Grammar Police, dumb-ass.


Great, so you don't care that a business operates fraudulently and people place their money into what they believe to be a legitimate operation, how does this justify what scrypt.cc are doing? It doesn't.

Scrypt.cc is a criminal operation and once they are done milking the final btc from their 'customers' they will go under just like every other 'cloud mining' scam has and will do.

Unless you manufacture ASICs and operate 100% transparently with a real-time audited and demonstrably-provable hash-rate, you are never going to be able to operate a genuine cloud mining service because it cannot be done, the numbers would never add up.

Considering that one of the most frequent objections to atheism is the notion, "Well what would stop you from raping and murdering everybody then?", it amazes me that it never occurs to the theist just how bad they come across practically admitting the only thing stopping them from going on a rape/murder spree is the thought they are being watched and judged by an omnipotent super-being.

Let me stop you there. Before I even read the rest of your post you need to understand something *real* fucking important, something that theists struggle to even acknowledge, which is the fact atheism does not make the claim, "God does not exist".

Atheism is the rejection of the theist assertion, "God exists", on the basis that the assertion requires logical fallacy and is intellectually dishonest.

Atheists do not seek to prove the non-existence of 'God' any more than we seek to prove the non-existence of invisible pink unicorns protecting us from mischief-making green pixies each day.

Theists assert something. Atheists dismiss that assertion because it is not a reasonable or supported assertion, not because they need to prove it to be wrong.

Big difference. Learn it. Accept it.

That is an interesting notion. Do you think that the reason theists try to fallaciously claim atheism to be equal to a religion because they actually can't understand the concept of moral sentience without religion?

Actually, come to think of it, back when I was a fence-sitting agnostic, I actually believed it was impossible to be a genuine atheist, with the associated 'the end is the end of me' acceptance, without losing one's mind. I now know that, actually, once you become an intellectualised atheist, by way of reaching that position through much thought and consideration coupled with objective reasoning and critical thinking, it becomes absolutely natural a concept.

I didn't exist before I did and that wasn't a problem, so why would not existing after I do be any different?

LOL. Yes, sure, passionately seeking to refute bullshit theism by way of intellectually dismantling the theist position is clearly the mark of a 'zealot'.

Careful now, you are one step away from the 'tone complaint' fallacy.

HAhahahahaa, seriously, you theists are so insistently desperate to believe that your assertions must mean something other than being desperate insistence, it is funny to watch because it is so inevitable whenever you are threatened by the loss of the deference and 'respect' for your delusions that you believe you are entitled to.

Ok, let's take your posts apart one by one:
I won't bother quoting your username for each fallacy because you are all cut from the same cloth as to make no difference as to what nomenclature you prefer to be known by.

1.

Atheism is like a religion in the sense that 'Not collecting stamps' is a hobby.

2.

Except that isn't at all what the objectively reasoned challenges to theist assertions actually is. Sure, if we were to employ the same theist versus theist tactics of subjectively spinning our own interpretations as being correct over your subjectively spun interpretations then, yes, you might have a point. But when a theist position is dismantled by way of critical analysis and objective reasoning, namely, the employment of valid argument which exposes the theist position to be the arbitrary baseless fallacy it is then, no, we are right because our argument is right while yours fails, not because we are simply declaring that we right and you are wrong.

3.

Dude, seriously, let it go. You gaffed up your original smart-arsery and when it was exposed for being the twaddle it was you resort to trying to belittle me by claiming I didn't understand it. I did, I do and I continue to demonstrate that your statement was a fail and absent anything clever or, for that matter, funny. Accept it.

4.
Yeah, still another swing-and-a-miss. Atheists don't 'deny' or 'disapprove', although we do frequently disprove theist positions and deny them their expected deference and respect for the infantile beliefs they hold so dear. But we do it by dismantling theism, not by asserting atheism.

5.
*fights urge to simply dismiss as the WAAAA! WAAAAA! WAAAAAAA! it actually is*

You are entitled to your own beliefs, you are not entitled to your own facts. Atheists don't force anything on anyone, we simply reject the theist position because it is fallacious bullshit and provably so. That does not at all mean we prove that god does not exist, no, it means we can prove theist beliefs are all based on dishonest argument and, therefore, to be dismissed.

Putting money into a ponzi isn't an investment, then, is it?

It would only be classed as a legitimate gamble if you were informed prior to 'investing' that it was a ponzi and that there was a risk you would lose your money. Even then it would still need to operate transparently as a ponzi so that all participants were fully aware of the mechanisms of the 'game'.

How can a person be superior to an opposing point of view?

Surely it would be that a presented position was superior to an opposing point of view due to it being able to survive critical analysis and be based on objective reasoning?

So, no, atheists don't hate religion because they believe themselves to be superior to the theist 'point of view', as that is clearly nonsense.

As has been discussed, atheists who hate religion, because not all do what with atheism simply being the rejection of the theist assertion on the basis it is groundless fallacy, hate it because of the fact it does nothing good that cannot be achieved equally well without religion and yet causes such an epic amount of toxic harm to us as individuals, a species and a society.

The initial assertion in your reply provides the answer to its latter question.

Do atheists currently live a world without the theism? No. We do not. Our lives are still blighted by the toxic poison that causes people to define their sense of self and their subsequent choices and decisions by way of a persistent delusional narrative they are living in, where they play the role of somebody 'special' to an all-powerful super-being. That's pretty fucked up.

Why don't you try asking gay couples who want to get married in US states that wish to maintain their prejudice and discrimination against them because the religious majority get to declare homosexual relationships as 'evil' and that marriage should only be permitted for those of opposite gender. Like that makes any rational sense outside of the insane ramblings of the religiots.

That is yet another ignorant assumption masquerading as fact. You are the one who stated that it would be funny to see an atheist try to deny the existence of the 'Everlasting Blue Sky', when the fact is the religion you cite employs, like most religions, tangible things as symbolic representation of supernatural or paranormal elements of their belief system.

I simply pointed out that there wasn't actually anything funny about your statement, because your statement was disingenuously implying you had managed to cleverly assert a religious representation that an atheist could not deny the existence of.


Clank, clunk, grind, clang . . .sure, you just keep on trying to make it fit, I'm sure it'll go in if you hit it hard enough, often enough.


Atheists don't deny your subjective reality, where do you get that idea? In fact atheism is pretty much about acknowledging the relevance of subjective realities in understanding just how unreliable every single claim towards 'spirituality' actually is.

I think you keep on taking too much rope, you appear to be getting awfully tangled up in it.

FFS, are you lot dense or what? The reason the 'man in the street' doesn't care about smallpox is because it actually has been, on the whole, eradicated. It isn't something that needs much thought in this day and age.

I was criticising the false assumption that atheists shouldn't care about theism because it doesn't concern them when the truth is theism is still infecting the masses all around us through the generational brain-washing of their offspring. The toxic dysfunction is all around us, that is why we still care about theism continuing to wreak the harm it does to our species.

I'm not seeing the joke. The religion you cite still invokes the supernatural. It's not like atheists deny the existence of stone buildings which have altars in them, now, is it?

Fantastic ! LMFAO.

Well done, sir, you win the internet for the day!

Do you even fucking know what a 'Ponzi' scheme is or are you just going to keep shrugging your shoulders and making hand-wavy statements about how it doesn't really matter if it is a scam?

It does matter and anyone who says it doesn't is either a complete moron or a shill for the scam itself.

Gambling is the process of placing a wager on the outcome of an event based on evaluating the constants and variables which form the basis for the 'odds' a particular outcome will occur.

Investing in a scheme which is pretending to be a legitimate business is not gambling, it is investing in a scheme you believe to be legitimate because you are fraudulently being told it is legitimate by the promoters of the scheme.

That is a criminal act.

Checking your post history shows that you frequently repeat this same phrase in other scam threads. I've also heard it used in the GAW/XPY thread many times, along with complaints from sock-puppet accounts decrying the fact that people who have not 'invested' are taking the time to expose the fraud so, you know, what's their problem? etc. etc.

It isn't just down to investigating the shenanigans with XPY, Garza received large fiat payments from 'investors with banking difficulties', so every payment in to his and the company's bank accounts will have to be traced back as far as they can from the originating bank, which takes a long time, particularly if they are in other jurisdictions and require legal hoops be jumped through before information is released.

Oh I am sure there is still life in the ol' scam yet. As we know from Josh Garza, there are plenty of creative ways to keep the muggles buying in.

Why quit now when there is still more to scam?

At the very least he has to invent an exit mechanism by which he can claim the eventual collapse to be someone else's fault as he walks away with millions in Btc.

Uh-huh, sure you did Mr first-post-here-was-to-encourage-people-to-buy:

Says the guy who only registered a few days ago and has only posted to encourage people to buy more 'KHS'.

*If* this ponzi scheme attempts to come back online after this 'event', it will solely be to restructure the dynamics of the scam, by way of people needing to pay more in 'maintenance' fees and for them to offload a shitload of the 'KHS' they have may have bought cheap after rattling the market but allowing some people to still withdraw a few btc here and there while shilling 'cheep coins nomnomnom' type of mentality about the place to those who are desperately wanting to believe it is not the obvious ponzi scheme that it is.

Think for a moment, the site operator doesn't want to overload his server by having so many people visiting to check out photos he could post of the 'miners', the one thing he has been asked to do repeatedly since Feb of last year. So he won't post pictures of the 'miners'. Anywhere.

Seems legit.

I see you're not exactly up to speed on what mainstream religious texts contain. Try actually reading them, most atheists are considerably more educated about the content of these toxic texts than the adherents to their dogma. Murder, rape, slavery, rape, incest - It's all in there, even if the apologists pretend it isn't or try to spin it another way by pretending it can be interpreted differently, it is actually pretty explicitly detailed.

So, with regards to your apologia about how the 'bad theists' don't 'live by the rules' of their religion, you're wrong. It is actually the 'good ones' that don't live by the rules of their religion.

Nice try on the usual, "Ah well militant atheists are just as narrow-minded as religious fundamentalists", it's almost as though you believe this series of words actually construct a reasonable assertion. I'll give you a little tip, they don't.

Religion poisons everything. Nothing 'good' can be done with religion that cannot be done equally as well without, unless you think you know better, fancy giving it a shot? Name me something positive and worthwhile which cannot be achieved without believing in invisible sky-fairies.