Near perfect existence

[Eudaimonist]

So it would be possible to achieve a perfect society if there were no criminals? Essentially you could incarcerate all criminals in order to maintain a perfect society forever? Am I understanding you correctly here?

No, you aren't.

Keep in mind here that you are defining a perfect society merely as a peaceful society. Incarceration is something done only after a crime has been committed, and only for a just period of time. Incarceration would not guarantee peace.

I personally am more inclined to view a perfect society as a virtuous society, though I would never expect universal perfection of character.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chriliman]

No, you aren't.

Keep in mind here that you are defining a perfect society merely as a peaceful society. Incarceration is something done only after a crime has been committed, and only for a just period of time. Incarceration would not guarantee peace.

I personally am more inclined to view a perfect society as a virtuous society, though I would never expect universal perfection of character.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Do you think simplification would increase understanding of what is a morally correct action? In other words if everyone wants to be virtuous, wouldn't it make sense to simplify the moral laws rather than complicate the moral laws?

An example I can think of as a basic simplified moral law, is that everyone can believe whatever they want as long as what they believe lines up with what is true. If perfect morality started here, then it would be much easier to tell where deviations start because one could easily determine who has deviated from the truth, since truth is the starting point.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Actually you've just demonstrated the truth that I hoped would be demonstrated.

In any objective discussion about perfection, where both sides are trying to be as objective as possible the side that does not believe in God, will always bring God into the discussion first. What this means is that the side that does not believe in God, cannot discuss the topic of perfection objectively because they falsely assume that God cannot be perfect.

So I would challenge any theist and even atheists to start discussions about perfect societies and try to remain objective and see who brings God into the conversation first. The demonstration I've done here has shown that an atheist will bring God into the discussion first, but only because they falsely assume God is not perfect.

A theist will rightly assume God is perfect.

What does a lack of a belief in god have to do with discussing "perfect societies"?

Is that really the "truth" you wanted to discuss? It didn't have anything to do with free will?

 

[Chriliman]

What does a lack of a belief in god have to do with discussing "perfect societies"?

You tell me, you're the one who brought God into the conversation.

Is that really the "truth" you wanted to discuss? It didn't have anything to do with free will?

I just find it interesting that you can't objectively think about a perfect society without bringing up how you don't believe in God.

Its as if God is on everyone's mind, even atheists bring Him up in order to defend their lack of belief in Him, a lack of belief that wasn't even being scrutinized, in this particular case.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You tell me, you're the one who brought God into the conversation.



I just find it interesting that you can't objectively think about a perfect society without bringing up how you don't believe in God.

Its as if God is on everyone's mind, even atheists bring Him up in order to defend their lack of belief in Him, a lack of belief that wasn't even being scrutinized, in this particular case.

If you don't think atheists can discuss the OP objectively, why start a thread asking them to discuss the OP?

I'll tell everyone what this was all about...

Chril here wanted people to imagine a perfect world so he could ask them why that perfect world isn't achievable....

It's at that point that Peacefulways was going to come in and "reveal" the "truth" that it's because of free will...not god...that the world isn't perfect blah blah blah.

The thread didn't go as planned though, so now he's trying to make it about something else.

Just out of curiosity Chrili...does your god think it's ok to lie to atheists? Or are deceptions/lies just a bad thing?

 

[Chriliman]

If you don't think atheists can discuss the OP objectively, why start a thread asking them to discuss the OP?

I'll tell everyone what this was all about...

Chril here wanted people to imagine a perfect world so he could ask them why that perfect world isn't achievable....

It's at that point that Peacefulways was going to come in and "reveal" the "truth" that it's because of free will...not god...that the world isn't perfect blah blah blah.

The thread didn't go as planned though, so now he's trying to make it about something else.

Just out of curiosity Chrili...does your god think it's ok to lie to atheists? Or are deceptions/lies just a bad thing?

Incase you missed what I said in the OP:

"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."

Obviously if I would have stated that my prediction was that an atheist would mention God first, then no atheist would have mentioned God. You can assume I'm lying, but I assure you I'm telling the truth. It doesn't really make sense for atheists to bring something into an objective conversation that they don't believe in, yet that is exactly what you did.

I'm just trying to determine the truth behind why you did this, so everyone can see why.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

Well, that's disappointing. ..I was hoping the truth was going to be a new perspective on why God exists, not a God version of Godwin's law, where whoever mentions God first loses. Oh well, who needs to drink in this version of Godwin's?

 

[bhsmte]

Strange OP, which has seemed to fall short of it's goal.

 

[Chriliman]

Well, that's disappointing. ..I was hoping the truth was going to be a new perspective on why God exists, not a God version of Godwin's law, where whoever mentions God first loses. Oh well, who needs to drink in this version of Godwin's?

If you believe in God and seek truth, I'm not concerned for you. My concern is for those who claim to honestly seek truth, yet can't see the truth right in front of them. These are the people I'm trying to reach.

 

[Chriliman]

Strange OP, which has seemed to fall short of it's goal.

It confirmed a truth that it set out to demonstrate. How is that falling short of its goal?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Incase you missed what I said in the OP:

"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."

Obviously if I would have stated that my prediction was that an atheist would mention God first, then no atheist would have mentioned God. You can assume I'm lying, but I assure you I'm telling the truth. It doesn't really make sense for atheists to bring something into an objective conversation that they don't believe in, yet that is exactly what you did.

I'm just trying to determine the truth behind why you did this, so everyone can see why.

What was the point in only asking atheists to join the thread then? How do you know theists wouldn't bring up god first if they weren't included at the start?

Sorry, I don't buy it.

 

[bhsmte]

It confirmed a truth that it set out to demonstrate. How is that falling short of its goal?

Hey, glad to hear it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It confirmed a truth that it set out to demonstrate. How is that falling short of its goal?

You said between believers and atheists, atheists would mention god first....

But you only invited atheists to the conversation. So obviously your "truth" is really something else and you're just trying to cover your tracks.

 

[bhsmte]

You said between believers and atheists, atheists would mention god first....

But you only invited atheists to the conversation. So obviously your "truth" is really something else and you're just trying to cover your tracks.

Well, you have to stack the deck somehow.

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

If you believe in God and seek truth, I'm not concerned for you. My concern is for those who claim to honestly seek truth, yet can't see the truth right in front of them. These are the people I'm trying to reach.

The thing is, I'm one of those people honestly looking for God. I thought perhaps this thread would shed some light on this truth stuff, hence my disappointment that it turned out to be this.

 

[bhsmte]

If you believe in God and seek truth, I'm not concerned for you. My concern is for those who claim to honestly seek truth, yet can't see the truth right in front of them. These are the people I'm trying to reach.

I hate to break it to you, but I don't think your methods are very convincing and they lack intellectual honesty, which is a problem.

In fact, I would venture, you push more people away, then you bring on board, with your tactics.

 

[Chriliman]

You said between believers and atheists, atheists would mention god first....

But you only invited atheists to the conversation. So obviously your "truth" is really something else and you're just trying to cover your tracks.

Well I'm a believer and I wanted to conduct an objective conversation with an objective atheist. I wanted to remain objective which means I'm not going to bring God into the conversation unless it's objectively necissary. What objective purpose does an athiest have in bringing God into an objective conversation about a perfect society?

 

[Ana the Ist]

I hate to break it to you, but I don't think your methods are very convincing and they lack intellectual honesty, which is a problem.

In fact, I would venture, you push more people away, then you bring on board, with your tactics.

I don't buy it at all...he's lying to cover up his initial deception. Look at Peacefulways' post on page three. You're telling me he just popped in to get the thread back on track? How did he know what the OP was going for?

He was a plant, or a sock, who was going to come in to reveal this "truth". The whole thing fell apart though...so he's trying to cover. The problem is his new story doesn't match his old story...so it's obviously untrue.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well I'm a believer and I wanted to conduct an objective conversation with an objective atheist. I wanted to remain objective which means I'm not going to bring God into the conversation unless it's objectively necissary. What objective purpose does an athiest have in bringing God into an objective conversation about a perfect society?

How is it objective if you're the only believer!?!

Lol you forgot that you only asked for atheists to join the conversation...so whatever "truth" you intended to reveal, it isn't what you're claiming. Its not as if you were going to mention god first...

Quick, think up a new cover to cover your last cover.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well I'm a believer and I wanted to conduct an objective conversation with an objective atheist. I wanted to remain objective which means I'm not going to bring God into the conversation unless it's objectively necissary. What objective purpose does an athiest have in bringing God into an objective conversation about a perfect society?

Also, don't pretend it was about "an objective society"...you only switched it to that once your initial plan fell apart. The OP was about "perfect existence".