Good Guy Lucifer Is An Underrated Meme

[aka longstroke]

Originally Posted by cap1229

Originally Posted by AKA LONGSTROKE

Originally Posted by cap1229

AKA ...what was your screen name before this? I see some posting patterns and I wanna be sure of who you are before I come at you.

Perhaps if you, yourself, had a higher post count, I might answer that question.

yeah it maybe not be wise to answer that question considering it ain't nothing for me to go rogue and I like this name.

Oh yeah, we all must be in fear of words via the internet. 
It's funny as to how so many do not come equipped on threads such as this, declaring faith over actual intelligence.

 

[pharelfor3]

smh @ this whole thread. I'm so damn confused

 

[Mark Antony]

Again it's not complaining, and it's not about this thread, it was just posted here. But nevermind, carry on.

 

[iamjusayn]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by Iamjusayn

Question for Anton and SP.�

Shoot.

Before you two decided to become Atheist while observing others who were atheist

Not to become one. There was a point where I didn't know that it was OK to not believe in a/any god/s.

and how they lived their lives along with their progress in life you saw that their life was filled with negativity and shortcomings, would you have still chosen to go that route (become an atheist or stay one

For every Mitt Romney, there is a Joe Six Pack.

But they still vote republican, do they not?

The point is, the stance you take and the validity of that stance does not indicate how you live your life.

Christians aren't the only successful people in the world.




I accepted that I was an atheist before I knew that there were famous people who were non-believers, and long after that did I learn about famous BLACK non-believers, an even rarer status to claim.

...however you want to slice it)?
You're basically making a case that I should accept the validity of someone's statements because of the�perceived�success of their personal lives?
So is math less valid if taught by a rich man versus that taught by a poor man?�

Basically most people make their decisions based off prior knowledge, observation, research, etc etc

Well yeah, don't you?
Do you just randomly draft NFL/NBA players or do you calculate their past performance within tightly measured metrics and attempt to reliably predict how they might perform on a professional level?

Do you not make hypothesis using your knowledge about what the weather will be to decide what to wear?�

Do you not toy around with the right cooking times to get your pasta al dente?�

But accepting religious claims? No, we just embrace the first and only retelling of a story and don't see to validate any sort of conjecture contained within it.

so what I would like to know is if you interacted, talked to and observed other people who denied god's existence like you do now and their lives were always filled with mayhem (like what some would consider "bad luck", constant failures...almost like they can't do any right) UNLIKE the people who did believe in god, would you have still chosen to be an atheist?

Well, Yeah?

�I'd still be a non-believer.
There are tons of rich Saudi's and relatives to royal dynasties in the gulf area running around blowing money fast out here, but I don't see any Americans converting to Islam.�

The answer to your question depends on how impressionable you are and how mature you are as a person.

Can you separate the validity of what someone is saying from your emotional attachment to whatever is being said? I guess thats why I'm so vilified on here.

I've seen devout *insert religion*�people that were addicted to drugs, had problems handling money, were illiterate (funny how that works), had no understanding of modern science, were bigoted, had poor health, etc.�

So what makes their claims about the suggestions of religion�

Serious question. If you feel obliged be sarcastic then whatever but it's a serious question.

Seriously?

I actually feel obliged to be sarcastic to you.�

Why?

This was a poorly reasoned question.

Its like asking Rosie O'Donnell if she would still choose to advocate for children if she wasn't a lesbian because most lesbians�advocate�for children...�

. Not only is it supremely ignorant, it doesn't even ask a question that offers a legitimate comparison.

This is a quote from Senator Barney Frank I hope breaks what you expect from people:

---

---

 Screen name SP. Why are your responses filled with the implication that my stance was biased? My stance was/is neutral in which I posed the questions.
I never said Christians were successful or not successful nor did I mention anyone being famous or not. Relax bro.

You are so quick to jump to sarcasm (took the bait just as I presumed like those creatures in the garden who fell for forbidden fruit. I call this forbidden sarcasm

) as a defense mechanism but all it does is jade your ability to concisely respond the the question at hand. You are goin off on a tangent. There are not a lot of Americans converting to Islam? Really? That's interesting news to me.

In conclusion, it appears that you a true atheist rider...a martyr if you will. Tell me if I am wrong or not? You are the type with the special ability to fully trick your mind (left brain, since you logically decided to become an athest) into doing whatever it is you (right brain) want it to do (double negative), right? I call this the "mental antagonist"

. For example (hypothetical but plausible, depending on your beliefs), no matter how many atheist start dropping like birds out of the sky with distorted electromagnetic biological rhythms left n right for what seems like no apparent reason...you would still stick by your atheist position, correct? If you found out that all these folks who started failing at everything they attempted and were dying at a rapid pace while the people who were neutral in their stance (or on the fence) and the believers in god were doing average to well...you would still hold strong to your atheist beliefs and not bat an eye at rethinking your stance or altering your position, right? A true martyr you are bro. I commend you for being such a ride or die *pun intended* type guy. 

BTW, your interview example was poor and unnecessary because obviously there would be some type of ulterior motive for barney to want decriminalization of weed, regardless of if he smokes or not. It's called taxation. Thanks for response.

 

[iamjusayn]

Originally Posted by ATGD7154xBBxMZ

 

[aka longstroke]

Originally Posted by Mark Antony

Again it's not complaining, and it's not about this thread, it was just posted here. But nevermind, carry on.

It seems as if your rear has puckered up a bit since you first posted with such aggression on this topic. You seemed to want to say something, why don't you just say it? Do you really want to believe, then are afraid to say it? Do you really want to say that you are an atheist, then are afraid of holding that position?
You came at me as if I didn't have a right to my opinion, you called me corny.




Well, at least I've shown the courage of my convictions.

Either man up, or stand down.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by Iamjusayn

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by Iamjusayn

Question for Anton and SP.�

Shoot.

Before you two decided to become Atheist while observing others who were atheist

Not to become one. There was a point where I didn't know that it was OK to not believe in a/any god/s.

and how they lived their lives along with their progress in life you saw that their life was filled with negativity and shortcomings, would you have still chosen to go that route (become an atheist or stay one

You're basically making a case that I should accept the validity of someone's statements because of the�perceived�success of their personal lives?
So is math less valid if taught by a rich man versus that taught by a poor man?�

Basically most people make their decisions based off prior knowledge, observation, research, etc etc

Well yeah, don't you?
Do you just randomly draft NFL/NBA players or do you calculate their past performance within tightly measured metrics and attempt to reliably predict how they might perform on a professional level?

Do you not make hypothesis using your knowledge about what the weather will be to decide what to wear?�

Do you not toy around with the right cooking times to get your pasta al dente?�

But accepting religious claims? No, we just embrace the first and only retelling of a story and don't see to validate any sort of conjecture contained within it.

so what I would like to know is if you interacted, talked to and observed other people who denied god's existence like you do now and their lives were always filled with mayhem (like what some would consider "bad luck", constant failures...almost like they can't do any right) UNLIKE the people who did believe in god, would you have still chosen to be an atheist?

Well, Yeah?

�I'd still be a non-believer.
There are tons of rich Saudi's and relatives to royal dynasties in the gulf area running around blowing money fast out here, but I don't see any Americans converting to Islam.�

The answer to your question depends on how impressionable you are and how mature you are as a person.

Can you separate the validity of what someone is saying from your emotional attachment to whatever is being said? I guess thats why I'm so vilified on here.

I've seen devout *insert religion*�people that were addicted to drugs, had problems handling money, were illiterate (funny how that works), had no understanding of modern science, were bigoted, had poor health, etc.�

So what makes their claims about the suggestions of religion�

Serious question. If you feel obliged be sarcastic then whatever but it's a serious question.

Seriously?

I actually feel obliged to be sarcastic to you.�

Why?

This was a poorly reasoned question.

Its like asking Rosie O'Donnell if she would still choose to advocate for children if she wasn't a lesbian because most lesbians�advocate�for children...�

. Not only is it supremely ignorant, it doesn't even ask a question that offers a legitimate comparison.

This is a quote from Senator Barney Frank I hope breaks what you expect from people:

---

---

 Screen name SP. Why are your responses filled with the implication that my stance was biased? My stance was/is neutral in which I posed the questions.
Here we go. You're mad that I didn't like the question.
Well why did you ignore the other three posters that said this was also a pretty ridiculous question?

I never said Christians were successful or not successful nor did I mention anyone being famous or not. Relax bro

But you used it as a means of validating whether or not the claims asserted by christians or atheists were valid or reasonable.

You asked if there was a failure in life that was an atheist, would I be an atheist? And I said No, because the two are not even related.

You DID say that. Read what you wrote. I'm not rewriting your words.

You are so quick to jump to sarcasm (took the bait just as I presumed like those creatures in the garden who fell for forbidden fruit. I call this forbidden sarcasm 

) as a defense mechanism but all it does is jade your ability to concisely respond the the question at hand.

I won't challenge your ability to write a simple question that you managed to draw out into a 5 paragraph sentence, because that would be "mean."

But how is it a defense mechanism when you ask me such an asinine question? 

Does math being taught by a poor man, make math any less rational?

You are goin off on a tangent. There are not a lot of Americans converting to Islam? Really? That's interesting news to me.

Thats not a tangent. You linked the success of people's personal lives to their ability to accept whether or not a god exists.

If there are all these rich people ripping up dirt roads in the middle east in italian and german sports cars, then shouldn't I become a muslim on that accord?

But no, this doesn't make sense to you.

However, this is the very question you asked.

Just THINK about what you're asking me.

In conclusion, it appears that you a true atheist rider...a martyr if you will.

Uh...no actually.
I'm all about self-preservation. If someone holds a gun to my head and tells me to profess faith in spiderman, you can bet your tail i'm dropping to one knee and thanking the stars for peter parker. 

Tell me if I am wrong or not?

You're wrong. And the example/explanation you provided was ridiculous.
Look what you did with Anton. He partially agreed with you and then you took no issue with his response.

I disagree, and now you're mad.

Hilarious.

You are the type with the special ability to fully trick your mind (left brain, since you logically decided to become an athest) into doing whatever it is you (right brain) want it to do (double negative), right?

I'd like to say I'm pretty capable of being creative, artistic, and all the things traditionally associated with being right-brained.
I just don't lie to myself and call a cow a house.

 I call this the "mental antagonist" 

. 

I call it, making up pseudo-scientific words.

For example (hypothetical but plausible, depending on your beliefs), no matter how many atheist start dropping like birds out of the sky with distorted electromagnetic biological rhythms left n right for what seems like no apparent reason...you would still stick by your atheist position, correct?

Well if I had to accept a position for which I could not prove, then why would I accept it? I have no reason to.
And it would be quite a leap to associate sporadic patterns of death with the existence of a creator.

Thats like linking the number of pregnant teenage girls to the number of cell-phones in a particular state.

If you found out that all these folks who started failing at everything they attempted and were dying at a rapid pace while the people who were neutral in their stance (or on the fence) and the believers in god were doing average to well...you would still hold strong to your atheist beliefs and not bat an eye at rethinking your stance or altering your position, right?

This would imply that a creator does exist and enacts his will against those who didn't believe in it. Thus the existence of the creator would be substantiated, if it could be linked or extrapolated that far. There would be no argument to challenge. 
Your argument fails again.

A true martyr you are bro. I commend you for being such a ride or die *pun intended* type guy. 

Are you a martyr for the claim that spiderman doesn't exist?

Because I feel in my heart that it does.

BTW, your interview example was poor and unnecessary because obviously there would be some type of ulterior motive for barney to want decriminalization of weed, regardless of if he smokes or not. It's called taxation. Thanks for response.

The point was to show you that you can't just ask people things and expect answers.
You have to RECEIVE the answers they give you and go from there.

Don't attempt to set people up then get confused when they don't fall in line with your suspicions. 

 

[rufiorufiorufio]

Drake Drake Drake Drake Drake

 

[buggz05]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Taking the time to respond to each line is trolling?

Nah but I feel like it can be a waste of time though..

 

[iamjusayn]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by Iamjusayn

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Shoot.

I accepted that I was an atheist.

Not to become one. There was a point where I didn't know that it was OK to not believe in a/any god/s.

For every Mitt Romney, there is a Joe Six Pack.

But they still vote republican, do they not?

The point is, the stance you take and the validity of that stance does not indicate how you live your life.

Christians aren't the only successful people in the world.




I accepted that I was an atheist before I knew that there were famous people who were non-believers, and long after that did I learn about famous BLACK non-believers, an even rarer status to claim.
You're basically making a case that I should accept the validity of someone's statements because of the�perceived�success of their personal lives?

So is math less valid if taught by a rich man versus that taught by a poor man?�

Well yeah, don't you?

Do you just randomly draft NFL/NBA players or do you calculate their past performance within tightly measured metrics and attempt to reliably predict how they might perform on a professional level?

Do you not make hypothesis using your knowledge about what the weather will be to decide what to wear?�

Do you not toy around with the right cooking times to get your pasta al dente?�

But accepting religious claims? No, we just embrace the first and only retelling of a story and don't see to validate any sort of conjecture contained within it.

Well, Yeah?

�I'd still be a non-believer.

There are tons of rich Saudi's and relatives to royal dynasties in the gulf area running around blowing money fast out here, but I don't see any Americans converting to Islam.�

The answer to your question depends on how impressionable you are and how mature you are as a person.

Can you separate the validity of what someone is saying from your emotional attachment to whatever is being said? I guess thats why I'm so vilified on here.

I've seen devout *insert religion*�people that were addicted to drugs, had problems handling money, were illiterate (funny how that works), had no understanding of modern science, were bigoted, had poor health, etc.�

So what makes their claims about the suggestions of religion�

Seriously?

I actually feel obliged to be sarcastic to you.�

Why?

This was a poorly reasoned question.

Its like asking Rosie O'Donnell if she would still choose to advocate for children if she wasn't a lesbian because most lesbians�advocate�for children...�

. Not only is it supremely ignorant, it doesn't even ask a question that offers a legitimate comparison.

This is a quote from Senator Barney Frank I hope breaks what you expect from people:

---

---

 Screen name SP. Why are your responses filled with the implication that my stance was biased? My stance was/is neutral in which I posed the questions.

Here we go. You're mad that I didn't like the question.
Well why did you ignore the other three posters that said this was also a pretty ridiculous question?

I never said Christians were successful or not successful nor did I mention anyone being famous or not. Relax bro

But you used it as a means of validating whether or not the claims asserted by christians or atheists were valid or reasonable.

You asked if there was a failure in life that was an atheist, would I be an atheist? And I said No, because the two are not even related.

You DID say that. Read what you wrote. I'm not rewriting your words.

You are so quick to jump to sarcasm (took the bait just as I presumed like those creatures in the garden who fell for forbidden fruit. I call this forbidden sarcasm 

) as a defense mechanism but all it does is jade your ability to concisely respond the the question at hand.

Thats not a tangent. You linked the success of people's personal lives to their ability to accept whether or not a god exists.

If there are all these rich people ripping up dirt roads in the middle east in italian and german sports cars, then shouldn't I become a muslim on that accord?

But no, this doesn't make sense to you.

However, this is the very question you asked.

Just THINK about what you're asking me.

In conclusion, it appears that you a true atheist rider...a martyr if you will.

Uh...no actually.
I'm all about self-preservation. If someone holds a gun to my head and tells me to profess faith in spiderman, you can bet your tail i'm dropping to one knee and thanking the stars for peter parker. 

Tell me if I am wrong or not?

You're wrong. And the example/explanation you provided was ridiculous.
Look what you did with Anton. He partially agreed with you and then you took no issue with his response.

I disagree, and now you're mad.

Hilarious.

You are the type with the special ability to fully trick your mind (left brain, since you logically decided to become an athest) into doing whatever it is you (right brain) want it to do (double negative), right?

I'd like to say I'm pretty capable of being creative, artistic, and all the things traditionally associated with being right-brained.
I just don't lie to myself and call a cow a house.

 I call this the "mental antagonist" 

. 

I call it, making up pseudo-scientific words.

For example (hypothetical but plausible, depending on your beliefs), no matter how many atheist start dropping like birds out of the sky with distorted electromagnetic biological rhythms left n right for what seems like no apparent reason...you would still stick by your atheist position, correct?

Well if I had to accept a position for which I could not prove, then why would I accept it? I have no reason to.
And it would be quite a leap to associate sporadic patterns of death with the existence of a creator.

Thats like linking the number of pregnant teenage girls to the number of cell-phones in a particular state.

If you found out that all these folks who started failing at everything they attempted and were dying at a rapid pace while the people who were neutral in their stance (or on the fence) and the believers in god were doing average to well...you would still hold strong to your atheist beliefs and not bat an eye at rethinking your stance or altering your position, right?

This would imply that a creator does exist and enacts his will against those who didn't believe in it. NO IT DOES NOT AND YOU NO BETTER THAN TO MAKE THIS COMMENT. STOP REACHING. Thus the existence of the creator would be substantiated, if it could be linked or extrapolated that far. There would be no argument to challenge. 
Your argument fails again.

A true martyr you are bro. I commend you for being such a ride or die *pun intended* type guy. 

Are you a martyr for the claim that spiderman doesn't exist?

Because I feel in my heart that it does.

BTW, your interview example was poor and unnecessary because obviously there would be some type of ulterior motive for barney to want decriminalization of weed, regardless of if he smokes or not. It's called taxation. Thanks for response.

The point was to show you that you can't just ask people things and expect answers.
You have to RECEIVE the answers they give you and go from there.

Don't attempt to set people up then get confused when they don't fall in line with your suspicions. 

I only saw one post which stated "horrible". Chose not to entertain since I was never directing my question to that poster plus i felt it was an exaggerated post for attention. This is not a popularity contest for me so I was not bothered. Come on SP. You present all these facts. I presume you can keep up with the sequences and reactions. I'm not mad bro...see 

.
In bolded red was all I needed to see. Thanks bro n good day. 

 You know too much for your own good. When you are ready to fully break this life journey down to the basics....holla at me.

 

[websternguyen]

stone face

 

[onthenephs]

sillyputty wrote:

---

In conclusion, it appears that you a true atheist rider...a martyr if you will.

Uh...no actually.




I'm all about self-preservation. If someone holds a gun to my head and tells me to profess faith in spiderman, you can bet your tail i'm dropping to one knee and thanking the stars for peter parker. 

Tell me if I am wrong or not?

You're wrong. And the example/explanation you provided was ridiculous.

 too much. I used to think, at least with all the debates we had, you were a little more solid then this. I guess this new wave of atheist thinking is bred to follow based on material wishes rather than spiritual. Consumer of life.

 

[iamjusayn]

^ He pretty much summed it all up with that comment which was also all I needed to not respond to his information anymore. I call this, "knowing too much for you own good".

 

[Bad Religion]

Less bickering, more memes.

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by Iamjusayn

^ He pretty much summed it all up with that comment which was also all I needed to not respond to his information anymore. I call this, "knowing too much for you own good".

Debate the arguments presented. Settling for incredibly weak ad hominem attacks ("knowing too much for your own good" 

) This whole "that's all I needed to not respond anymore" back and forth is not a discourse. It shows that you have no response and are trying to divert the discussion towards another direction (aka going off topic.) Silly putty actually responded to each of your points. If you don't have the ability to respond in a similar fashion or if you're offended by his tone, maybe just not respond. You'll save yourself a lot of time.

 

[|A-Man|]

Wait what's wrong lying about having faith in Spider-Man if you're put in a situation where it's either that or your death? Atheism or non-believers are not about saying you're sticking to not believing without evidence no matter the situation.

Some times in being logical you have to realize you have to be illogical or at lease feign it, pretend, put that show on display to continue on. So if I gotta say Spider-Man is my savior to save mine or someone else's life why not? I mean think of the situation you're in where someone's even forcing you to say that

 

[iamjusayn]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by Iamjusayn

^ He pretty much summed it all up with that comment which was also all I needed to not respond to his information anymore. I call this, "knowing too much for you own good".

Debate the arguments presented. Settling for incredibly weak ad hominem attacks ("knowing too much for your own good" 

) This whole "that's all I needed to not respond anymore" back and forth is not a discourse. It shows that you have no response and are trying to divert the discussion towards another direction (aka going off topic.) Silly putty actually responded to each of your points. If you don't have the ability to respond in a similar fashion or if you're offended by his tone, maybe just not respond. You'll save yourself a lot of time.

 

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by Iamjusayn

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by Iamjusayn

^ He pretty much summed it all up with that comment which was also all I needed to not respond to his information anymore. I call this, "knowing too much for you own good".

Debate the arguments presented. Settling for incredibly weak ad hominem attacks ("knowing too much for your own good" 

) This whole "that's all I needed to not respond anymore" back and forth is not a discourse. It shows that you have no response and are trying to divert the discussion towards another direction (aka going off topic.) Silly putty actually responded to each of your points. If you don't have the ability to respond in a similar fashion or if you're offended by his tone, maybe just not respond. You'll save yourself a lot of time.

 

 

[iamjusayn]

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by Iamjusayn

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Debate the arguments presented. Settling for incredibly weak ad hominem attacks ("knowing too much for your own good" 

) This whole "that's all I needed to not respond anymore" back and forth is not a discourse. It shows that you have no response and are trying to divert the discussion towards another direction (aka going off topic.) Silly putty actually responded to each of your points. If you don't have the ability to respond in a similar fashion or if you're offended by his tone, maybe just not respond. You'll save yourself a lot of time.

 

You type all that nonsense and then respond to a gif with a pic 

 

  
You deaded yourself...no further response.

*insert here* "but you started it 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by OnTheNephs

sillyputty wrote:

---

Uh...no actually.




I'm all about self-preservation. If someone holds a gun to my head and tells me to profess faith in spiderman, you can bet your tail i'm dropping to one knee and thanking the stars for peter parker. 




You're wrong. And the example/explanation you provided was ridiculous.

 too much. I used to think, at least with all the debates we had, you were a little more solid then this. I guess this new wave of atheist thinking is bred to follow based on material wishes rather than spiritual. Consumer of life.
"Solid" ?
Seriously, what are you talking about?

There is no such thing as "spiritual" wishes.

If a maniac has come to the conclusion to make the decision of threatening my life, the only one I can prove I have up to a particular point, then I'm going to preserve it.

I'll drop to one knee and start praying to Spiderman if I can get to live another day.

I'll live to get him back another day. 

I'm not about to lose my life over an idiot choosing to make that sort of decision about something as ridiculous as their interpretation of religion.

I have REAL problems. 

Miss me with that.

Originally Posted by Iamjusayn

^ He pretty much summed it all up with that comment which was also all I needed to not respond to his information anymore. I call this, "knowing too much for you own good".

Wanting to live and not lose my life for "praying" to the wrong god?

Yeah, thats pretty stupid of me. 

BTW, your point about "if atheists started dying for not believing would you still be an atheist" STILL fails to make any sense. 

If it turns out that there is a creator AND one that kills atheists, then there would be no value in being a non-believer. You can't NOT believe in what proves its existence.

It'd be like not believing in grass. 

 

[shoefreakbaby]

Originally Posted by AKA LONGSTROKE

Originally Posted by shoefreakbaby

Originally Posted by AKA LONGSTROKE

Yet another reason I do not deal with Black Christian Women



[font=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/font]
I'm putting in all the work, and this cat gets all the credit?!

SWAGGG

  You slay me

Just wait until you are actually able to have an orgasm...without guilt!
Then you can talk!

Nevermind

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by shoefreakbaby

Originally Posted by AKA LONGSTROKE

Originally Posted by shoefreakbaby


SWAGGG

  You slay me

Just wait until you are actually able to have an orgasm...without guilt!
Then you can talk!

EDITED: at the request of the aforementioned because of the "context" of the allusion... 

I think theres some truth to this. Of course it doesn't apply to everyone though.
I mean imagine if people didn't feel like they were breaking religious mental laws and committing "thought-crime" by having pre-marital sex or having multiple sex partners?

People beat themselves up on the inside for being homosexual so much that they actually attempt to make laws against what they are themselves (*cough* Rick Santorum and closet republicans *cough*)

EDIT:

Thought-crime is a "beast," huh ShoeFreakBaby? 

Originally Posted by shoefreakbaby

Unquote me putty 

Done

 

[boys noize]

Originally Posted by Iamjusayn

Originally Posted by Boys Noize

Originally Posted by Iamjusayn

 

You type all that nonsense and then respond to a gif with a pic 

 

  
You deaded yourself...no further response.

*insert here* "but you started it 

I deaded myself? No further response?

Coming from the guy who can't put together a coherent argument, your insightful input into this discussion will not be missed 

 

[shoefreakbaby]

 

[antonlavey]

''OnTheNephs wrote:

---

sillyputty wrote:

---

Uh...no actually.




I'm all about self-preservation. If someone holds a gun to my head and tells me to profess faith in spiderman, you can bet your tail i'm dropping to one knee and thanking the stars for peter parker. 




You're wrong. And the example/explanation you provided was ridiculous.

 too much. I used to think, at least with all the debates we had, you were a little more solid then this. I guess this new wave of atheist thinking is bred to follow based on material wishes rather than spiritual. Consumer of life.

You gotta be kidding me me?

Since when do atheists follow "spiritual wishes"? You're mad that an atheist would pretend to follow a religion in order to live rather than follow a religion genuinely for "spiritual gain"?

Am I missing something? Where are the atheists that think like this? Last time I checked atheists cherish LIFE and the present not death and hopes of 21 virgins but I digress