlative ("perfect") in conjunction with an unframed abstraction ("existence") is so theist-speak and makes sense only from a theist perspective. Have you even seen an atheist talk about "(near) perfect existence" all by himself? I haven´t. So introducing an inherently theistic concept is, of course, likely to give you responses that address theism and thus "God".

Now, let´s be clear: Even though we might agree that acting in anticipation that way isn´t a particularly good approach, I´m not seeing how this is worth the fuzz you make of it. People from all positions do it all the time in these discussions.
Your goal ("demonstrating a truth", as you pompously announced it in your OP), however, was to single out one group and to prove a pattern about this particular group (unfortunately, though, you persistently change your claim which exact pattern that was supposed to be - once your previous claim has been shown to be wrong).
Unfortunately your thread rather suggests the opposite than the pattern you intended to demonstrate: There have been dozens of posts from atheists before one mentioned "God", and after that there have still been plenty of responses which didn´t mention "God".

So what´s left of your point? Some atheists - just like some theists or members of any other given group - occasionally aren´t as focussed on the topic as they should be. Bummer.

I appreciate your honest approach here, it is refreshing. Put yourself in my position for a second. I believe in God for both personal reasons and intellectual reasons and its always my intention to be as objective as possible when I'm engaging those who don't believe in God. This means I'm asking them questions about many different things including existence, origins, meanings behind everything, but there comes a point when I'm questioning, that they introduce the particular God I believe in, in an attempt to redirect the conversation to how they think this God can't possibly be perfect or whatever the reason is that they don't believe in "my God". This is frustrating to me because I'm just trying to understand their point of view, you know be objective, but there often comes a point where they just don't have a reason or they just can't answer the tough questions which then puts them on the defensive so they bring "my God" into the conversation, in order to divert the attention from their own inability to answer the tough questions. I had never mentioned God's perfection or anything about God, so why bring Him into the conversation except to divert the conversation away from themselves? I'm not saying all atheists do this, but a lot of them do, without realizing it. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of why they do this in order to help me understand them or help them understand themselves, we all have to be capable of asking ourselves and others the really really tough questions and if we never find an answer on the other end, then whats the point of even asking?

If I can't understand atheists, I'm going to continue believing they're wrong.

Believe me or not this is the true reason behind this forum, to help me understand you.

If you don't do it already, really try and understand the reasons behind why people believe in God and try to put your own biases to the side and really think objectively about all issues regarding life/existence.

See post #284.
Give me an example how you´d go about explaining/defending your non-belief in X without mentioning X.

I'm not expecting atheists to explain/defend their non-belief in X. I'm just expecting them to have a good answer or reason for the things they do believe. I'm still searching for these reasons and answers which just informs me that they don't have reasons or answers for the biggest most thought out questions about life. This reasonably means the truth is somewhere else.

 

[Chriliman]

I've explained my reasoning for this thread to the best of my ability. If you still think I'm being dishonest then there isn't anything I can do that would change your mind.

 

[quatona]

I appreciate your honest approach here, it is refreshing. Put yourself in my position for a second. I believe in God for both personal reasons and intellectual reasons and its always my intention to be as objective as possible when I'm engaging those who don't believe in God. This means I'm asking them questions about many different things including existence, origins, meanings behind everything, but there comes a point when I'm questioning, that they introduce the particular God I believe in, in an attempt to redirect the conversation to how they think this God can't possibly be perfect or whatever the reason is that they don't believe in "my God". This is frustrating to me because I'm just trying to understand their point of view, you know be objective, but there often comes a point where they just don't have a reason or they just can't answer the tough questions which then puts them on the defensive so they bring "my God" into the conversation, in order to divert the attention from their own inability to answer the tough questions. I had never mentioned God's perfection or anything about God, so why bring Him into the conversation except to divert the conversation away from themselves? I'm not saying all atheists do this, but a lot of them do, without realizing it. I'm just trying to get to the bottom of why they do this in order to help me understand them or help them understand themselves, we all have to be capable of asking ourselves and others the really really tough questions and if we never find an answer on the other end, then whats the point of even asking?

Well, you didn´t ask for any of that.
Plus, there have been plenty of replies so that - if this really were about those questions - there would be not much point in focussing on the "first post that mentioned 'God'".
E.g. I have at least twice responded to your question (which I think isn´t tough at all), I didn´t mention "God", I don´t think the answer has anything to do with "God" or "no God", and you didn´t respond to my posts. (Presumably exactly because they didn´t help you with "demonstrating [your] truth" about "God".

If I can't understand atheists, I'm going to continue believing they're wrong.

Who cares what you believe? It´s your prerogative to believe that.
As far as I am concerned, people are welcome to believe in tooth fairies, elfs, demons, devils, Gods and whatnot. It´s a private thing and non of my business. Whatever helps them find meaning in their lives is fine with me. But when they get big mouthed and announce themselves as the holder of "truths" (and especially when their whole approach rests on shifting the burden of evidence), I am expecting a little more than empty claims.

Believe me or not this is the true reason behind this forum, to help me understand you.

You mean "thread", not "forum", correct?
To be honest, no, I don´t believe you at this point. In the course of the discussion you have made so many different claims about the purpose of this thread (starting with "I am going to demonstrate a truth", which already is something quite different than "I want to understand you") that I have problems taking these claims seriously.

If you don't do it already, really try and understand the reasons behind why people believe in God and try to put your own biases to the side and really think objectively about all issues regarding life/existence.

First you complain that people bring "God" into the discussion (even though you hadn´t intended this to be about "God"), now you say this is about making people understand why you believe in "God". Your claims about your reasons here get ever more contradictory.

I'm not expecting atheists to explain/defend their non-belief in X.

That´s great. I was just responding to your complaint how people defend their atheism. Now, maybe you meant to complain that they do (without being asked to) - but that wasn´t clear from what you wrote.
Personally, I find the question "Do Gods exist" completely boring, and I never discuss them. Funnily enough, I have participated in some threads of yours about stuff that didn´t have directly to do with this question, and then you were the one turning it into apologetics. And I am not the only one.

I'm just expecting them to have a good answer or reason for the things they do believe.

Good. So what is it that all atheists believe, and that you have tough questions about?

I'm still searching for these reasons and answers which just informs me that they don't have reasons or answers for the biggest most thought out questions about life.

Maybe you get that impression because you have a habit of loading your questions with theistic premises (e.g. "perfect existence")?
But, anyway, I have no problem admitting that there are questions I can´t answer (and on another note I also don´t think that every question is necessarily meaningful just because it is grammatically correct). However, I don´t hold any firm beliefs concerning these things I don´t know about.

This reasonably means the truth is somewhere else.

Somewhere else than where exactly? Are you, by any chance, still erroneously assuming that atheism is a worldview, and thus has answers?
If you address people explicitly as "atheists" you must be aware that they´ll understand you want to talk about something related to "God". Because that´s the only issue atheism makes a statement about.

This permanent change of your claimed purposes for this thread - from "I am going to demonstrate a truth" to "I wanted to make a point about atheists mentioning God first" to "I just wanted to understand you" - is remarkable, and not really helpful in your attempt to establish your honesty, sorry. To me it suggests that you are making that stuff up as you walk along.

 

[Chriliman]

Good. So what is it that all atheists believe, and that you have tough questions about?

I do appreciate all that you said, but I just wanted to address this.

One of the things some atheists believe is that their personal existence is perfect. I'd agree that the fact that I exist must be perfect or else how else could I exist. Yet within this perfect existence, we humans observe nothing that is actually perfect, except existence itself, perfection seems unobtainable and impossible to create by us. So based on this thought, it seems unreasonable to think that we humans just popped into perfect existence and will pop back out for no apparent reason. It seems more reasonable to believe that since I perfectly exist, there must be a reason for this existence and it seems unreasonable that perfect existence would ever need to cease. This points to the belief that since I exist, there really is no reason for me to cease to exist, especially if I consider the fact that I exist to be perfect. There is no reason for perfection to contradict itself. Of course what this ultimately points to is the I am a part of a perfect existence that I actually have no control over, this perfect existence that I am a part of, but ultimately have no control over except my own thoughts, would be what I consider God. In other words, God is eternal perfect existence and is the only reason I can say that I perfectly exist and God is the only reason I can actually hope to attain perfection for myself.

 

[quatona]

I do appreciate all that you said, but I just wanted to address this.

One of the things some atheists believe is that their personal existence is perfect.

Never heard about that. Sources, quotes?
Anyway, this sentiment is alien to me, personally. So I´m not even sure why I should read any further.

I'd agree that the fact that I exist must be perfect or else how else could I exist.

Sorry, that´s an unintelligible sentence. Word games. Something exists or it doesn´t. That doesn´t point to a particular property or quality of this thing´s existence.

Yet within this perfect existence,

You haven´t been talking about "perfect existence", so far. You just talked about mere existence.

we humans observe nothing that is actually perfect, except existence itself, perfection seems unobtainable and impossible to create by us.

So our existence is not perfect - by the very standards you applied (and which I don´t know and probably don´t share).

So based on this thought, it seems unreasonable to think that we humans just popped into perfect existence and will pop back out for no apparent reason.

You just argued that our existence is not perfect. Now you are talking about our perfect existence, again. At best, you are equivocating. Or you are confused.

It seems more reasonable to believe that since I perfectly exist,

What exactly is the difference between mere existence and perfect existence, in your terminology? If - as it seems - no such distinction is possible the qualifier "perfect" is not only redundant but meaningless. And, of course, not to be equivocated with the perfect quality of a certain existence (whatever you might think this is).
Since everything you wrote hinges on this, I´ll abstain from commenting on it until you have clarified what a non-perfect existence (in contrast to this "perfect existence" you keep talking about) would be.

Also, in the course of this thread you started claiming that you actually meant societal conditions when you said "existence".
Apparently you have now changed your tune, again.

And make no mistake: I am not trying to disprove your "God" here. I am just pointing out the fallacies in the argument you offered for the existence of this "God", even though I hadn´t asked for it. Look who brought up God in our conversation.

 

[Chriliman]

Never heard about that. Sources, quotes?
Anyway, this sentiment is alien to me, personally. So I´m not even sure why I should read any further.

Sorry, that´s an unintelligible sentence. Word games. Something exists or it doesn´t. That doesn´t point to a particular property or quality of this thing´s existence.

You haven´t been talking about "perfect existence", so far. You just talked about mere existence.

So our existence is not perfect - by the very standards you applied (and which I don´t know and probably don´t share).

You just argued that our existence is not perfect. Now you are talking about our perfect existence, again. At best, you are equivocating. Or you are confused.

What exactly is the difference between mere existence and perfect existence, in your terminology? If - as it seems - no such distinction is possible the qualifier "perfect" is not only redundant but meaningless. And, of course, not to be equivocated with the perfect quality of a certain existence (whatever you might think this is).
Since everything you wrote hinges on this, I´ll abstain from commenting on it until you have clarified what a non-perfect existence (in contrast to this "perfect existence" you keep talking about) would be.

Also, in the course of this thread you started claiming that you actually meant societal conditions when you said "existence".
Apparently you have now changed your tune, again.

And make no mistake: I am not trying to disprove your "God" here. I am just pointing out the fallacies in the argument you offered for the existence of this "God", even though I hadn´t asked for it. Look who brought up God in our conversation.

I'd suggest you read through the dialogue I had with Freodin starting here. I brought up similar points that you're making against me.

I'm just saying the fact that I exist must be true, meaning its unreasonable to think that I will cease to exist because this would mean truth would contradict itself. If its true that I exist, what reason does truth have to contradict itself and it become true that I don't exist? If there is a reason, that reason would logically be beyond my control, because I can't control what is true, but for truth to remain true it should never contradict itself.

 

[quatona]

I'd suggest you read through the dialogue I had with Freodin starting here.

Thanks, but no. Why would I?
You started a discussion about your God with me (even though your initial claim was that this wasn´t your intention, and even though you had claimed that it´s always the atheists that bring it up). I tried to give you my criticism of your argument in short - and now you want me to read a conversation with someone else?
Did you convince Freodin? If not so, it´s highly unlikely that what you said to him is gonna convince me.

I'm just saying the fact that I exist must be true, meaning its unreasonable to think that I will cease to exist because this would mean truth would contradict itself.

No, the fact that you exist now doesn´t mean you exist eternally.
Accordingly, the proposition "I exist" is necessarily true at one point in time, and at a different point in time it can be impossibly be made -since the guy who once said it has ceased to exist.

If its true that I exist, what reason does truth have to contradict itself and it become true that I don't exist?

A change of affairs is not a contradiction. It´s just a change of affairs.

If there is a reason, that reason would logically be beyond my control, because I can't control what is true, but for truth to remain true it should never contradict itself.

Just so you don´t step inadvertantly into another equivocation (which sadly you are so often trapped by): Let´s stick to the standard terminology. "Truth" is the property of a proposition, not of a thing. And if you insist that "things are true", please make sure you aren´t mingling those two concepts.
A true proposition can become untrue. It happens every second, demonstrably. Doesn´t mean it wasn´t true at the point it was made. Today the proposition "I am 57 years old" is true, and in a couple of days it will be untrue. An hour ago the proposition "my coffee is hot" was true, now it isn´t anymore.

 

[Chriliman]

Thanks, but no. Why would I?
You started a discussion about your God with me (even though your initial claim was that this wasn´t your intention, and even though you had claimed that it´s always the atheists that bring it up). I tried to give you my criticism of your argument in short - and now you want me to read a conversation with someone else?
Did you convince Freodin? If not so, it´s highly unlikely that what you said to him is gonna convince me.


No, the fact that you exist now doesn´t mean you exist eternally.
Accordingly, the proposition "I exist" is necessarily true at one point in time, and at a different point in time it can be impossibly be made -since the guy who once said it has ceased to exist.

A change of affairs is not a contradiction. It´s just a change of affairs.

Just so you don´t step inadvertantly into another equivocation (which sadly you are so often trapped by): Let´s stick to the standard terminology. "Truth" is the property of a proposition, not of a thing. And if you insist that "things are true", please make sure you aren´t mingling those two concepts.
A true proposition can become untrue. It happens every second, demonstrably. Doesn´t mean it wasn´t true at the point it was made. Today the proposition "I am 57 years old" is true, and in a couple of days it will be untrue. An hour ago the proposition "my coffee is hot" was true, now it isn´t anymore.

I would say you might be confusing facts with truth. Facts can change over time, but truth can never change because if it can change then it would no longer be true.

All facts will inevitably lead to an unchangeable truth.

 

[DaisyDay]

I would say you might be confusing facts with truth. Facts can change over time, but truth can never change because if it can change then it would no longer be true.

But that doesn't change the fact that it was true then.

All facts will inevitably lead to an unchangeable truth.

That's an aphorism without support.

By the way, speaking of Freodin, you were supposed to show two of his statements which contradicted each other. Were you able to find any such or not?