Yes God Exists

[The Valkyrie]

1. Posts wall of text with all the stuff we have debated before.

2. Dictates how we can answer.

3. Throws hissy-fit and plays victim when we won't play his game.

4. Finds true romance.

[Astreja]

An expressed desire to maintain and manifest chaos in opposition to what the world is proposing and actively pursuing.

I do hope (for your sake) that the above description isn't of [my post].

Because if it is, you need a remedial course in reading comprehension. I have no friggin' idea how you managed to arrive at the above conclusion.

[Unapologetics]

I have no friggin' idea how you managed to arrive at the above conclusion.

Hopefully I can give you an idea of how someone may come to that conclusion by disecting your previous post.

I do not see any credible evidence for gods - any gods. I believe that life after death is completely impossible. I believe that resurrection is unmitigated bullshit.

And I am completely lacking in religious faith. Furthermore, I do not value religious faith. I see it as a character flaw, and as childish wishful thinking.

It is my strongly-held opinion that not one of Christianity's goals can, or will, be fulfilled. No one will experience eternal life. No one will find themselves in a "one world authority" ruled by a benign individual. Society will always be flawed in some way, our loved ones will remain in their graves, and justice will always be something that needs to be discussed and revamped.

The use of italics for any gods and use of the word bullshit indicates a level of disdain for the topic and your extremely inflexible concept of ressurection implies a lack of imagination. I would guess that because it is a word so often used by Christians in a very distinct way that many people, such as yourself, are unwilling to engage with it on any level to avoid the danger of accidently giving credence to a faith you despise.

You are not lacking in religious faith if you use the terms generally. You have a a set of routines and traditions you follow religiously (religion) and you have a set a beliefs that guide your choices and behavior (faith) but I understand that you are not using them generally and are referring to how theists use them and I understand what you mean. But just as atheists don't all fit into the same frame, neither to religious people and seeing everyone as generalizations is a simple way of thinking about the world. But by your logic, if the world will "always be flawed" as you say then I suppose that means it will always uphold religious faith.

The use of "strongly-held" suggests that it is something you are actively clutching and refuse to let go of. In other words, it is a desire of yours for it to be true. Although I know that you don't actually believe what you say here since I assume you would agree that humanity should pursue a society that puts an end to murdering and stealing as well as many other obvious things that pretty much every sane person agrees on. But putting aside the misuse of the "not one" and just focusing on the ones you mentioned, it seems that you have a real problem with eternal life and a one world authority ruled by a benign individual. The alternative is a continuous cycle of death for all time and the world continuing to be ruled by a corrupt individual or individuals, which has been the pattern for all of our history. Most people would say that our past was chaotic and the desire for order is what rational people want. You seem to be rooting that chaos continue to thwart any possibility of humanity overcoming death, finding peace, or becoming truly civil (and no I am not using the word civil as a covert word to mean something religious I am just referring to people being decent to one another).

The ideas I'm am putting forth are not religious ideas at all, religious people would react to them the same as most of the people here are, with scorn and ridicule. If you are going to insist you are somehow different than "childish" religious people, you might start by not behaving exactly the way they do.

[Deesse23]

I randomly took two words from your wall of text: Perfect justice:
Is it perfect justice to punish people for things they have not done?

If it is, should we not adapt perfect justice in our society and start punishing people for things they have not done?

Both of these questions can be answered with yes or no as a foundation for further discussion.

[The Grand Nudger]

It could also be argued that unicorns were born out of an idea conceived in the human consciousness and therefore does not exist independent of human intelligence or thought, but this same argument would invalidate the existence of every man-made object which would all arguably continue to exist even if every human being died out.

Incorrect.  If every human being died five seconds from you reading this, mountains and mountains of plastic bottles would still exist, and exist for hundreds of years, too.  It is not actually the case, therefore, that if we discard with gods because they only exist in some humans minds that would mean that we have to disregard the existence of a plastic bottle..which was certainly born of human ingenuity.... but has a demonstrated and independent existence outside of a human mind.   

While it may be true that God was an idea created by humans,

-this would be the whole ballgame.

[Belacqua]

While I agree with you that conflict, war, and misery are the historical outcomes of certain worldviews and traditions; however, these are not the stated goals. I am judging them based on what they communicate, not what they do or result in. Some see the path to peace being conquest or destruction of all opposing worldviews, but again the purpose of that conflict is to achieve peace ultimately once all their enemies are brought to bear. I am not agreeing with or validating their desired path to peace, only commenting on the fact that all traditions promise peace as the ultimate end of the struggle.

We've got several different topics going on here, so let me focus on this one for the time being. (I spent the whole morning chopping weeds and I'm exhausted.) 
I see what you mean, that pretty much every ideology or world-view holds that peace is the goal. And of course it's true that different views will want to achieve this goal in different ways. Some people clearly think that the only way is to genocide one's enemies. Others see international economic standardization as the way -- I think this would be the Francis Fukuyama "end of history" method. 

So, yes, that is the promise. 

Where I am cynical is in how much people really want to achieve that. I think that while some people say they want peace (just as soon as they eliminate everyone unlike themselves) they actually enjoy the fight too much ever to reach an end. We can only speculate on the psychology behind this, but I suspect there is some kind of dopamine rush that people get when they feel they've crushed someone. Given the choice of walking away or picking a fight, a lot of people like the fight. 

Second, I think that while a stated ideology might aim for peace, there can be structural economic institutions that make conflict inevitable. If the Pentagon, arms manufacturers, and other killing-based economies were to be eliminated, the US economy would collapse. Recently some well-informed people are arguing that because the US can no longer compete in manufacturing or tech innovation, it has simply turned into a pirate economy, in which it maintains dominance by stealing natural resources. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0nt1CgQsgpI

I suppose we might argue that the goal is peace through crime. But the structure is simply ongoing unashamed violence. 

So I'm agreeing with you that ideologies or religions promise peace in the long run. I'm just too cynical to think that enough people actually want it.

[Nay_Sayer]

I have no friggin' idea how you managed to arrive at the above conclusion.

Hopefully I can give you an idea of how someone may come to that conclusion by disecting your previous post.

---

I do not see any credible evidence for gods - any gods. I believe that life after death is completely impossible. I believe that resurrection is unmitigated bullshit.

And I am completely lacking in religious faith. Furthermore, I do not value religious faith. I see it as a character flaw, and as childish wishful thinking.

It is my strongly-held opinion that not one of Christianity's goals can, or will, be fulfilled. No one will experience eternal life. No one will find themselves in a "one world authority" ruled by a benign individual. Society will always be flawed in some way, our loved ones will remain in their graves, and justice will always be something that needs to be discussed and revamped.

The use of italics for any gods and use of the word bullshit indicates a level of disdain for the topic and your extremely inflexible concept of ressurection implies a lack of imagination. I would guess that because it is a word so often used by Christians in a very distinct way that many people, such as yourself, are unwilling to engage with it on any level to avoid the danger of accidently giving credence to a faith you despise.

You are not lacking in religious faith if you use the terms generally. You have a a set of routines and traditions you follow religiously (religion) and you have a set a beliefs that guide your choices and behavior (faith) but I understand that you are not using them generally and are referring to how theists use them and I understand what you mean. But just as atheists don't all fit into the same frame, neither to religious people and seeing everyone as generalizations is a simple way of thinking about the world. But by your logic, if the world will "always be flawed" as you say then I suppose that means it will always uphold religious faith.

The use of "strongly-held" suggests that it is something you are actively clutching and refuse to let go of. In other words, it is a desire of yours for it to be true. Although I know that you don't actually believe what you say here since I assume you would agree that humanity should pursue a society that puts an end to murdering and stealing as well as many other obvious things that pretty much every sane person agrees on. But putting aside the misuse of the "not one" and just focusing on the ones you mentioned, it seems that you have a real problem with eternal life and a one world authority ruled by a benign individual. The alternative is a continuous cycle of death for all time and the world continuing to be ruled by a corrupt individual or individuals, which has been the pattern for all of our history. Most people would say that our past was chaotic and the desire for order is what rational people want. You seem to be rooting that chaos continue to thwart any possibility of humanity overcoming death, finding peace, or becoming truly civil (and no I am not using the word civil as a covert word to mean something religious I am just referring to people being decent to one another).

---

The ideas I'm am putting forth are not religious ideas at all, religious people would react to them the same as most of the people here are, with scorn and ridicule. If you are going to insist you are somehow different than "childish" religious people, you might start by not behaving exactly the way they do.

Bold mine; This is really funny when you consider that from the jump, you have been crying about the responses you have been getting.

You have needled everyone in the initial reply because it's not fitting a narrative you want. You then find Bels, who pretty much just parrots your stuff, and you all but fall in love.

You are more transparent than cellophane, and I again implore you to try the Discord idea.

Thoughts and prayers. RAmen

(Spoiler for brevity)

[Astreja]

The use of italics for any gods and use of the word bullshit indicates a level of disdain for the topic and your extremely inflexible concept of ressurection implies a lackof imagination.

Disdain? Yes, definitely. As for the Resurrection, it's simple: Dead people stay dead. Why should we assume otherwise on the sole basis of a dubious and ancient tale? Is it a "lack of imagination" to discard obvious mythology in favour of the reality that dead people stay dead?

If you really want, I can demonstrate my imagination by visualizing Jesus exploding in mid-air  and thousands of google-eyed bats emerging from the cloud of divine guts. The guts splatter on the ground, and popes and cardinals pop out of the ground like daffodils. Happy now?  

The use of "strongly-held" suggests that it is something you are actively clutching and refuse to let go of. In other words, it is a desire of yours for it to be true.

In this case, "strongly-held" indicates that I am familiar with human history and anthropology and medicine, and have extremely well-justified reasons for rejecting Christianity's assertions because none of them are even remotely believable.

• Eternal life: Appears to be impossible. No evidence that the self can exist independent of a living body.
  
• Do you actually think that the many non-benign people on Earth wouldn't be able to depose a single benign ruler, and/or carve up his "kingdom" for themselves?
  
• Society is made up of people. People are all different. There's no way to arrange the "puzzle" into any one pattern and have it stay that way.
  
• Dead people stay dead, and there's no evidence for a soul.
  
• Justice can't be locked down into a perfect form. It needs to adapt to changes in culture.
  

Although I know that you don't actually believe what you say here...

(Springy G smiles a very unsettling smile) You have been found guilty of bearing false witness. Your punishment is to lose your faith and never regain it. (bangs gavel). Court dismissed.

[Deesse23]

Oh my god, what a pile of .....woo. quantum woo to be precise, to nobody's surprise.

No, the "quantum realm" does NOT exist outside space and time, you know nothing about other universes, particularly not if consciousness is part of them, and all the other garbage you spewed is just that: garbage

[Fake Messiah]

I guess I was naive to expect a modicum of sophistication on these forums

You have to first make a sophisticated claim/post in order to get a sophisticated response, but all you did is write a long word salad.