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.