Actually I've just found an awesome J&M which references a reddit post describing perfectly what religious belief is driven by:

How about this harm I already pointed out?

You see, coming up with vague notions of elements of polygamy which might not be harmful is not exactly useful in the presence of a reasoned fact of how polygamy is harmful.

How long did it take you to come up with that awesome rebuttal to the proven evidence that scrypt.cc doesn't have their claimed 850GH/s of Scrypt mining power?


Don't worry. they're not mining. So that's one less thing for you to have to worry about them robbing from you.

850GH/s of Scrypt. Do the math.

I don't believe the marriage-equality issue is about forcing religious organisations to conduct marriages which are counter to their inherent bigotry.

AFAIK marriage-equality deals solely with the issue of ensuring that all US States have to conduct and recognise marriages between two people, irrespective of their gender. It is a legal issue of ensuring gay couples can have the same rights in marriage as heterosexual couples.

The law does not concern forcing religious organisations to conduct gay marriages. Unless you know otherwise.

rather, loss of traditional theist privilege to demand their right to discriminate against those they are conditioned to see as a threat to their traditional theist privilege of expected deference and respect for their 'god-given' bigotry.

There, that should do it.

Since their inception it has always been: 1HWqsgnSd12Gv8SpoUMi1Cj8hp79BTSpW7

. . .and lose.

The, 'slippery slope' argument is utterly absurd and, just like the idea that opposition to gay marriage is actually a defense of 'traditional' marriage, it is based, not on reasonable argument but, rather, loss of traditional Christian Privilege to demand their right to discriminate against those they are conditioned to see as a threat to their traditional Christian Privilege of expected deference and respect for their 'god-given' bigotry.

Nah, it was just the mod cleaning up the absurd off-topic idiocy which was Barneyboy claiming that his anonymous internet username had legal protection under defamation law which only applies to identifiable legal 'persons'.

While you're all waiting for scrypt.cc to come up with their next phase of manipulation, why don't you spend a little time browsing the blockchain of their wallet transactions? You might get to see where scrypt.cc has been sending your money over the last several months.

I'll give you a clue, it rhymes with, "High Volume Bitcoin Mixer".

Not at all, they'll understand completely how you have been conditioned to apply special pleading to your beliefs so they are not held up to the same standard of analysis as anything we actually need to define objective proof for in order to gather information and form knowledge and understanding. That you employ compartmentalisation to protect your beliefs and use confirmation bias to cherry-pick explanations of reality that suit you, rather than intellectual honesty and integrity.

This is not an insult, this is a fact of the process of theist 'belief'.

You want to make hand-wavy declarations concerning things you've 'experienced' which defy explanation, therefore God. When the truth is they don't defy explanation at all because if there was even one thing, just one, which could objectively demonstrate the existence of the Paranormal, it would be global news and science would accede to this new, now proven theory which required incorporation into our understanding of The Universe.

There is, however, a shedload of evidence and reasoning which explains why you and your ilk believe what you do and are prone to interpreting things the way you do.

So which is more likely, rational and objectively-reasoned explanations which are derived from multiple sources of study and critical analysis, or that you actually experienced something for which there is no other answer than, ". . .therefore God."?

In other news, I don't think it was ever explained away by the scryptards as to why scrypt.cc's deposit address, because they've confirmed their payout addresses are different, show a payment being made last year to seed a failed Polish-language ponzi.

scrypt.cc's deposit address:

That same address appears in 3wponzi:


[mod note: off-topic content removed]

So you're ignoring the valid reasoning I gave against polygamy and simply referring to the opinion of an article?

Was the original question you asked not one simply of why we shouldn't object to polygamy? Because I explained why we do object to polygamy and how that is based on the inherent nature of a many-marrying-one relationship structure being unbalanced and therefore dysfunctional. As in vulnerable people who do not decide with truly informed consent in this matter need protecting from themselves being at risk from abuses which arise from unbalanced relationships.

Why keep repeating reference to an article which ignores the objective facts of the situation in order to promote their own agenda?

I believe the reasoning behind keeping polygamy illegal is less to do with cultural distaste and more to do with the fact that polygamous marriages are generally driven by dysfunctional responses to human relationship power balances.

We are not talking about a group marriage of equals, we are talking about multiple people marrying a single person. That is inherently an unbalanced relationship open to abuses and usually the result of those involved having psychological issues which compel them to seek out a relationship which cannot possibly be consistent with an equal balance of power.

That is a fascinating link, thanks. I'd mentioned this tactic was likely the reason for scrypt.cc to continue communicating with their marks but I was unaware it was a studied sociopsychological process.

Hahahaaaaahhaaahaaaahaaaaaaaaa.

No.Seriously.

Hahahaaaaaaaahaaaahaaaahhaaaaaa

Come at me, brah. As I believe the kids like to say these days.

Your indignation is quite endearing.

Theism by its very nature is psychologically toxic because you absolutely have to maintain a state of intellectual dishonesty in order to 'believe', to have your 'faith', which causes cognitive dissonance when the part of your brain which is capable of objective reasoning is exposed to information which serves to highlight the constant conflicts in what you believe and what is evidenced .

Just because you declare yourself be a "True Christian" (try looking up the No True Scotsman fallacy), who believes in only the 'good' stuff from your Holy Book, it doesn't change the fact that your Holy Book is riddle with contradictions and inaccuracies which you have to tread carefully through in order to ignore it lest it exposes your cherished beliefs to be the fallacies they are.

I don't need an invisible ominpotent sky-daddy to tell me not to murder people, I have no inclination to murder people and I tend to live by the basis of objective secular morality, that which values the autonomy of consent whereby I cannot reasonably expect my consent to be honoured if I do not value the informed consent of others.

Goodness me, much anger, many vitriol. Unfortunately, while you might be full of spite and hatred for me, you're still wrong and somewhat something of a moron to have completely ignored the correction I made about the difference between slander and libel.

Here, let me walk you through it, pay close attention now:

1. Slander refers to the spoken word
2. Libel refers to the written

Need me to guide you through it again? Still overwhelmed by the confusing amount of information I just gave you in those two points?

As for your definition of the law in this regards, are you a child perhaps? Might that explain your utter inability to check facts before you post loud and confident declarations which serve to prove you to be grossly and willfully ignorant on the subject you are discussing?

Google is your friend. Try looking up some actual facts and not relying on banging your fist on the table and shouting things you believe are true, when they are not. Libel, or slander for that matter, is nothing to do with saying something you can't prove. If you have every reason to believe what you are saying is correct then it is neither libel or, if you spoke the words, slander.

Don't believe me, go ask your nearest lawyer who will happily take $100 off you to explain the same thing.

Atheists haven't tried faith? I think you'll find most adult atheists were raised theists as children by their, equally conditioned to 'believe', theist parents.

Atheism isn't simply an arbitrary rejection, it is an intellectually honest position.

Most adult atheists today have got to that stage after having spent a considerable amount of their lives trying to make sense of the theist world-view and ultimately reaching the correct conclusion that theism, in that it requires intellectual dishonesty to be maintained, isn't actually knowledge of anything but is instead the process of giving yourself up to arbitrarily declared dogma derived from a time in our species when we weren't able to understand much of anything.

Shit, all you have to do is look at Scientology to see how, even today, people are often incapable of even the most basic reasoning skills and will latch on to truly outrageous and absurd claims being made by organisations and people who claim to have the answers to the questions of life for them.

That is because they have been raised to believe that someone, somewhere, has the answers they need. The truth is we all are perfectly capable of reaching the most intellectually honest conclusions about life, The Universe and Everything, without resorting to "therefore God . . ."

That what theists absolutely hate about atheism - because it doesn't say, "trust us, we're telling you the truth" like theism does, no, it actually says, "trust yourself, you can figure out the truth".

Theists are far more likely to get on with people of other faith because they're all part of the same game of playing-pretend *real* hard and us atheists are like the grown-ups who are spoiling their fun. Trouble is their 'fun' is deadly and toxic.

Citation please. If you're referring to the signature in my post, by all means, click on it and discover which cloud mining service I am recommending, you'll be AMAZED!!!!11!!1!!elebenty!!1!1!1


Citation please. The facts I have presented are hard facts derived from understanding both btc and Scrypt mining


Ah, you see what you've done there?

BTW, I don't recall 'screaming' scam and I certainly don't recall being proven wrong by scrypt.cc - would you care to offer up any citation in that regard?

Oops, forget which account you were logged in as, did you?

Says the low-post-count sock-puppet account which has only ever posted in this thread and uses the same, "go crying to mommy" attempt at insult as other low-post-count sock-puppet accounts.

I'm not sure what I'm more amused by, the repeated attempts at slagging me off from people who clearly don't have English as a first language, or the sheer venom and hatred they direct at those who post facts they dislike.