i can't say those same problems wouldn't have existed in a atheistic world
Of course you can't, because it's trivially obvious they would. People are going to do what they're going to do.
why is it their are wakes of bodies in this concept that is necessary for peoples well beings
Because we are selfish creatures living in a world of scarcity.
But the really bizarre people are the gaians. Those eco fascists who's standard of morality is that humans are all bad and everyone (except, conveniently, themselves) must die for the sake of nature.
I know enough of them to take them at face value that they do believe humans are a corrupting influence (that statement inof itself is generally true). But the common thing about them is that they all are either very dim people with NO practical knowledge of industry at all, or they're EXTREMELY intelligent people who are misanthropic idealists who know better but don't care. The former are annoying, the latter are dangerous.
also, morals don't exist so your right on the money with that however... despite what i said earlier... some bad people in position of power like... kings, and rulers. would times use god or be fill in for gods who would unfairly rule over his subjects
Yes, they did. Tyrants are an effective source of absolute right and wrong. Backed with an army they are certainly capable of actualizing their moral system.
But as I said, they're not a reliable source. Not every tyrant is just, and even just tyrants are still mortal. They grow old and die (or, tbh, more often are killed).
Perhaps someday we'll make a machine that can be a perfect tyrant, and on that day god can retire. But frankly I think people like yourself will hate that even more than they hate god, because in that case you'll have a tangible target.
you believe god is a necessary evil... to keep people from doing bad things
No, that's an overreach. God is only necessary to DEFINE absolute good and absolute bad.
All moral absolutism is a fabrication. It does not exist in nature. But being a fabrication does not make something not real.
Without god, the moral relativists are "correct". A cat's sadistic joy of playing with a mouse it has already wounded is right and good because the cat's own existence and satisfaction is all that exists to the cat.
We humans invented god. As surely as we invented tools and weapons. We invented god to serve a purpose, to solve a problem which we have studied for thousands of years. We looked for a source of moral absolutes that could be universalized onto all beings. And what we found is that no source within ourselves would serve. We had to project the problem onto something external and untouchable. Law is insufficient. Tyrants are unreliable. Only god could fit the task.
Never let devs lie to you about how difficult it is to make a game
YOU are assuming that their difficulties come from technology and not people.
I have enough experience with programming to know that "it's difficult" is polite for "I don't care enough to fight for it".
Yahtzee is correct that the novel and auteur games are typically a one-man show. Because they're not accountable to anyone for decisions.
i am an atheist. i don't believe that a god exist.
The question is not whether god exists. God did not create man, man created god, that much is trivial. If you think reaching that intellectual level is somehow a dunk on the faithful, you're just a very dim, shallow, petty, and naive person.
The question is why god must exist. When you understand that, then you can understand why man attributed man's creation to god.
God must exist for one simple reason. To make the wrongness of murder universal. That's all. A flat foundation on which to build a counter philosophy to moral relativism. Nothing more. Understanding that, then you can get to whether you believe in god, and your answer to that says nothing about the nature of the universe and existence, and everything about you and your view on moral relativism.
This is most strikingly shown in regard to painting, where mastery of technique is at least as much within their power as within ours; and hence they are diligent in cultivating it; but still, they have not a single great painting to boast of, just because they are deficient in that objectivity of mind which is so directly indispensable in painting. They never get beyond a subjective point of view.
-Arthur Schopenhauer
If you want someone to point blame at, blame Egypt and Jordan.
They both hate the Palestinians only slightly less than they hate Israel. Egypt is why Gaza isn't Israeli territory but Egypt is also why Gaza isn't Egyptian territory. Gaza is basically Egypt's little North Korea, an unaccountable angry puppet full of people they don't want to actually admit into their country.
The only path to peace is a three state solution and those three states are Israel, Egypt and Jordan, so the Palestinians who don't want to live on the border can fuck off to somewhere else while Cairo and Amman are accountable to keep Hamas and Hezbollah from starting shit.
Old thinking, needs a revisit.
Take the fandom convention scene. Sociopaths DID largely take over conventions for a while, and a lot of them are now gone, because while they're good at winning power struggles, they're far less capable at actually accomplishing shit.
I feel like in the past these other 3rd parties have gone about it the wrong way and focused on national elections.
Because of over-federalization of motivating issues.
Consider the Pirate Party. They had a good platform and plenty of enthusiasm, but their focus is essentially irrelevant to state and local government. On the other end of the spectrum, the Libertarian and Green parties are poorly managed and their platforms are schizophrenic.
There IS room for a center-right nativist populist party with a strong anti-corporate platform to eat the Republicans lunch, but it will will require decades to pull off, and like the current RSC-HFC civil war, there will be a point where it will be seen as an impediment to conservatism because it will be splitting the vote.
"I am Literally the Real Player One; the One Avatar; and this Body, Eyes, Mind and all is the One God Body, and I am Literally also Jesus Christ, Himself, fully reincarnated and fully reawakened."
I will admit, this is not the outcome I anticipated.
And the thing is, if he was to take that and run with it, and be a better person, he wouldn't be wrong.
Wrong Hoover. You're thinking J.Edgar Hoover.
Herbert Hoover was one of the founders of Consolidated Zinc (now Rio Tinto Group), the Commerce Secretary who standardized radio, and then President.
It could be argued that Hoover was the first conservative shock jock. Guy loved giving radio speeches, and he was chummy with all the radio execs during FDR's government. Even with all the blame FDR threw at him for the depression, if Hoover wanted a radio address, he could get it. It was partly why the GOP was in such shambles during FDR, because Hoover was (much like Trump today) just so much better at being a public figure than anyone they could find to actually run.
"Blessed are the young for they shall inherit the national debt." -HH
"Leave the gun. Take the tacos."