Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Posts by avogadro
"and why assume that our purpose is to serve?"
i dont, i didnt. but whatever purpose we were created for, we are serving....
"
What if his reason was for entertainment?"
i dont see your point. there is no proof that God exists let alone his reason for creating us; why mention this specific possibility?
"Then what are you serving? "
let me repeat myself, because it appears that you still dont understand what i meant by serving God.. "My point was that God created us, and we are part of his plan"
"Probably for the same reason such a being would desire our worship in the first place (that is of course working under the assumption that God has actually talked to a few people and told them to tell people to worship him)."
you are incorrect in what you are assuming. you are assuming not only that God has told people to tell people to worship him AND you are assuming that the reason he did so was so that he would be worshiped.... an athiest in this thread had stated that he believed religion provided a moral boost that was needed in primitive man and without this civilization wouldnt of been able to form; maybe he told humans to worship him to provide this... there are of coarse infinite reasons why a supreme being would tell people to worship him and we have no way of knowing which it is, if he even did tell humans to worship him...
"Take for example a Christians idea of heaven. Constant prayer and worship of your god plus whatever goodies we don't know about. Doesn't that seem uniform to you? Don't you think heaven will be uniform if you believe in one god?"
Catholic idea of heaven; you dont need to be christian to go to heaven. you dont need to be in constant prayer or have been in constant prayer, you dont need to have worshiped god, you dont need to have followed the 10 commandments, you dont need to be what we consider a good person, ect im not seeing a uniformity in heaven...
"I also have a hard time with this serving God thing. If god gave us free will isn't tat an open invitation to not serve him. Even almost asking us not to serve him. Isn't that what angles are for?"
We do have free will; i do not mean serving him as in an act; but he created us, he obviously had a reason to create us, because he is all powerful/knowing we can assume that we are fulfilling the purpose he creates us to serve. by fulfilling this purpose we are serving him... this doesnt conflict with free will, no?
"Plus our servant human race is supposed to be best friends with this God"
i did not call the human race servants and i dont know of any christian religion that does...
"All I can say after coming out of working for the Church for 3 years is it's bullshit."
the Church is a institution of man. believing in a institution and believing in God are not the same. the institution is by no means infallible...
"Also, in religion, God doesn't serve us, we serve God..." -Point: Jesus dropped to his knees washing the feet of some fisherman and tax collectors... if that's not service.. I don't know what is."
you missed the point i was conveying. im not saying God has done nothing that has benefited humanity. My point was that God created us, and we are part of his plan, not the other way around...
in short your understanding of the Catholic religion seems childish at best... basically the equivalent of when you ask your parent something and they respond "because i said so"
> [RPA] Arocalex wrote:
> "Life is resilient "
What you mean is that 90% of the species die instantly while a small percentage by sheer luck manages to stay alive. In that sense, life is resilient.
10% is a significant percentage.... and its obvious the changes man made global warming would cause would be drastically less and considering that if the meteor didnt hit, the human race would likely not exist; the meteor birthed new life; and so would man made global warming.... ofcoarse with our specie's brain size and current technology it is unlikely we would be one of the species extinct from man made global warming...
> extreme wrote:
> "Also, in religion, God doesnt serve us, we serve God..."
Blindly. So why does God not show himself so the Christians can worship an undeniable memory of their devotion, and us 'unbelievers' can be proven wrong and possibly change ways?
why would an all-powerful being desire to show himself? why would he feel the need to prove his existence? if he did prove himself to everyone, wouldn't everyone have the same set of beliefs? do you consider uniformity a good thing? i dont. i enjoy the differences that exist throughout the human race, maybe God, if he exists does too.
> [TI] Lateralis wrote:
> If a large metor were to strike the earth, climate change might be the last thing to worry about! A metor striking the earth is what is believed to have wiped out the dinosaurs. I'd rather something like that didn't really happen!
Aside from that, I'm not quite sure what your point is?
yes, a large meteor is thought to be what has wiped out the dinosaur's, but even that did not wipe out life on the planet. To say that the comparatively slow climate change of manmade global warming is going to threaten a fragile equilibrium is bs. Life is resilient and those species that cant adapt will simply leave space for new species to evolve... to claim that a slow raise in global temperatures is gonna threaten to destroy the earth, is a bit far-fetched imo.
Lateralis, when you are taking into account the temperature the earth should be emitting, you mention the warmth we receive from the sun, but you ignore the warmth we get from below the earth's crust... tremendous heat is generate underneath our feet and some of that radiates to the surface....
i also have a problem with saying the earth is at a fragile equilibrium... the earth itself isnt alive. it contains living beings. certain being can survive difference climates. i dont see how an unnatural change in climate is any more devastating then a manmade one... for example a large meteor hits the earth and results in significant climate change for a prolonged period of time. its not like that drastic change threated to kill all life on the planet. a change in climate promotes a change in life... not the end of life...
"So my question is... Why has He, They, She, made themselves KNOWN in an undeniable sense? Why are they different in EVERY civilization. You'd think the person would want to let it's people KNOW that it is God and that it is PURPOSE. Because that's what God is right? Purpose? What else does God serve as if not purpose?"
why would God make himself known in an undeniable sense? what would be the point of believing in God if you were forced to beleive in him? And i rather enjoy the differences in different civilizations, and the different religions plays a significant part of that... Also, in religion, God doesnt serve us, we serve God...
> Ehawk wrote:
> no, i argue that religion was a social development that increased the rate of morality. in the long term, humans will develop morally on their own, i simply think religion was a way to assist peoples' immediate needs at the time. this resulted in a chain of events that allowed for growth and prosperity. keep in mind what life may have been like for the people during the time of religions' beginings, we needed that.
Now, in 2009, i think in most devolped nations, we have a level of moral and technological development where we do not need the ideas that kept societies alive. Truthfully, i wonder how some religions lasted as long as they did.
"Religion's are just like horses, nice to have around, but mabye its time you get a car"
my bad, i was mixing moral with morale...
> ☭ Fokker wrote:
> @ EVERYONE:
Is the answer to the following question obvious, yes or no?
> is this thread about atheists saying why they dont beleive [in god] or are you calling me out, telling me to tell you why you beleive [there is no god]? <
[quote edited for clarity]
thx for proving my point...
"So... because I know that alot of English words come from Dutch, and that I think Dutch is kind of poetic, it MUST mean that I consider any language that is a parent of English beautiful?"
nope, thats not what i was saying at all. apparently your ability to read at all. i did not claim that you must consider any language that is a parent of english beautiful because you consdier Dutch as kind of poetic. i stated that Dutch and english sharing words doesnt mean they cant vary greatly in beauty... which is against what you insinuated when you said "Would now be a bad time to point out that alot of English words come from that ugly language?" that comment insinuated that they cant very greatly in beauty because they share many words...
"It has nothing to do with you insinuating that you know the real reason as to why [Atheists] do not believe in god, it is irrelevant to the question, and is even irrelevant to what follows the semi-colon (probably because you don't know how to use one)."
i did not do that at all. i simply stated that i know the reason why atheists dont beleive in a god is not because of intelligence, IQ, education, or ability to think for yourself... and the statement before that you cut off explains why i think that...
"The only game I see is you trying to give the impression that you are addressing my request whilst trying to divert my"
oh yeah, because when you avoid a question by you saying shit like "I'd have thought that was obvious" is not only not playing a game, but shows that you have a genuine interest in me addressing your request...
he had sex with a goat...
maybe only the Dutch have this "sonar" ability...
> ☭ Fokker wrote:
> >
Please back up your statement with evidence. Or delete it. Let us not clutter this up with baseless personal opinion.
he provided a source in his 2nd post...
> ☭ Fokker wrote:
> > avogadro wrote:
> man, what an ugly language.... <
Would now be a bad time to point out that alot of English words come from that ugly language?
And for the record I think it's kind of poetic.
alot of english words come from alot of languages that doesnt make all those languages similar in beauty.... you're full of fail logic...
yeah, i find a language ugly and its ignorance.... /facepalm...
people have died from consuming too much water...
is this thread about atheists saying why they dont beleive or are you calling me out, telling me to tell you why you beleive? also, lolz at not even quoting the whole sentence.... pathetic games you play...
":confused: I never said that we were going to become extinct. At least not for that reason."
"One day you WILL be right, but by that time it won't happen as it will be irrelevant; something will have already broken, and I think it will be us."
in a thread about overpopulation, talking about the extinction of the race without mentioning the cause, implies that you suggest overpopulation as the cause. just like how despite me never saying specifically that you suggested the end of the world would be caused by overpopulation, it is implied.... please dont play the childish game where you pretend you dont know when you imply something... if by this time you dont know how to have a simple conversation in english, you should jsut quit the forums...
"And I didn't say it can't, I said that it would not be as effective as you believe given the numbers involved."
you said "One day you WILL be right, but by that time it won't happen as it will be irrelevant; something will have already broken, and I think it will be us."
"When did I say we will fail?"
when you said "One day you WILL be right, but by that time it won't happen as it will be irrelevant; something will have already broken, and I think it will be us."
im gonna do research to find out ways to breathe that will cause the most co2 emissions and then advertise it on the internet...
it doesnt define what is greenhouse effect.
if greenhouse effects are simply the atmosphere that retains heat, then all heat above absolute zero is being retained by the gasses. the average temperaure of the earth is around 58 degress Fahrenheit that would mean that the greenhouse gasses increase our temperature by roughly 518 Fahrenheit degrees, so using the .28% figure you provided, that would mean man made global warming is currently increasing the average global temperature roughly 1.45 Fahrenheit degrees....if i use the .38% you used in your first post, its 1.97 degrees.. is that much different then the scientists saying that global warming is a big issues? they didnt say that global warming has increased the temperature by 10 degrees, but jsut 1 or 2, right? if you plug in the 5% of greenhouse gasses that you claim the scientists who think we have a significant effect use; then you have us increasing the global temperature by over 25 degrees Fahrenheit; i have never heard of anyone claiming we are currently increasing the average temperature over 3 degrees, so i doubt they are making that mistake...
man, what an ugly language....
Imperial Forum → Posts by avogadro
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.