Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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".
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.
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.Yes, some, are an easy read.
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".
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?
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?
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.
That is not what I was asking. I was asking: "are there things that do not exist?".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.
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?
You are wrong.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.
Well, something exists or it doesn´t.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!
Peaceful wrote a good account until he got to the naked bitWell, 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.
No Existence, is the correct word ,Society is only part of existence . A good society comes out of a perfect Existence .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.
"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 .
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?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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?