Good Guy Lucifer Is An Underrated Meme

[buggz05]

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

It's so simple I don't see why she doesn't see that she's accusing us of possibly doing a horrible act religious ppl have already do. Like is that some weak attempt to compare us to them? I mean somebody clue me in to the part of history where atheists started culling the religious.

Reprogramming?

Deprogramming.

2008? It must be a new thing. Shouldn't be too long before they have their own infomercials at the rate Atheist are going.
The thing is that you guys discount your own revelations that history has been rewritten. So how long do you really think this arguing stuff has been going on? 5000 years? 6000 years? 12000 years?

So many books of science, metaphysics and spirituality have been burned by the Romans and the Catholic Church.  All of that information was replaced with propaganda, and successfully separated science from the western church. (This is not meant to be a statement about religion/science, but history).

Most of you know this as fact. If this is fact, then many possibilities are in the depths of these acts. It's not as simple as A, or B. 

The argument that "God doesn't exist" is a very simple one. There is no evidence. Very simple. You don't need mass book burnings to hide this argument. 

So what has been rewritten? 

 

[shoefreakbaby]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by shoefreakbaby

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey


Irony, cause the opposite has been taking place for centuries----it's ok as long as we reprogram people to believe in our God

BS

Dont come at me for what others do, I have never done it.
I have never said its ok to do it. And I am not hostile to non believers.

.

But yeah you sound so logical, 

they did it, so why cant we.

Disclaimer: I'm not attacking you. I'm addressing your position and trying to undersand this, as three other posters have done.
Let me make sure I understood this process:
A. Express a possibility of an action to be taken against you
B. Receive counter-example of a similar action supported by followers of a personally affiliated group.

C. Deny association with "other" members of personally affiliated group.

This is what Israelis and Zionists are doing against Palestinians right now. They justify their current use of aggression towards other groups by falling back on the holocaust as an example of what could happen to them. They fail to realize that they have become what they once feared.

Just making sure that I understood this.

Well to be honest with you, anyone who DOES this, is a monster and lacks even the basic concepts of altruism or even the vaguest recognition of empathy.

Its somehow fair for you to assert that atheists are the equivalent of the boogey monster...but then its unfair to recall historical examples that show examples of those same actions taken by members of your group against others. 

I have no intention of harming you, and I would do everything in my power to protect your autonomy if possible. I seek to do all things to support and sustain humanity, no matter the barrier.

Before you bring up the Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc thing remember this: Hitler = Catholic. All the rest? They were secularists/atheists. But they were also really crazy people. If you basically have people WORSHIPPING you? Thats a form of religion, even though there is no recognition of a "supernatural" deity. The fervor that North Koreans have for Kim Jong-il and now Kim il-Sung is an example of a religion. So yes, even societies that are officially "atheist" (regarding abrahamic traditions or western conceptions of religion) can still fail to be "secular" entities.

Your argument is a Straw-man. You set non-believers (i hate the word "atheist") up to be the fall guy for a potentially heinous and unsubstantiated act then act like you didn't set up the premise in the first place...and THEN you use the argument that you created out of nowhere as if it is a real possibility and almost tangible entity to justify any bias you have towards an entire group of people.

None of it makes any sense to me.

My whole approach was to show you guys (not all non believers but you non believers specifically on this forum)in the most snarky way, that with the way you guys are acting,
 you  are very close to resembling the people you despise so much,that's it end of story.
Im guessing in general you guys are just some snarky people *cough* anton*cough*

I never said it was unfair to bring up events, you can bring up every event.

But you will never be able to bring up an event where I was personally involved that was my whole point to anton.

___

"It's so simple I don't see why she doesn't see that she's accusing us of possibly doing a horrible act religious ppl have already do. Like is that some weak attempt to compare us to them? I mean somebody clue me in to the part of history where atheists started culling the religious."

By George his got it, 

Im trolling.

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]__[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]

 don't rele care wuh ppl say I dun rele wah whuh dem wah do

I swear I read this like 5 times before I realize what it was 

 

[scotthallwithapick]

1st thread where I not only agree with sillyputty (I usually always do) but I feel he didn't go too far and actually addressed every point without being condescending. I only read up to page 7 so if he went back to the old sillyputty I take this back

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by buggz05

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

It's so simple I don't see why she doesn't see that she's accusing us of possibly doing a horrible act religious ppl have already do. Like is that some weak attempt to compare us to them? I mean somebody clue me in to the part of history where atheists started culling the religious.

Reprogramming?

Deprogramming.

2008? It must be a new thing. Shouldn't be too long before they have their own infomercials at the rate Atheist are going.

In 2008 atheists culled the religious?

or are you seriously asking about 2008 like I'm suppose to be aware of that happening in that year?

I'll assume you don't know what cull means unless you're gonna provide the necessary evidence.

The thing is that you guys discount your own revelations that history has been rewritten. So how long do you really think this arguing stuff has been going on? 5000 years? 6000 years? 12000 years?
Since ppl felt they needed to be gullible/faithful to believe in something. Date that back to whenever you want to.

 

[antonlavey]

LOL @ the new strategy religious people are using to disrespect atheists---they are done arguing the validity of their claims so they resort to claiming atheists are just as bad as they are.

Yea sure we murdered people and converted them to our religion but watch atheists are going to do it in the future. You know you're a horrible human being when you can't even defend your actions so you resort to projecting your own sentiments on other people.


You're just like us Christians, got em coach

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by buggz05

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

It's so simple I don't see why she doesn't see that she's accusing us of possibly doing a horrible act religious ppl have already do. Like is that some weak attempt to compare us to them? I mean somebody clue me in to the part of history where atheists started culling the religious.

Reprogramming?

Deprogramming.

2008? It must be a new thing. Shouldn't be too long before they have their own infomercials at the rate Atheist are going.

But thats the thing. Non-believers in Zeus aren't making commercials. Do you see my point?
Non-theists (what people call "militant" atheists) don't want alternatives to religion. They just don't want religion, period. 

The thing is that you guys discount your own revelations that history has been rewritten. So how long do you really think this arguing stuff has been going on? 5000 years? 6000 years? 12000 years?

Does that validate or prove the existence of a god?

If anything else, our improved knowledge of the way the world works has lowered the realm of existence of god to an asymptote of zero with each discovery. 

So many books of science, metaphysics and spirituality have been burned by the Romans and the Catholic Church.

  The funny thing about religion is that if all knowledge of religion AND science were wiped out today and no trace was left...
Which do you think would be regained in entirety? The religion in its EXACT same form? Or our scientific understanding of the way the world works?

Sure some words might be different and the length of time towards the next discovery might be a little longer or shorter than we expect, but whats true, will always be true. We would eventually rediscover germs and develop vaccines and build machines that use electricity, or develop our understanding of materials science.

Our pursuit towards inquiry would not be eliminated. 

However a completely new religion might pop up and it would be entirely different from every present notion of a "higher power"

Science, and our pursuit of it is more objective (notice I didn't say absolutely) by nature than any spiritual or religious endeavor.

All of that information was replaced with propaganda, and successfully separated science from the western church. (This is not meant to be a statement about religion/science, but history).

As it should be. 

Science often works against established principles. As it should. Science shouldn't care about emotions, tradition, or any other subjective acceptance. It only cares about what is true and what is not proven to be true. Having largely influential infrastructures like organized religion in place to challenge scientific advances with its finite definitions and unwillingness to adapt ******s the growth of any beneficial knowledge base and collectively prevents us from even confirming or denying our suspicions.

I mean if nothing else, look at the stance of the catholic church in the last 100 years and things like birth control, STIs, and evolution. All of which are now not only accepted doctrine, but encouraged.

Most of you know this as fact. If this is fact, then many possibilities are in the depths of these acts. It's not as simple as A, or B.

Well its possible that the Annunaki visited ancient Egyptians and built the pyramids with massive diamonds at top the structures to project rays of light and connect astrally with distant civilizations. But we can't prove it beyond mere suspicion or even speculation, so at a certain level, the degree and extent of the debate must be brought to a point where we assess the information we have as being conclusive or not. 

The argument that "God doesn't exist" is a very simple one. There is no evidence. Very simple. You don't need mass book burnings to hide this argument. 

The burden of proof relies on the person making the claim.

So what has been rewritten? 

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

 

[shoefreakbaby]

Originally Posted by cap1229

Atheists. Ugh

Your avi, I can stare all day

 

[buggz05]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by sillyputty

I mean honestly, can't we just agree with the following?
If god exists and is omnipotent/scient/present, then God knows what I'm typing right now and knows what I will conclude this post with when I'm done.

In fact, God is then responsible for MAKING me an atheist, if nothing else.

So why would anyone be mad at me for expressing being a non-believer? Isn't this apart of god's plan to be here RIGHT NOW at this very second discussing this very topic? 

That's the way I see it, I'm simply evidence that God is highly incompetent---he/she/it dun goofed

This is a very foolish perspective on an omni-potent being. That's like me getting a tattoo of a stick figure, and then the stick figure telling me that I got the wrong tattoo because it isn't manly enough. 
No. I chose that stick figure tattoo for whatever reasons I was emotionally tied to it -- not because it's the most manliest of all things.

Nothing is perfect in our eyes because perfection is hard to see, comprehend. Just as an example to show you how limited our perception on perfection is, we can not socially define perfection in reality.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by shoefreakbaby

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by shoefreakbaby


Dont come at me for what others do, I have never done it.
I have never said its ok to do it. And I am not hostile to non believers.

.

But yeah you sound so logical, 

they did it, so why cant we.

Disclaimer: I'm not attacking you. I'm addressing your position and trying to undersand this, as three other posters have done.
Let me make sure I understood this process:
A. Express a possibility of an action to be taken against you
B. Receive counter-example of a similar action supported by followers of a personally affiliated group.

C. Deny association with "other" members of personally affiliated group.

This is what Israelis and Zionists are doing against Palestinians right now. They justify their current use of aggression towards other groups by falling back on the holocaust as an example of what could happen to them. They fail to realize that they have become what they once feared.

Just making sure that I understood this.

Well to be honest with you, anyone who DOES this, is a monster and lacks even the basic concepts of altruism or even the vaguest recognition of empathy.

Its somehow fair for you to assert that atheists are the equivalent of the boogey monster...but then its unfair to recall historical examples that show examples of those same actions taken by members of your group against others. 

I have no intention of harming you, and I would do everything in my power to protect your autonomy if possible. I seek to do all things to support and sustain humanity, no matter the barrier.

Before you bring up the Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc thing remember this: Hitler = Catholic. All the rest? They were secularists/atheists. But they were also really crazy people. If you basically have people WORSHIPPING you? Thats a form of religion, even though there is no recognition of a "supernatural" deity. The fervor that North Koreans have for Kim Jong-il and now Kim il-Sung is an example of a religion. So yes, even societies that are officially "atheist" (regarding abrahamic traditions or western conceptions of religion) can still fail to be "secular" entities.

Your argument is a Straw-man. You set non-believers (i hate the word "atheist") up to be the fall guy for a potentially heinous and unsubstantiated act then act like you didn't set up the premise in the first place...and THEN you use the argument that you created out of nowhere as if it is a real possibility and almost tangible entity to justify any bias you have towards an entire group of people.

None of it makes any sense to me.

My whole approach was to show you guys (not all non believers but you non believers specifically on this forum)in the most snarky way, that with the way you guys are acting,
 you  are very close to resembling the people you despise so much,that's it end of story.
Im guessing in general you guys are just some snarky people *cough* anton*cough*

I never said it was unfair to bring up events, you can bring up every event.

But you will never be able to bring up an event where I was personally involved that was my whole point to anton.

In no way shape or form are any non believers in this thread acting like or even slightly resembling genocidal maniacs, supremacists, or their followers. You have clearly never met anyone like that to bring the weak attempt of trying to compare us to them.

All you've been doing is assuming intent, motives, and creating your own narrative to post nonsense.

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by buggz05

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by sillyputty

I mean honestly, can't we just agree with the following?
If god exists and is omnipotent/scient/present, then God knows what I'm typing right now and knows what I will conclude this post with when I'm done.

In fact, God is then responsible for MAKING me an atheist, if nothing else.

So why would anyone be mad at me for expressing being a non-believer? Isn't this apart of god's plan to be here RIGHT NOW at this very second discussing this very topic? 

That's the way I see it, I'm simply evidence that God is highly incompetent---he/she/it dun goofed

This is a very foolish perspective on an omni-potent being. That's like me getting a tattoo of a stick figure, and then the stick figure telling me that I got the wrong tattoo because it isn't manly enough. 
No. I chose that stick figure tattoo for whatever reasons I was emotionally tied to it -- not because it's the most manliest of all things.

Nothing is perfect in our eyes because perfection is hard to see, comprehend. Just as an example to show you how limited our perception on perfection is, we can not socially define perfection in reality.

Yea your opinion and interpretation clearly hold more weight based on facts and evidence


But based on your opinion, our flaws are still not our fault----My agnosticism could be a sign of "God's perfection", still absolving me from all blame for being the way I am



He works in mysterious ways, most convenient answer to everything we had no bloody clue about

 

[aka longstroke]

....thus the reason I do not deal with Black Christian women.

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by buggz05

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by sillyputty

I mean honestly, can't we just agree with the following?
If god exists and is omnipotent/scient/present, then God knows what I'm typing right now and knows what I will conclude this post with when I'm done.

In fact, God is then responsible for MAKING me an atheist, if nothing else.

So why would anyone be mad at me for expressing being a non-believer? Isn't this apart of god's plan to be here RIGHT NOW at this very second discussing this very topic? 

That's the way I see it, I'm simply evidence that God is highly incompetent---he/she/it dun goofed

This is a very foolish perspective on an omni-potent being. That's like me getting a tattoo of a stick figure, and then the stick figure telling me that I got the wrong tattoo because it isn't manly enough. 
No. I chose that stick figure tattoo for whatever reasons I was emotionally tied to it -- not because it's the most manliest of all things.

Nothing is perfect in our eyes because perfection is hard to see, comprehend. Just as an example to show you how limited our perception on perfection is, we can not socially define perfection in reality.

So he's not incompetent, he's malicious?

"If this is not the god's fault then that god cannot be omnipotent. If the god did not foresee this when it designed the universe it would certainly not be omniscient, it would not even be particularly intelligent.
If the god is omnipotent then these things exist because it wanted them to exist and that god is an evil twisted #%%#. If this universe isn't precisely in every little detail exactly how God wants it to be then God is not omnipotent. If it is, then the god is evil and should be despised by all decent people and certainly not adored and worshiped."

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

 

[shoefreakbaby]

Originally Posted by AKA LONGSTROKE

....thus the reason I do not deal with Black Christian women.

Reported

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by TroyMcClure

Nah.
You sound like the type of person that would just keep driving after witnessing a ten car pile up. "Well, I hope those people are okay. I'm sure someone will come and help them out soon.

You sound like an unedumacated fella. How do you make that inference off of what I said? lulz.

I actually witnessed a car explode once and then ran over there to make sure no one was in it and then knocked on everyones door to warn them. But you are right. I do suck.

If you see something wrong, in your eyes, but choose not to do anything to affect that situation, what does that make you? I don't think insulting others is the way go about doing things (although I don't think pointing out inconsistencies or logical fallacies within their religious framework is an insult) but I believe it is crucial that there is a constant dialogue. We NEED people to go against the grain.

I stated before there is NO right or wrong. There is only faith, or lack there of. You can't tell someone their religious beliefs are "wrong" even if you quietly think that to yourself, they are in fact not..."wrong". We don't know, we might not ever know.

Science has done a lot to disprove many theories at least.

What is "the grain" you speak of? Why do people NEED to go against it?

You are right in saying there needs to be open dialogue, but only to enrich the realm of thought in us all collectively. Not to persuade one into a certain belief, or any systematic thought.

There will always be a myriad of beliefs and ideas regarding these subjects, the only conclusions we can come to are those of acceptance of others, and being at peace with difference.

Through open dialogue and expressed thought we can deepen our views on life, love, and culture. But not one particular argument will stand as a model of truth, ever, I don't think.

Maybe it's a bit of a stretch to compare driving by an accident and not helping to leaving others to their own devices as far as "finding the light" but that's just how I see it. I personally think there IS something wrong with being religious (the whole basing your life on faith as opposed to fact and reason thing kind of makes me nervous) so I DO think it's important that people are made aware.
Often when this point is raised, a counter argument is "well if it doesn't affect you personally why do you even care?" to which I'll reply that religious belief DOES affect you, me, and everyone else regardless of our belief or lack of belief. I don't know if you live in the US but I'll go ahead and assume you do (at the very least, I'll assume you live in an English speaking western society and were somehow into Nike sneakers at one point in your life.) Religious belief is prevalent everywhere and affects law-making and policy. Due to religious belief, we have some people arguing that creationism or intelligent design or whatever other name they come up with for that pseudoscience should be taught in school alongside actual science. We have people that obstruct doctors from performing potentially life-saving (and usually life-altering) practices like abortion. We have road blocks on funding for again potentially life-saving research in stem-cells. We have people in our population not extended the same benefits of marriage due to the religious groups opposition to their sexual orientation. Until not too long ago, slavery was justified via religious text. Throughout this countries history, war on our "enemies" has been justified with an "us vs them" mentality, with religious differences used as one of the tools to unite us for the cause. 

So sorry, I DO think there is a right and wrong. I DO think this country, and this world, would be a better place when people aren't chained down by religious dogma. Unfortunately, there are many more people that choose to believe in a higher deity (the grain) and fewer people who don't. I think it's important for non-believers to speak up (going against said grain.)

 

[Jordan8]

sillyputty wrote:

---

I mean honestly, can't we just agree with the following?
If god exists and is omnipotent/scient/present, then God knows what I'm typing right now and knows what I will conclude this post with when I'm done.

In fact, God is then responsible for MAKING me an atheist, if nothing else.

So why would anyone be mad at me for expressing being a non-believer? Isn't this apart of god's plan to be here RIGHT NOW at this very second discussing this very topic? 

Its not free will if its up to god's divine plan, right? 

So either god made me an atheist, because god knows and can do everything, or I chose to be an atheist, thus making god unable to know and do everything.

If there is ONE thing you don't know, or ONE thing you can't do, then you're neither omniscient, or omnipotent.

99.99% will never be 100%

(unless you use that wild math problem that proves .999 = 1 

) 



Again if a god exists you nor anyone else can possibly interpret the "thought process" of it and using western morals to define a God's idea of good & evil is the smallest of thinking.

You argue your point using the same God characteristics that the people you ridicule use.. a man in the sky making decisions

 

The truth is most atheists have a unresolved oedipus complex

 which is why they cant live and let live they have a vested interest in "killing god"

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by buggz05

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by sillyputty

I mean honestly, can't we just agree with the following?
If god exists and is omnipotent/scient/present, then God knows what I'm typing right now and knows what I will conclude this post with when I'm done.

In fact, God is then responsible for MAKING me an atheist, if nothing else.

So why would anyone be mad at me for expressing being a non-believer? Isn't this apart of god's plan to be here RIGHT NOW at this very second discussing this very topic? 

That's the way I see it, I'm simply evidence that God is highly incompetent---he/she/it dun goofed

This is a very foolish perspective on an omni-potent being. That's like me getting a tattoo of a stick figure, and then the stick figure telling me that I got the wrong tattoo because it isn't manly enough. 

So whats wrong with then denying the existence of the arm you reside on?
This is the best example I can create:

Its like babies in the womb. 




Are they aware that they live within their mother? 




The baby could assert that there is a god-figure called "mom" that communicates through the rope in its stomach. 

But an honest baby and skeptic would assert the following:




Its possible that there is a mom. But I can not prove it one way or another. The only way to know if there is a mom, is to leave the womb. Thats the only way that theory can be tested.




Simply guessing that there is a mom, doesn't qualify. Even though it ends up being the right answer.




If a twin baby asserted that there was a mom after being born and they "see the light" 

, then that baby, while it might have been right about its guess, was being inconsistent and illogical. It had no reason to make its assertions and was proved right merely by coincidence. 




Furthermore, the claim of "is there mom after birth" can be PROVEN. 




I can't prove there is no god. I don't know. It would be dishonest of me to say that I know that there is no god. Its like saying that I know Rick Santorum is a straight man. I can't prove that he really is.

...I have my suspicions, but I can't reasonably assert it, so I therefore, do not. I haven't been presented any evidence to substantiate the claim. No one has ever died and came back to tell us (that didn't have an out of body experience which is currently more understood by neuroscience than in the context of a spiritual/supernatural experience...and tried to write a book about it... 

No. I chose that stick figure tattoo for whatever reasons I was emotionally tied to it -- not because it's the most manliest of all things.

OK...but that stick tattoo would have no reason to assert there is anything that exists outside of its 2-D realm.

This is just like the Truman Show.

If you are not presented evidence to an alternative, no matter how much you "believe" in something or how many people claim to have the same conclusion, then you can not support the claim. 

Otherwise we would convict people in court based on our feelings and not the prevalence of overwhelming evidence...BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

Thats it.

Nothing is perfect in our eyes because perfection is hard to see, comprehend. Just as an example to show you how limited our perception on perfection is, we can not socially define perfection in reality

.There are birds that can see in the UV spectrum of "visible" light. 

Their perception is different from our own. 

Are there animals that sense magnetic pulses? Sure.

Are there animals that hear other frequencies? Yep.

Are there things that we can't sense? Absolutely.

But I can't make judgements on them as I do not possess the faculties to extrapolate the existence of other things on those unsubstantiated premises.


My point is this. 

In arguments when anything is possible, nothing can be deemed a wrong, or illogical answer. 

So as much as you assert there is a god (of whatever religion or geo-political influence you want) then I can equally and totally assert a competing claim that spiderman is watching over each and every oen of us. 

Without the standard to affirm claims, all claims are valid. 

But we know this isn't the case.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by cartune

sillyputty wrote:

---

I mean honestly, can't we just agree with the following?
If god exists and is omnipotent/scient/present, then God knows what I'm typing right now and knows what I will conclude this post with when I'm done.

In fact, God is then responsible for MAKING me an atheist, if nothing else.

So why would anyone be mad at me for expressing being a non-believer? Isn't this apart of god's plan to be here RIGHT NOW at this very second discussing this very topic? 

Its not free will if its up to god's divine plan, right? 

So either god made me an atheist, because god knows and can do everything, or I chose to be an atheist, thus making god unable to know and do everything.

If there is ONE thing you don't know, or ONE thing you can't do, then you're neither omniscient, or omnipotent.

99.99% will never be 100%

(unless you use that wild math problem that proves .999 = 1 

) 

Again if a god exists you nor anyone else can possibly interpret the "thought process" of it and using western morals to define a God's idea of good & evil is the smallest of thinking. 
This is an unsubstantiated claim.
You can't assert any qualities to that which you can't define in the first place.

Additionally, it is possible that a god in the form you claim does exist...but as I have no evidence to accept this claim, I can not justifably assert it as being true.

Where is the standard for affirming this claim?

Merely accepting it because you want to, doesn't make it more valid of a conjecture.

You argue your point using the same God characteristics that the people you ridicule use.. a man in the sky making decisions 

 

OK.
If you assert another type/entity of god exists then you must support that claim.

If god isn't an anthropomorphic entity that sits atop an ivory throne but rather a glowing ball of energy at the center of the emission of the measured dark energy in space, then so be it.

But until you can support that claim, your conclusion is not justified in any direction.

The truth is most atheists have a unresolved oedipus complex 

 which is why they cant live and let live they have a vested interest in "killing god"=

Uh....wha....?

Huh? 

What are you talking about? 

Oedipus complex?...did you really mean to use that phrase?...No offense, but I don't think that means...what you think it means... 

 

[buggz05]

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by buggz05

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

It's so simple I don't see why she doesn't see that she's accusing us of possibly doing a horrible act religious ppl have already do. Like is that some weak attempt to compare us to them? I mean somebody clue me in to the part of history where atheists started culling the religious.

Reprogramming?

Deprogramming.

2008? It must be a new thing. Shouldn't be too long before they have their own infomercials at the rate Atheist are going.

In 2008 atheists culled the religious?

or are you seriously asking about 2008 like I'm suppose to be aware of that happening in that year?

It was really just sort of a blanket statement question. As if to say... Who is keeping track of this? Would that be something new?

 

[aka longstroke]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by AKA LONGSTROKE

....thus the reason I do not deal with Black Christian women.

I have a "date" with one this weekend, the trick is to make it clear right off the bat that you don't play that sh$$ if they like you enough they usually overlook it and never bring it up


"I'm dark skinned and bald so I hate you and I hate Jesus"

GOOD LUCK!



I'm retired!

 

[aka longstroke]

Anton, what happened to your post that I quoted? WTH is going on around here?

 

[antonlavey]

Originally Posted by AKA LONGSTROKE

Anton, what happened to your post that I quoted? WTH is going on around here?

RIP

 

[aka longstroke]

Originally Posted by AntonLaVey

Originally Posted by AKA LONGSTROKE

Anton, what happened to your post that I quoted? WTH is going on around here?

RIP

Ridiculous. 
smh

 

[cap1229]

.

 

[ninjahood]

this whole post reminds me when you're tryin to tell a kid that santa is just their parents with a credit card.....

 

[|A-Man|]

Originally Posted by buggz05

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

Originally Posted by buggz05

2008? It must be a new thing. Shouldn't be too long before they have their own infomercials at the rate Atheist are going.

In 2008 atheists culled the religious?

or are you seriously asking about 2008 like I'm suppose to be aware of that happening in that year?

It was really just sort of a blanket statement question. As if to say... Who is keeping track of this? Would that be something new?

Well yeah it would be something new if it happened and things would be a whole lot different after. Culling theists would be right up there with any other mass tragedy.