Does God Exist?

False. An overly rigid conclusion based on your personal dislike.

Even if it would count for the majority of islamic societies or people in our societies the last sentence would still be incorrect. The first and second lines in this quote seem not right either, just your interpretation based on subjective conviction.

 

New ageism as a propensity to philosophical melding is a result of access to information or modern communications where congruence of meaning can be observed by a general public across specific religious divisions. That is a universal curriculum can be recognized occurring in many different forms. New age consumerism is a different manifestation or religion posited as consumerist culture, i.e. a new age utopia. A kind of climbing on to spiritual fad. Self realization/satisfaction is as utopic as we get. Maybe what you call material spiritualism? We inhabit creaturehood and play or dabble awkwardly at enforcing organization without really appreciating the talents of our creature or becoming virtuous in our own right.

I agree with letting your joy be guide with the caveat that we realize our joy is not found in contention. Our joy is not complete if someone fundamentally objects to our behavior or demeanor. Many would take that evidence of personal relations/reactions as an indicator to get out of Dodge or become allied with one group against another, but in order to truly have peace of being you need to break down the barriers and mend connections. Do this in your own mind and it becomes your joy to mend relations in every sphere and at every level.

 

No, the cancer is religious persecution which is the same cancer that eats at you as you persecute religion. It emerges full blown.

 

DENIAL would seem to be your deFAULT subjective conviction.
-
Jesus! Looks like some will be defending Islam even when they're on their knees with a sword over their head.

What God wants...

 

how would you know what "god" wants?

 

What he really means is the devil made them do it.

 

lol

 

It seems you are projecting things on me here. I am not denying that some religious people are acting on their religion in a way that does not benefit anyone. You dislike religions, fine (I dislike those aspects too, this should not even be the issue). I am arguing for objectivity and a constructive approach. You are just shitting on religions and it's followers and never picture the whole thing.
I would not have a problem with you not wanting to look at the other aspects and perceive it objectively unless when you portray it like that for others on here in a public place. People like you are adding to intolerance and polarization wether you come from an originally good intent or not (same with religous extremists).
You sound nothing different than any other kind of person that insists his outlook is right and can not bear opposite views. It does not really matter if that happens to be a religious person or not (I understand for you and people like you it matters, but where it comes to dealing with reality, really you seem to be just as unpragmatic as the people you piss on). I hope you realize that and you are just toying with provocations as in all your threads about this subject.

 

Doesn't that go for any group that acquires power? In my opinion, Christianity hasn't been the same since the Christian bishops climbed into bed with Emperor Constantine. Atheists shouldn't think that they are somehow immune to authoritarian and violent impulses. Dawkins, Sam Harris, O.W. Wilson et al give us something to think about, but what would society be like if people who think like them, like you and Mr. Writer, became a majority and got real power? Dawkins has championed eugenics, especially where Downs syndrome and intellectually challenged people are concerned. He also doesn't think the Amish should have a right to bring up their children in the traditional ways, and considers religious education child abuse. Wilson thinks the time is approaching when greater social engineering and regimentation may be needed to curtail the individual choices he thinks are leading to undesirable environmental outcomes. And Harris rails against religion except for the Buddhists and Jains. As part of the mix in a pluralist democracy these views are welcome as part of the dialogue. But even rationalism can have its downside. We suffered through the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution, when Enlightenment atheist intellectuals tried to wipe out Christian religion. We've been through the "Scientific Socialism" of the Soviet Union, China, Kampuchea, and North Korea. In all cases these were societies in which an elite became convinced that it understood through reason what was best for us all and proceeded to carry it out. Even Sweden, model democracy in many ways, is pursuing a policy of radical gender denial that critics say is pursuant to a radical feminist agenda. Elise Claeson, a columnist and a former equality expert at the Swedish Confederation of Professions, complains: "I have long participated in debates with gender pedagogues and they act like an elite.They tend to be well-educated, live in big cities, and have contacts in the media, and they clearly despise traditional people – that is, the ... heterosexuals living in nuclear families." Like many believers I know, my own embrace of Christianity was preceeded by increasing dissatisfaction with the technocratic mindlessness of our "postmodern" society, with its emphasis on efficiency and routinization--all very rational and soulesss, and equated in our minds with secularization.

So I think diversity, pluralism, democracy, critical thinking and free exchange of ideas are our best hope. We need to learn to keep ourselves in perspective and our ideologies on a short leash.

 

https://youtu.be/mFurQYHbIHA

...God gets

 

god help us all.

 

so if God is merely but a thought? Does that mean our thoughts are not real? See how that logic works?

 

No, because the concept still exists. It just means that god does not exist as anything except as a concept in the minds of men.

 

based on what criteria exactly?

 

http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2012/11/27/why_strict_atheism_is_unscientific_106413.html

 

The fact that there is zero verifiable evidence to support the existence of god.

 

what is evidence to you? if it's physical evidence, but you use it to try and disprove something not physical? It's not really evidence. If men in white coats told you all of a sudden gravity is false and claimed to have peer reviewed evidence, would you believe them?

 

If they had verifiable evidence to support their claim, I would believe them.