How to convert a Jehovah's Witness (or any other Christian) to Satanism (ie. non-Christianity)

and
'
ihttp://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e33/rolocoaster/image001.jpg

For example: fucked off my ass, I was being initiated into the 3rd level of the OTO and, seriously, the dude in front of me turned into a goat. At least, that's what I saw. It wouldn't matter what he said. I thought I was about to be sacrificed to the Devil.

"Oh boy, that's just great. I tell ya, there's nothing better than being accepted. For being a douchebag, I mean. A lot of people don't like stuff... and, well, I never did much but clean pools and mow lawns... I thought that nobody knew I existed. But, then I realized that people really notice when you do random things. Stuff, like..."

"..."

"Like, to their children, I mean!"

*sirens*

Impotence is genetic.
To a large degree so are many mental handicaps.
Both of these hinder gene-passing, and yet neither will ever leave us.

Well, I've listed some viable holes, lets examine some other evolutionary closet skeletons: Lucy, the missing link skeleton that was later found to be nothing more than suppositions surrounding a pig's tooth. There are no evolutionary transitional forms in fossil records, and what bout the Cambrian explosion? No life, nothing, and then: BAM! Thousands of lifeforms that seem to have come from nowhere, with no ancestors, developed almost to a state where evolution need not interfere. Seems like the evolutionary process decided to just promote itself.
The same goes with insects, who show no evolutionary develpment. Period.

And why do we still have amphibians? Evolutionary theory follows the fish to the amphibious stage to the reptillian stage. Shouldn't frogs have disappeared a long time ago? "The primates - lemurs, monkeys, apes and man appear fully formed in the fossil record. The proverbial "missing link" between man and ape remains elusive and periodically changes with the thinking of the day, I.E., 'Lucy'. Sometimes evolutionists suggest that the transitional forms haven't been found because there has not been enough fossils unearthed to accurately portray life as it existed long ago. However, since Darwin's time there has been a hundred-fold increase in the number of fossils found and a systematic problem still remains. There are fewer candidates for transitional forms between major divisions of life than for minor divisions, the exact reverse of what is expected by evolutionary theory." THE BIG ISSUES, 10/4/95

According to these arguments, the evolutionary inciting incedent was nothing. It just WAS. Once there was nothing, then there was the cambrian explosion where full develpment met us full force. Evolution's basis is entirely random.

What about the moon? In nineteen sixty-nine, the lunar landing took place. Remember those huge pads on the bottom of the lander? Know what those were for?
Because the moon has been around for several million years--evolution purports it has to have been, such is penultimate in geologic theory--it has been collecting cosmic dust.
Cosmic dust consists of particles of debris floating through the cosmos and anchoring to gravitational bodies without atmospheres. (atmospheric bodies incinerate the dust upon entry.)
Because millions of years were supposed to have passed, it was calculated that several feet of this cosmic dust blanked the moon.
How much was found when the lunar lander touched down?
Less than a centimeter.

Darwin and his theories are as outdated and about as valid as Freud's. And evolution is too--because I know that the theories are very 'adaptable' themselves.

WAHTTT???

Is that a real post or is it C&P'd from somewhere?

This alone is enough to cause roffles of scorn and pity. Five thousand years?

Sure, you can write that off as part of their "special eccentric gifts," if it makes you feel smarter somehow. Some of these scientists were treated quite brutally by their governments after suggesting such things.

But the real point to made here is this:
It has been proven countless times over by mathematicians, scientists and philosophers that logic is a bottomless pit which, ultimately, depends on intuition and faith as much as any religion would.

One can get no further than A = A. The conclusion one is forced to make BY LOGIC is that every term is a thing-in-itself, unknown, though to some extent apprehensible by INTUITION. Logic is only the limits of intelligence. You win no points with your status quo appeals to "logic."

C&P'd

Thanks for your (a)historical perspective! It's rather convenient
to blend together various crusades, isn't it?

Thanks, Curt1s, you're OTM as few others are.

The rest of that post is lunatic drivel, of course, but that paragraph is pretty sane.

Yes, this is true. They are bullshit claims, but nevertheless...

Myth, eh? It's interesting you should say that because it has been proven countless times over by mathematicians, scientists and philosophers that logic is a bottomless pit which, ultimately, depends on intuition and faith as much as any religion would.

One can get no further than A = A. The conclusion one is forced to make BY LOGIC is that every term is a thing-in-itself, unknown, though to some extent apprehensible by INTUITION. Logic is only the limits of intelligence. You win no points with your status quo appeals to "logic."

One can get no further than A = A. The conclusion one is forced to make BY LOGIC is that every term is a thing-in-itself, unknown, though to some extent apprehensible by INTUITION. Logic is only the limits of intelligence. You win no points with your status quo appeals to "logic."

But yes, the implication that someone would agree with the rest is rather funny.