Perfect world

Hello people,

This is the first time I'm opening a thread in Hilbert's Hotel and I rarely post in here either mainly because I don't see a point in it. People come here with a set opinion in their mind and will defend it against people with a different one and that's that. I've yet to see anyone change their mind on something due to a Hilbert's Hotel argument, or even show the slightest effort of trying to.

Nevertheless, the thread about Dan changing views about Christianity gave me the urge to talk about something here.. Half the people in that thread are growing desperate about how gullible people can be, even in the 21st century, by buying all those dated stories that are written in the bible. I feel like they are sincerely trying to shake the other half to finally see beyond the lies and in turn live a better lies free life. On the other side, people like ChrisTodd took it upon themselves to honestly try to help a person like Dan who is appearing to be losing his faith and help him turn back before it is too late for him. Whichever side you are it can get a bit annoying of course and sometime this genuine help can be mutated into frustration and maybe even hatred. A Christian for example will follow Jesus example and try to put sense in the non-believer by saying "God loves you but if you turn your back on Him you will spend eternity in Hell and there's nothing to laugh about it because Hell is real!". Someone who doesn't believe in God and Hell however will simply find this sentence annoying, especially after hearing it for the 1000th time and it can be even more annoying that whatever arguments he uses Christians will always put God before reason and will stubbornly refuse to look any logic points that the non-believer will present them with.

IF YOU'RE IN A HURRY, IGNORE ALL THE ABOVE AND READ HERE FOR THE ACTUAL TOPIC RELATED THREAD. So, here's just a theory I have which may bring comfort to everyone, every time he or she will fail to make a friend or a stranger to see through his/her eyes. I have to say though that my theory may not work for the Christians since they believe that every other person will go to Hell if he doesn't believe in the Christian God, so it may be hard for them to see past that.. But I digress (i know, 'digress' is SO overused but I always wanted to say it once ).

So... By perfect world I mean that every person and all the different beliefs or political parties or the different cultures around the world, they're all useful. When it comes to nature, we don't find it hard to believe that every different organism is useful to something, even annoying pests and bacteria or viruses. Somehow we do trust nature, but when it comes to human societies we become the world's greatest cynic creature. We see the corruption in politics, the violence in the streets, all the unnecessary wars, drug trafficking, child pornography and we always come up with a phrase like: "This world has gone downhill.." or "Humans have definitely f*cked it up.." or the all famous: "I don't want to bring a child to this world". However, what we seem to forget sometimes is that we, humans, are also a creation of Nature.. And yes, our brain which gives us the power to form our own decisions unlike most animals is the creation of Nature as well. So, when you think that a common trait for rats, grey squirrels, african dogs, lions, butterflies, baboons and Langurs is to eat their own young alive, it certainly puts child pornography into some perspective, doesn't it?

So now that I got you into my frame of mind I just wanted to make the point that if nature has 'evolved' (I'm sure I lost a lot of people by using this word but there's no other way to say it...) a society with both Christians and non-Christians, this means that both have a use in our society. Off the top of my head I could say that Christians may use the positive effects of their strong faith in their God to live a steady life and thus be more reliable than others. Also those rules that they force onto themselves may actually protect them sometimes. On the other hand, someone who doesn't have to live a certain way of life full of restrictions due to its beliefs will generally be more open-minded, and our society needs open-minded people to try new things and advance humanity further into the future.

So, all I want to say is, don't be so pissed off if someone cannot/doesn't want to share your point of view and also that at the end of the day it's not such a bad thing that he/she does not. In the case of Christians and non-Christians it doesn't even matter if the Christian God and Jesus are actually real or not; it just doesn't. Joozey said it best in Dan's thread that everyone should be an agnostic since no-one can actually prove or disprove the existence of a Creator but in our own little Perfect world, I'm glad everyone is not.

Cheers,
Aris

You are right, nobody change his mind here, but there is a reason

The topics are : theism and atheism, prime numbers, immortality, cosmology, philosophy...

Do you seriously think that somebody can really bring a personal contribution
into the discussion ?

I have already discussed this issue

In my opinion people should only inform the other members by quoting referenced sources rather than expressing their own opinion
I am of course mainly talking about scientific topics

If so , I see a point in this thread otherwise you turn it into an arena of super egocentric personalities

You might be expecting a little bit too much there. I do agree with you, as I think some arguments that were brought up here should have been enough to convince people as far as that they are believing 'wrong' things, however I've come to learn here that it's not (always) the facts that really matter.

Also, the main problem of course is 'science & evidence' vs. 'religion & faith', so to speak. This is a simplified representation of what's going on of course.

However, as a result.. people's minds won't change in here,

Cheers

expecting what? "I've yet to see..." means "i haven't seen it yet". it doesn't mean or even imply the expectation that someone might change their mind. in fact Aris hasn't posted here before because no one ever changes their minds.
"full of restrictions" is a bit too strong, and generalises Christians too much (when discussing a religion there's always room for generalisation, but in this case i'd say that's still too much). ignoring "Christians" who call themselves Christians but really aren't by any stretch of Biblical standards, Christianity covers a broad range from the Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and a few Protestant denominations with strict hierarchies and conditions for salvation, to those who take the Bible literally when it says "...whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life" (John 3:16, among many other similar verses).

what makes me a Christian? i believe Jesus died and rose again for my salvation. that's it. i don't have strict restrictions on my life. i'm free to live it exactly how i want. but my desire to have the best life possible leads me to study the Bible's wisdom. this means (among other things) be uplifting to others, treat them as you would have them treat you, be an example to others, respect the laws of those over you even though, abstain from sex before you're married, have lots of sex with your spouse when you are married (that's in there too), be forgiving because you expect God to forgive you... these are all good morals, not restrictions that inhibit our advancement.

julz

Pretty sensible post I think Larry Laffer! It makes sense to me...I am with Julz though, I dont see where the restrictions are. I guess the 'restrictions' that others see are just things I wouldnt want to do anyway.

But we all make mistakes, like maybe teasing Larry in his INTENSE X thread was a mistake of mine. I dont know.

Peace

Apart from not being limited by other people's exact words as far as expressing my own opinion goes. I think 'I've yet to see' can most certainly express some kind of expectation, mostly in certain disbelieving way.

But sure, he could have meant differently.



I totally agree.



All these moral or social values are not exclusive to Christianity or any religion for that matter. Basically you're saying you believe you are living your life better than non-Christians, where in reality non-religious people more often than not share the exact same values. The restrictions aren't moral ones, but rather psychological ones.

Cheers

i didn't say (or even imply) that those values are exclusive to Christianity. nor did i say that the Bible is the only place to find these morals. all i said was that the Bible places NO restrictions on my life, and cited some examples of moral teachings in the Bible that could (perhaps) be misconstrued as restrictions, when they are actually good examples of living that are inconsequential to our salvation.

julz

I think they are not all useful, but I agree to what you say subsequently that they are all natural.

From a perspective of a perfect society, Muslim extremists or child molesters are not useful. But they exist because their mindset also belongs to the pool of possible human mind sets and thus is a product of nature or evolution or whatever you call it.

However, we normally don't accept this but attempt to make our society better, by rules and laws, which also includes religious laws like the 10 commandments, and thus try to filter our mindsets we consider 'not useful'. This way, we try to correct nature.

Okey, well then please accept my apologies as I did had the feeling that you implied just that. I have to say though that usually, and yes I'm generalizing here, Christians tend to act at least "as if" they have a certain kind of exclusivity on morals.

I have heard far too many times that the Bible is the right or even only place to find morals and that without it, people would not be able to find morals. Apparently you disagree with that, just like me.



Right, but I do not have restrictions either, so I guess we can leave it at this then as far as restrictions. You have to admit though, they often talk about 'being released' or 'freedom' both when people convert to a certain belief and when people break from their religion again. Kind of contradictory if you ask me when it comes to restrictions, but I guess it's just a certain feeling...

Cheers

yeah, i've heard that as well from some.
i agree there as well. maybe it's freedom from the same thing -- the question. before becoming religious (i assume) one questions the truthfulness of that religion. before leaving a religion, i guess the same question would be there: "is this for real?". in both cases, the question is a big deal because it has a large impact on your life and your eternal life (whether you're accepting eternal life or deciding there is none), and that places a large burden on the person. so what i'm hypothesising is, perhaps this 'freedom' is just a freedom from that question, and not the religion itself?

at the same time, some religions do have a lot of restrictions and it could be considered 'freedom' to be released from those. or, i guess, becoming part of a religion with lots of rules and restrictions 'frees' you from having to make some decisions for yourself.

maybe it's a mix of both.

julz

You guys went to my anti-religion statements like bees to honey. All I wanted to do here is post about how both sides have a reason to exist and both are perfectly ok, but you decided to focus on my one sentence about a Christianity's potential disadvantage and if users in Hilbert Hotel change their minds.. Why are you so quick to defend your side, especially in a thread like this? Do you actually believe your side has NO disadvantages and you're living the PERFECT way a person can live? Like, your way of life is actually the best way for someone to live and you're just lucky enough to have found it? Cause that's what a Way without any disadvantages mean..


My whole point was exactly that; that like in nature, for example, every animal has advantages and disadvantages, and all animals evolved just the way all religions evolved. And, likewise, whatever 'thing' has lived to survive today means that it is useful enough to survive because it serves a purpose, otherwise it would have perished. And yes, this includes also the Muslim extremists, although sometimes this 'use' is not so easy for humans to 'see', but it's there, contributing to this planet's greater 'good', whatever this may be. You see, the only criteria for an abstract entity to survive (which could be both an organism or a culture/religion) is that it is highly compatible to its surrounding environment. And that is the only requirement... not being morally 'Good', or believe in Jesus Christ, or abide to our law and ethic system. God has one law, and that law is, fit to your environment as best as possible and I will keep you and your spawn alive, otherwise you will diminish and become extinct. So my question to you is: Do you actually think that the ethics and common sense that we humans have evolved is superior to this single Law of Nature? If ANY of our man-made laws hold water, wouldn't it have some sort of impact to our well being (which it doesn't unless you believe in Karma) or wouldn't we see an ethical and morally correct system in nature too?(which we don't).



So, the main point is that if something exists today, it means it has a use. And since many people may take offend when I say that child molesters are useful, we may need to re-define the word 'use' here or even better clarify the use's subject. It has a use, but not necessarily to humans or earth habitats, but to 'God' if you will.


So, I guess I'm only replying to Tobias who stayed on the true topic... I wonder if our common sense and moral system which was constructed within 8 thousand years of civilized human life is enough to 'correct nature' estimated to be at least 4 billion years old. It could be that we've just created that ethic set and moral beliefs to create a better way of living for our species and protect are own, but I find it hard that 8 thousand years are enough for any organism to 'know better' about anything. And since no-one can actually know any better I come to my original point that every single one is 'equally useful'.

Cheers,
Aris

i'm not living the PERFECT way a person can live. but that's because i can't live up to the examples in the Bible. so, yes, my side has no disadvantages.

what disadvantages does your way of life have? if you can think of some, why don't you try overcome them? if you are trying to overcome them, then doesn't it make your 'side' (ie: the way of life you want to live by) disadvantage-free?

i'm still discussing your 'Perfect World'. i've done no harm to your thread. at first glance there was nothing to add to your idea of a perfect world so i just went in to say i felt you'd made a mistake.

on a second look (especially looking at your last post), i have to say i disagree with at least one other thing that you'll hopefully find more relevant to the thread topic: the Muslim extremist example. these extremists just happen to be Muslim. they aren't extremely Muslim, they are Muslims who are extreme. what they do has nothing to do with Islam, but they try and justify it in Islam. it's like the Crusades -- trying to use Christianity as a reason to war against Muslims, but discriminatory war in itself is un-Christian. so what i'm saying is, these 'Muslim extremists' aren't necessarily serving a 'greater good' based on their continued existence, because they aren't a part of Islam which must be part of the 'greater good' since it still exists, but are just an offshoot of humanity's inherent aggression and intolerance. having said that, it could be said that humanity's inherent aggression and intolerance have survived so long and therefore must be part of this perfect balance.

so don't tell too many people about your Perfect World theory, or everyone might become too tolerant and upset the balance

julz

Interesting point, definitely something that makes sense to me.



I don't think it's so much as defending our or someone else's side 'just for the sake of it' here, it's more that ideal worlds in practice do not really exist... but we try to compare to our own world views anyways. As an inevitable result, we encounter problems.

It has also a bit to do with disadvantages as disadvantages really can be found everywhere. I think saying 'there are no disadvantages in my way of living' is quite a big claim, I think it's contradictory to the fact of not really being able to live up to 'the examples' actually.

Without religion, there's no burden of living up to anything, you have the freedom to take things the way you like. Personally I think that has more advantages than disadvantages, but that's all that can be said about it. It doesn't really mean our 'truths' are just choices, but I think most of us (us as in non-religious (relativist) people) would agree that knowledge is relative and therefore truth is not absolute, so... what's the point of claiming truth about something anyways...

Life is a discovery of knowledge and having lots of fun while doing so, at least that's the main thing that makes it so interesting to me,



If something is perfect, it really means everything is totally out of any kind of balance. After all there's only "perfect".

I don't think you can wave away the aggression you've talked about as some kind of annoying but inevitable side-effect of fundamentalist religions though. You have to see that without religions, these warmongers would have less of a motive to start their evildoing of spreading their anti-whatever propaganda,

Cheers

looking back, i can see i didn't explain my view very well. i just think those 'Muslim Extremists' can't be classed with other thousand-year-old religions or systems that have survived and are therefore fit in the scheme of nature, because 'Muslim Extremists' aren't (from what i've read) actually very good Muslims.

i don't think the aggression is a side-effect of religion. more, the religion is a means by which to propagate that aggression that's already there.

are child molesters and terrorists actually useful because they've survived today? or are they perhaps just a bad mutation that we'll always have?

julz

Child molesters aside perhaps, politicians will argue that terrorists, criminals and so on aren't really so bad to some extent... if they'd be honest. Still, I never met an honest politician. I mean it can't really get more obvious or they find them great excuses to design all kinds of 'clever' laws and extent their influence or power. Not that I mind criminals getting caught of course! Serves them right.



I personally believe that the mere existence of the opportunity to do crime.. at the same time creates crime.

I don't think people (at least in general) are evil people at all, I just think there are a lot of people who fall for the temptations of doing basically very very stupid things. I'm not talking about accidental crimes, I'm talking about people that at some point, through just being in the situations they are in, decide to do wrong. Greedy but stupid.

From a psychological point of view, there are many reasons why people would 'become' a child molester, terrorist and so on.

Considering the huge impact of human psychology on people's actions, I definitely do not believe that people are born a criminal so to speak.

Cheers

Larry I know you have studied some genetic algorithms and some sort of computer ai/evolution simulations, but in the actual biology classes I taken and in the literature I have read there is no scientific premise for the concept of "usefulness" of the species which survive. You seem to be presenting this concept of 'usefulness' in order to promote tolerance among different ideologies. The tolerance of other's worldviews is a belief I undoubtedly agree with, but I dont agree with the idea that we should tolerate ideologies simply because they have survived for thousands of years.

Of course, the word "useful" is a 'vacuum' word, or what is called an 'umbrella' word, it might mean something completely different to me as it does to you. Biology's idea of species usefulness, and it seems to be your idea also, is that it somehow contributes to the ecosystem. However not all species are useful by that definition. Many, as a matter of fact, are anti-useful.

If I were to explain all behavior with the survival of the fittest model, as you seem to be attempting to do, I would not look at surviving species as useful. Taking your example of child molesters in the context of survival of the fittest, they are doing what they are doing to satisfy a sickness in their mind, like leeches they are sucking the life out of the children they prey upon. But the phenomena has no_real_use except to satisfy the desires of the predator.

I dont know if you understand what Im saying, and I guess I really didnt explain it in too much depth, but to be short your ideas about species survival seem strange, and they really dont work inside of any scientific framework I have ever heard about.

However. If you want to talk about tolerance I will be the first one to agree with you. I just differ on the reasons why.

I think if you want to apply the very real model of survival of the fittest to social phenomena in the world you see around you then you can do that, absolutely. But I think your understanding of that model is a bit distorted.

There have been many instances of people who tried to adapt survival of the fittest to a philosophical perspective, among them being Hitler, who juxtaposed the concept upon 'survival' of the races. If you want a really interesting adaptation though I would suggest anyone read "The Sea Wolf" by Jack London , which not only is a masterful application of the survival mechanism upon a worldview, but it is arguably the best characterization in all English Literature. Of course I hope you understand that I wasnt comparing Larry's idea with Hitler's or the Sea Wolf's, I was just listing others who have applied natural selection to a worldview. I mention them for information's sake, and for the sake of education.

Good point, as there's even competition going on amongst ideas... 'survival of the fittest' also I guess. The Bible as idea has been quite successful at this, but I doubt it's because of it's message.



Interesting point, as this is often exactly what seems to be happening with a lot of religious ideas. Simply because they are 'old', they get a special kind of attention or treatment... Can't say that itself is a bad thing, as we should all learn from our history, but still.



I don't think it makes much sense to make a distinction based on 'usefulness' within an ecosystem. There aren't many ecosystems in which a certain species is active but sort of outside of it's 'circle of life'. I mean, is there any ecosystem in which there's just one animal? Probably not as it would be out of balance.

The mere fact that a certain animal, bug or whatever can be eaten by others gives it a certain kind of 'usefulness', but I agree with you on the 'vacuum' word thing.

Cheers

As usual, I am a little late to the party, but I just got some time to sit down and read a few threads.

I find LarryLaffer's suggestion interesting -but it is hard to see how child molesters, terrorists, criminals AND politicians provide usefulness to society.

I actually think that not all serve a useful purpose beyond, perhaps, forcing us to continue to evolve as humans.

I don't actually see us a components of a cell but as a group of cells trying to evolve into a higher organism. We are basically evolved primate groups. In nature primates, like baboons, live in complex hierarchies with a dominant individual and a social pecking order that frequently includes force, violence and abuse towards those lower down.

While this may work as a mechanism of social control when you have a troop composed of 10, 20 or even 50 individuals, humans now gather in the tens of thousands and millions. We have grown past our individual family and tribal roots. Not only do we now recognize the unfairness of abusing those with less status but we simply cannot maintain our societies on a pecking order system because we can't keep track of that many relationships in our brain.

So, we create laws, and explore philosophy and religion, seeking greater truth in an effort to know our place in the universe. The friction forces us to evolve and find new ways of living with each other.

I think that those individuals who abuse others, who commit violence against children, who attempt to oppress or put down those who are different -in faith, opinion, social status or whatever- are simply throwbacks, or unintegrated primates if you will. Our baser human instincts are probably part of that old troop pecking order.

We need to find a better way. For me, the way is Truth. Whether that truth comes from science, religion, philosophy or taco wrappers - it doesn't really matter. Truth is Truth.