Near perfect existence

[bhsmte]

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.

Yes, some, are an easy read.

 

[Chriliman]

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".

Wouldn't a perfect society exist perfectly? I don't understand why you must pick me apart so much.

 

[Chriliman]

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.

When you brought up God it was in reference to the guys post about criminals being a problem.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, some, are an easy read.

You can see it a mile away just based on the OP. He asks the first person (atheist or theist...even though he only invited atheists lol) to mention this "truth" when they see it. Who in their right mind would bring up the "truth" he's claiming this was about in the first place? No one.

I still think it's about free will and he was hoping to steer the conversation that direction....and failed.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Wouldn't a perfect society exist perfectly? I don't understand why you must pick me apart so much.

Tell you what Chrili....

Why don't you just tell us what this thread was all about to begin with? Why not just start with this "truth" and we'll all discuss that and see if it has any merit?

If it is indeed true...it will hold up. You don't need someone else to pretend to see what you're getting at to lend it validity. Truth stands on its own. No one is upset about the deception...it's just amusing at this point. Let it go and let's discuss your "truth".

 

[Chriliman]

Tell you what Chrili....

Why don't you just tell us what this thread was all about to begin with? Why not just start with this "truth" and we'll all discuss that and see if it has any merit?

If it is indeed true...it will hold up. You don't need someone else to pretend to see what you're getting at to lend it validity. Truth stands on its own. No one is upset about the deception...it's just amusing at this point. Let it go and let's discuss your "truth".

Honestly, would there be no significance if in every objective conversation about a perfect society between believers and athiest, it was the athiests who always brought God into the conversation first? This would be a very hard thing to test, but if it were true what would it mean if anything?

 

[Ana the Ist]

Honestly, would there be no significance if in every objective conversation about a perfect society between believers and athiest, it was the athiests who always brought God into the conversation first? This would be a very hard thing to test, but if it were true what would it mean if anything?

I don't think so...but that wasn't what you were attempting to find out here. If it were, you wouldn't have started off saying that you wanted the opinions of atheists. You would've left it open to both believers and atheists.

I can only conclude your original purpose was something else.

Are you going to explain what that was? Or are we done here?

 

[Chriliman]

I don't think so...but that wasn't what you were attempting to find out here. If it were, you wouldn't have started off saying that you wanted the opinions of atheists. You would've left it open to both believers and atheists.

I can only conclude your original purpose was something else.

Are you going to explain what that was? Or are we done here?

I guess we're done if you're going to refuse to believe me and call me a liar.

 

[Chriliman]

I don't think so...but that wasn't what you were attempting to find out here. If it were, you wouldn't have started off saying that you wanted the opinions of atheists. You would've left it open to both believers and atheists.

I can only conclude your original purpose was something else.

Are you going to explain what that was? Or are we done here?

You are correct that I wouldn't have to only include athiests in the discussion. I'll try again with a new set of people and see what happens.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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?

I prefer to think of virtue in terms of virtues such as fortitude, integrity, honesty, temperance, justice, etc, not lists of "laws".

Virtues require practical reasoning abilities, and so I'd want people to be intelligent and educated, not to have morality dumbed-down for them. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect a better gene pool in my (near-)perfect society.

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.

What? Is that like saying that you may vote for whatever political party you like, as long as it is the Communist Party?

I agree that there should be some basic principles of morality, but I wouldn't call them "laws".

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.

How can "truth" be a starting point? I agree that an ideal society would have a correct ethics, but the starting point is reason and evidence. The ethics of the nation would, presumably, be strongly justified by these.

In my society, people would be free to think and discuss ideas for themselves, and there would be no thought police. People with the right ideas would lead by example, and by good philosophical arguments. Falsehood would be dealt with by presenting good arguments as to why they are falsehoods. The law would only be present to maintain a free society, not enforced orthodoxy.

Truth cannot be a starting point. Rationality would be the starting point. Truth would hopefully be one of the products of rationality, and largely for the sake of the primary end point, which is the flourishing of the citizenry.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gottservant]

No disease in the universe, permits perfection to continue indefinitely _____ unrendered by the judgment of God (for the unilifely undeniable____ ____ reality of at minimum, the sign of sin ____ ____, ____).

FYI unilife is the universal life of anything, Daleb (or Droob) or otherwise (being ____ ____ ____ ____ in the universe).

 

[Freodin]

Sorry for taking my time and leaving the discussion to carry on without me... the difficulties of having a debate across different time-zones.

If some thing exists then it will always exist in some form because it would be objectively true that it exists.

As for non-physical existence like consciousness and ideas, its impossible to say that consciousness has a beginning or end. I can only attest to my own consciousness in that there was a time when I was not self aware, but that does not mean self awareness hasn't always existed and it also does not mean that my personal self awareness will come to an end even when I die.

That is not what I was asking. I was asking: "are there things that do not exist?".

Considering your response to essentialsaltes regarding the Colossus of Rhodes, it seems you don't think there are any of such things: as soon as someone mentions it, names it, thinks of it... it "exists". Am I correct in this?

But I'd say you should have to consider that this isn't quite correct. The "existences" are not of an equal form. The "Colossus of Rhodes"... the 30m tall statue depicting the god Helios made of bronze that stands at the entrance of the harbour of Rhodos does not exist. You can go there and look... there isn't a 30m tall Helios- statue made of bronze there.
Now the memory and the tales of this statue... these exist. But there are not the same thing, are they?

I was thinking of several thought-experiments to demonstrate that (maybe someone still caught the one originally posted).

Consider this: you think that God exists, the perfect God, the ultimate and infinite God. Loving and just.
Now I say that this God - this same God - is imperfect, limited, spiteful and mean and evil.
According to you, it exists: perfect and imperfect, ultimate and limited, loving and just and mean and evil.

How can that be?

So, no, I have to disagree. What you call "exists in some form" is not necessarily the form that defines what something is. This form can cease to exist.

So according to you, perfect existence involves things that perfectly exist that could go out of perfect existence at any time? So there's no real laws that would govern what comes into perfect existence and what goes out of perfect existence, it's all just random?

Oh, I think that there are laws that govern what comes and goes out of perfect existence. These laws exist and thus are part of perfect existence. And even if it was random (why 'just' random? Is there something less about 'random'?), the randomness would be part of the perfect existence.

Is that so difficult to accept?

So the laws of nature that we observe really shouldn't exist according to your view of perfect existence? Correct me if I'm wrong.

You are wrong. We do observe these laws, don't we? They exist. And they determine what comes into or goes out of (perfect) existence. So why do you think that according to my view, they shouldn't exist?

 

[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!

Well, something exists or it doesn´t.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

"Hell is other people" - J P Sartre.

I am not sure about a near perfect society. I know very little about politics. The best I can muster up is a few words online and some community work.
People have an evolved psychology, a "tribe based" mind. We are used to working with fewer numbers than billions of people. So therefore face to face relationships, or web to web interactions, theyre the ones I would be working on, in the local networks with those we know. Rather than trying to organise things from first principles in political theory. I would more like to look at a healthy personality and start from there, and have psychological interventions in schools and communities, "psycho education" etc. ANd the media would be more positive. At present it tends to demonise killers, pedophiles etc - such that the psych of the lower class is trigger happy when it comes to "evil people". I dont thing thats a healthy way for moulding a (what theCatholics call) formed conscience, via the media. More positive stories and role models would help I think.

 

[Gottservant]

Hell is other people, that do not say they either understand the will of God, or do what they believe would have been absolutely anything else ____ ____ for some meaningful reason (they and they alone, are happy ____ ____ ____ with (-))

 

[fat wee robin]

Well, Peaceful said no pollution, but I assume there would be power, transportation, etc. There was also a mention of walking around naked, and no cancer...unless we manufacture the perfect sunscreen some of us can't have it both ways. That's just a few things that come to mind.

Peaceful wrote a good account until he got to the naked bit

Well, I really only want to hear what honest atheists think a perfect society should be like. I used the word existence, but maybe thats not the right word, maybe society is better.

So far I liked where Eudaimonist was going here.

No Existence, is the correct word ,Society is only part of existence . A good society comes out of a perfect Existence .

 

[fat wee robin]

"Hell is other people" - J P Sartre.

I am not sure about a near perfect society. I know very little about politics. The best I can muster up is a few words online and some community work.
People have an evolved psychology, a "tribe based" mind. We are used to working with fewer numbers than billions of people. So therefore face to face relationships, or web to web interactions, theyre the ones I would be working on, in the local networks with those we know. Rather than trying to organise things from first principles in political theory. I would more like to look at a healthy personality and start from there, and have psychological interventions in schools and communities, "psycho education" etc. ANd the media would be more positive. At present it tends to demonise killers, pedophiles etc - such that the psych of the lower class is trigger happy when it comes to "evil people". I dont thing thats a healthy way for moulding a (what theCatholics call) formed conscience, via the media. .

HELL, was jean paul sartre .

 

[fat wee robin]

HELL is , Jean Paul Sartre .

 

[DaisyDay]

Honestly, would there be no significance if in every objective conversation about a perfect society between believers and athiest, it was the athiests who always brought God into the conversation first? This would be a very hard thing to test, but if it were true what would it mean if anything?

The OP didn't ask for "objective atheists", it asked for "honest atheists" - which I found a bit insulting to the general population of atheists. Perhaps "honest theists" weren't required in this conversation.

Honestly, would there be no significance if in every objective conversation about a perfect society between believers and athiest, it was the athiests who always brought God into the conversation first? This would be a very hard thing to test, but if it were true what would it mean if anything?

But this wouldn't have been an honest or objective test since you only wanted atheists to reply and you were the only believer and also the only participant who was aware of this goal. How is that either honest or objective?

 

[Chriliman]

The OP didn't ask for "objective atheists", it asked for "honest atheists" - which I found a bit insulting to the general population of atheists. Perhaps "honest theists" weren't required in this conversation.

In my opinion, honesty and objectivity go hand in hand. It takes an honest person to realize they can't be perfectly objective, they can only be honestly objective.

It's not wrong to assume there's honest objective atheists out there.