If God existed he could end all this suffering right now

So how do you propose to cooperate with someone who wants to rob you (ie. who is holding a gun to your head and tells you to give him/her your money and valuables)
Click to expand...

In a society that can get rid of competition, that wouldn't happen. However, self-defense is okay until that day.
 
elte said:
They don't have to literally be on the same team. For example, they could be two researchers in separate labs trying to find a cure for a disease.

To move the meaning away from indicating a direct relationship between Bill and Jack, we could replace the "with" with "and."



The wording of that would have Sally in the same team as Jack. If we add a comma after Sally, then it would change it to mean Bill and Jack are going against Sally.

Thanks, forgot spell checker or clicked ignore by mistake when it asked what to do.
Click to expand...

Who's team are you in? M or F, Christian/non Christian?
 
elte said:
Probably most accurate to say none of those but probably more like a researchers' team whose goals involve discovering new things.
Click to expand...
Accurate being a very key word in you behaviour, accuracy seems so important. Did you read the Christian Music thread? Nothing accurate in there, just a messed up life.
 
Robittybob1 said:
Accurate being a very key word in you behaviour, accuracy seems so important. Did you read the Christian Music thread? Nothing accurate in there, just a messed up life.
Click to expand...

I read pretty much of it, and I appreciate your link to the song, "Last Chance" there. It has a good sound and the lyrics have a good message. The discussion on this thread reminded me of that song.
 
wynn said:
Guess what? Some countries invade other countries in the name of "self-defense."
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is why it is important not to consciously provoke another country. Then the invading country hasn't any claim to self-defense, though leaders might call it something like "preemptive strike." Intent is key. There is a lot to the saying, "It's the thought that counts."
 
Robittybob1 said:
What have you got against Elte?
Click to expand...

Seemingly because we have a lot of similar interests that I have offered a different perspective on, which then is taken as an attack. I try to focus solely on the ideas, and that shows in my post before the strife began again.
 
wynn said:
He promotes the idea that individuals needn't compete. Yet he himself cannot set an example of what he preaches.

:shrug:
Click to expand...

My competing ideas are mistaken for me competing, though I try consciously to make it only the ideas competing. With just ideas competing, that is actually cooperation. That is why I say competition and cooperation aren't mutually exclusive.

I really like something a preacher said many years ago that goes something like - there is never any reason not to be nice. Maybe it could be altered to say - try to be nice all the time. We can't really say there aren't exceptions, like in cases of self-defense or emergencies. But sometimes people tend to be too liberal in determining what is an emergency or self-defense.

It seems possible that, in the case of this thread, my normal non-colloquial language was taken as aggressive.

So to reiterate, indeed, individuals should consciously move away from competing. There is more than enough to keep us busy cooperating. So when ideas are competing, it is important to make sure that there isn't intent within the people to be competing against each other, and it does help to display that intent. The people can be cooperating while their ideas are competing.

I'm not even saying there was intent for the two parties in conflict in this thread to be competing, only being sure of my original intent as being negative on that.
 
Last edited:
elte said:
My competing ideas are mistaken for me competing, though I try consciously to make it only the ideas competing. With just ideas competing, that is actually cooperation. That is why I say competition and cooperation aren't mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

To quote you:

But sometimes people tend to be too liberal in determining what is an emergency or self-defense.
Click to expand...

Ideas cannot compete; for there to be competition, there has to be a will. And between humans and ideas, only humans have a will, ideas do not.

Further, your notion that only ideas should compete, but not humans: that means that from this competition of ideas, there would be no real-world consequences for the people presenting those ideas. So, for example, someone could promote racist ideals, and no consequences would follow for them. That's a recipe for a progressively degenerating society.


The people can be cooperating while their ideas are competing.
Click to expand...

Yeah, in La-la Land, in which people are completely divorced from what they say and do.


I'm not even saying there was intent for the two parties in conflict in this thread to be competing, only being sure of my original intent as being negative on that.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure it is inherently bad to compete - even when it is people competing against eacher. After all, the United States of America have been built on people competing against eachother.

It seems the distinguishing factor is what one is competing for.

Two people competing against eachother which one is going to be a better person - that's not necessarily bad.

Winning in everything at all costs seems stupid; but it is important to win in some things.



Robittybob1 said:
Cooperation rather than competition. Sounds all right on paper but will it work in practice???
Click to expand...

Nope.
Even if it is just ideas that are competing.
 
wynn said:
To quote you:



Ideas cannot compete; for there to be competition, there has to be a will. And between humans and ideas, only humans have a will, ideas do not.

Further, your notion that only ideas should compete, but not humans: that means that from this competition of ideas, there would be no real-world consequences for the people presenting those ideas. So, for example, someone could promote racist ideals, and no consequences would follow for them. That's a recipe for a progressively degenerating society.
Click to expand...

Yeah, literally, ideas cannot compete because they are first, nonphysical, and second, not conscious and self-aware (yes, don't have a will). The people with ideas will that just the ideas compete. That involves willing (wishing) the people with other ideas not be hurt. (It is an abstract notion, indeed, but that doesn't make it unreal.)

So the nurturers in society who do the instructing and behavior exampling have a noble task of teaching compassionate ethics all along, so that the racist mind doesn't develop. And this way of treating people is how to best prevent tragic events of extreme competition like 9/11.

Yeah, in La-la Land, in which people are completely divorced from what they say and do.
Click to expand...

No, closer to Shangri-La. Look at the Dalai Lama. He has lived the life as well as anyone can, and it has been pretty good.


I'm not sure it is inherently bad to compete - even when it is people competing against eacher. After all, the United States of America have been built on people competing against eachother.
Click to expand...


The history of the US having been built upon the results of competition can be viewed as a negative thing. It was one more unconscious motivating component in the brain of a dictator that lead him to overseeing heavy competition and killing a lot of people in the process (generalized example). Or more recently, someone dropping poison gas on a village in Syria.

It seems the distinguishing factor is what one is competing for.

Two people competing against eachother which one is going to be a better person - that's not necessarily bad.
Click to expand...


It is okay to compete against one's own past performance. That is usually safe because we have genetic self-protection built-in. The protections for society are more recently evolved and less developed. Two people competing (against each other) often escalates to gunfire.

Winning in everything at all costs seems stupid; but it is important to win in some things.
Click to expand...

Yes it is important to win at a lot of things like recovering from the flu or avoiding hunger. The winning should be in a figurative sense against things (or as mentioned earlier, ideas), such things are not conscious and don't suffer and don't have a will to fight. There is the expression, "winning at life," and that is good. It is a good attitude, and that is what all I'm really saying boils down to--having a good attitude.
 
Robittybob1 said:
Cooperation rather than competition. Sounds all right on paper but will it work in practice???
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, it has already worked well. Cooperation is a necessary thing in our world, and why all of us are here now, whereas, with thoughtful effort, we could eliminate competition, and be better off afterwards. In fact, we already do practice cooperation, usually everyday of our lives. And the more we practice it, the better we become.
 
elte said:
Yes indeed, it has already worked well. Cooperation is a necessary thing in our world, and why all of us are here now, whereas, with thoughtful effort, we could eliminate competition, and be better off afterwards. In fact, we already do practice cooperation, usually everyday of our lives. And the more we practice it, the better we become.
Click to expand...

Aka ..... more paper
 
Perhaps a panentheistic point of view is actually correct. There is nothing to suggest that the result of spiritual inquiry, reveals something good.

Bitter food for thought.

I would not hold breath in hope of divine intervention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top