44: But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Imagine you had omnipotent power like "God". You're going to tell me that you would do good for the world and help everone. We would live in peace forever and ever.
Okay, God is NOT a HUMAN. He does not lust the things of this world my friend. He does not have the same desires nor does he have the same intentions.
Your "God" has omnipotent power and claims through Christ that we should forgive and love each other. Yet 1/3 of your "God's" angels rebelled with Lucifer. Why did they rebel against a perfect loving being? He was omnipotent and providing to there every need right? Somewhere in the bible it says when you go to heaven you can praise God forever and ever. Talk about pride and ego. God got angry at people and flooded the earth, he released plaques. That is not good and holy, that is evil. God is a murderer. God is a child with a magnifying glass and we are ants. He does not care about people, we are here for his enjoynment.
Absolute power corrupts absolutly, even God is not immune.
Of course there is no loving and merciful God to you, you don't believe in Him!
1/3 of the angels fell because they were led of Lucifer, they challenged God's authority, and they failed at their purpose of worshipping God. That is why they fell, they chose NOT to do what God had appointed them to do. It …
You aren't seriously backing his theory, are you? I mean, sure.. if you bridge reality and fantasy like that, then you are right, there is no proof that such a theory could not exist. Then I can make a theory that I am the only human on this planet, everyone else is just a robot in human form! The Earth is just like the Truman show! lol.. do you see how ridiculous that sounds? If we do not count memories, text, scientific data, etc. as proof, then ANYTHING would be possible. His 30-second theory was dumb, and completely irrelevant to the discussion of atheism and Christianity. In no way whatsoever did he connect his theory with our discussion. And personally, I think we have talked about this '30 second theory' way too long..
You are really really sensitive. Let's try this again
I can hate an act (and again I said I don't really hate it, I was trying to make a point) of a person without hating the person.
It's a Christian phrase to hate the sin and not the sinner is it not? It you hate the sinner you are not loving your enemy as Jesus commanded. I'm sure you despise many things in the world but make sure it's things you are against because when you go against people you are judging them and you're not allowed to do that according to your religion.
Lighten up! Reality must be hard for you. The real world is evil:twisted:
What are you talking about? The proportions have to add up to 1. If the atheist proportion is increasing, the non-atheist proportion has to decrease. Or do you have some argument based on your proposition that pi equals 3?
I don't think you have any room to ask what I am talking about my friend. Everything you say doesn't make a bit of sense. I mean, you were the one who invented a new word, stupiddectuals... come on!
lol.. Actually, all religions are growing.. perhaps not at the same rate, but all are increasing none the less. And I don't know the exact numbers, but I was unaware that atheism was growing that quickly.. However, I'm not quite sure where they get these numbers from.. I doubt most atheists care enough to actually report that they are atheist.
That is EXACTLY what I was trying to say. Sturm - I'm sorry you didn't comprehend what I was talking about. And like Josh said, I don't think a true atheist would really care about it.
It's wrong actually. The correct answer is that you can't tell based on the data. It doesn't state where the combined masses come to a halt for example, nor the ground friction component acting on them. As such there's just one vector out of several you need to compute the entire energy distribution of the system before and after the collision (and that's when seeing it as a 2 dimensional solid body problem, it could be a 3 dimensional problem with other factors coming into play like the bodies dividing up their masses on collision causing multiple bodies to leave the scene afterwards, dispersing the energy).
I think the objects are supposed to be assumed as point particles, rather than 3-dimensional objects. Also, other velocity variables (such as air resistance and static friction) should not be considered.
Did you read what I said? I said that the number of atheists GROW every year AND not PROPERTIONAL to the population growth.
Ok lets do the math in July 2006 there were 6,525,170,264 people on the Earth. Thats means that 16.858% of the people on earth are atheists, anti-theists, agnostics, etc. This is _ALOT_ more that say 25 years ago.
Uhh yes I did read what you said. You don't have to be so rude. I was just showing that even tho you say the number of atheists are growing every year, it doesn't really matter because every other religion is growing at the same rate.
2.1 billion people in this world today. 1.3 billion people. 1.1 billion people, people, people, people. 900 million people. 394 million people. 376 million people.
Maybe my set of values is wrong.
I was replying to Sturm when he said:
"many people will be disappointed to hear that eventually religion will die as will god. Look at the statistics, every year the number of atheist increases (and not propertional to the population growth)."
The numbers represent how many people believe in some sort of religion or for atheists, no religion at all. I was showing that more people believe in something rather than nothing.
