Atheist armageddon pet rescue

Wow...what an amazing business plan, I'm genuinely impressed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I dont think that there is something can change the societe more than Faith

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Man, atheists are so screwed! Not only do they get left behind, but now they'll have all those animals to rescue and take care of, and for $110 a pup, no money to do it with! Suckers.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

lol, kinda reminds me of when the church was selling estate in heaven, so a sly jew came along wanting to buy a land in hell, they though he was crazy, and albeit hell being hot in reality it wasn't hot in their market, so they sold him, the area? all of it..they didn't mind and the deal was sealed, he took his receipt, went out to the public and told people that there's no need to buy lands in heaven, as he has bought all of hell and he promises no one will be going there:roflmao:

 

Isn't it? I thought that everything was supposed to go to shit.

Or are you implying that I am an evangelical? Et tu, Bruti? One hopes not.

Anyway, a fine theism-bashing thread.

 

I've never been clear on the interim--according to the authoritative filmic depiction of the rapture, A Thief in the Night, all the nice folk will be gone immediately and only some hot hippie chicks (salvation pending) and commando-types (they be representing the Beast) will be left.

 

Let's hear more about the hot hippie chicks. Will there be lots? And just how much time do we get hanging around? Unrelated questions, never you mind about connecting them, strictly theory you understand.

 

damn damn damn, wish I'd thought of that. Hmmm, I wonder if this service has chain store opportunities?

 

Hot hippy chicks aren't nice people?
granted some of them are somewhat dilatory, but they do tend to be nice.

Going without underwear means you don't get saved?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sorry, I meant "the 'nice' folk."

Of course, just ask the mormons about their garments.

 

Yup. Magic underwear is good in the eyes of the Lord.

Sigh.

Mormons: you do it to yourselves, you know.

 

Lucky pulling pants?

 

Then I wish you all the best in taking advantage of this new service. Hope springs eternal.

Then I am indeed fortunate not to know.

Good god, James.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/disingenuousness

 

You don't think this is even a little baiting? Why not?

 

JamesR:

Spare me the faux-psychoanalysis. You raised the issue because you felt the entire prospect was absurd; this is underscored by the notion of the goodly atheists "helping out" the evangelists. Your objective was to mock the extremists; fine. But you're trying to put everyone else in the same box by invoking atheism and the scary specter of "Jeebus" lurking over your shoulder. It's passive-aggressive, yes - but your treatment of the odd news item is grounded in the same old atheist-theist rage: your mockery seems more motivated by your own insecurities about your religious stance. Otherwise why raise more pointless provocation of "the other"?

No one is trying to steal your soul, James, and not all theists - whatever your experience of other theists on here - are against you, or couch their beliefs as an existential threat against you. Some of us even respect you. Guess that's our problem too.

 

It's implicit, James. I baited Dwayne Rabon with a business deal on another thread to freeze Michael Jackson for later revival. Does that mean I really believe in any way that it's possible to revive him? No. How could I? So from my perspective, it's predatory and demeaning. UnChristian, even! Now, I personally feel that Dwayne is talking a massive load of crap, but then again I wouldn't actually take any of his cash. The complete point of the OP link is that evangelists are meant to be gullible. Fine: they kind of are. Yet, the eventual obliteration of the world is a meme that a lot of Christians share. So, it drags in all belief about Revelation. That's fine, but it's no good pretending it's something it's not.

I think it says lots about how we both view them. But I do object to a degree because it's a general issue of the faith as a whole. It's unnecessary; you might also view the usually miserable attempts at "science-baiting" by evangelicals the same way, but it's clear that such attempts are laughable at best.

Please don't try to tell me that I should be unable to distinguish shit from sugar, James, by pleading to my religion.

James, you're an atheist. It's fairly clear. It falls into the "shit or sugar" factorial discrimination above. (Also, you allude to it below.)

There's nothing wrong with that in the slightest; but why dig at theism, then? Usually it's a mark of insecurity, when there's no definable motive beyond the dig. If it isn't that, what are you trying to do? What is the point of even making the OP? Because you're secretly skimming the top 15% of any takers as a finder's fee? Because you have a shareholder interest? Because it makes a pertinent or important social point? It's a dig. Can we not talk bollocks about it?

First off, how many of them are actually left on the forum? I imagine they might be by eventually. Am I insecure? No. Am I, then, a fanatic? No. I merely take a little insult at the crass cynicism of the OP subject for the reason outlined above. I similarly deplore the likes of Swaggart and Robertson and Oktar / Yahya in their absurd crusades against evolutionary science. I've called more than one of them out; no takers so far. Does this mean I'm insecure about my recognition of evolutionary philosophy?

Thankyou. I respect you also.