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