Breathe
Hostis humani generis
I can't be the only one who's noticed an influx in people who keep mentioning they're not theists ad nauseam, can I?
WE R ATHEISTS N WE R 2 EDGY 4 U
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why God created human beings and he knows not all of them will obey him
- Thread starter Camatose
- Start date
I can't be the only one who's noticed an influx in people who keep mentioning they're not theists ad nauseam, can I?
WE R ATHEISTS N WE R 2 EDGY 4 U
Camatose
Member
You assume that obedience is the point. It isn't, clearly.
You assume that Heaven and Hell were designed for humans exclusively. But if humans were not designed, he very well might have made Heaven and Hell for dogs or snails or Marklars from the planet Marklar. Also, your last statement is completely meaningless. Of course if we didn't exist at all we wouldn't be suffering. What's the point of pointing that out? If there was no such thing as red then fire engines would never be red! REVELATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Do you suspect that God is incapable of suspending his own abilities? Such as, could an almighty God not design all of reality and then remove his own ability to remember what it will turn out like? Would you consider a being that could do anything and knows everything EXCEPT the future not god? What would you call such a being?
No. Obviously no one here is omniscient. And even if we were omniscient there is a character limit on posts for this forum.
WHAT?!?! REALLY?!?! YOU DON'T?!?! I NEVER WOULD HAVE GUESSED!
Take a number, chief.
After you teach yourself how to be respectful not arrogant religious then come here and post your disgusting words. It's a shame !
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
Camatose
Member
Due lack of my time, I'll close this discussion for myself so I'll leave it open for the members to negotiate, it's good to understand religion some people locked up their mind for their beliefs and they might use me such a paper for their propaganda it's a good reason to be out of the picture and leave this for you. Remember the main goal to reach the truth not matter what. I don't carry hatred for any religion 
.
.
Breathe
Hostis humani generis
McGoats?Haha Totes McGoats.
That means 'totally!' in new-fangled jargon.
Sounds like a regional McDonalds food.
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
I'll respect what I feel deserves it. Anyone who makes glaring assumptions about a God-concept they obviously don't understand in the slightest and then decides to jump on a pseudo-moral high-horse and ride off into the sunset instead of addressing these assumptions when they are pointed out to them doesn't deserve it.
Furthermore, I have no intention of ever teaching myself to not be arrogant, as that is exactly the human being I intend to be. If that prevents you from mustering a response to what I consider valid points, I will simply accept the victory, tuck it in my belt next to a thousand others, dust off my hands and consider it a job well-done. You can try to shame me about that, too if you think it will help your case. It won't. But you can try.
I would, however, encourage you to simply go line by line and read what I've written, find some obvious or subtle discrepancy in what I've said and expose me for the idiotic religious idiot I am idiotically displaying to you. THAT will help your case. But, of course, that would be assuming such discrepancies exist. Which they don't.
Your court... The ball is in it.
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
McGoats?
Sounds like a regional McDonalds food.
I stole it from a movie.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1155056/
Logically, either he does not exist; or he does not care about universal submission to his will; or he lacks the power to make it so; or he has such power, but it would cost him something that he deems more important.
Theistic religions seem to mostly choose 4 - that is in fact why a concept of "free will" exists, far as I can tell - with a taste of 2 thrown in for measure. I believe some less widespread theisms choose 3, though.