BADecker, you are a psychotic troll who either is incapable of forming an intelligent argument or you refuse to. Even other theists see how unhinged and bizarre your assertions are.

My assertions are not a 'belief' they are well-reasoned and supported logical arguments. Atheism is to religion like 'Off' is a TV Channel.

:rolleyes:

What is it about theism that encourages so much dishonesty? Don't bother answering that, it is patently clear why it does because it is fundamentally about being dishonest otherwise it cannot survive.

Why the fuck are you still talking about communism? What has communism got to do with this discussion? We are talking atheism and theism, Christianity and Islam's 'holy'books, and you appear to be so afraid of a rational discussion involving objective reasoning that you keep derailing the thread to make multiple posts about communism.

If you want to talk about communism, make a thread for it.

That still does not excuse the repeated attempts to create the dishonest association between Communism and Atheism. The Communists also ate bread, does that mean everybody who eats bread is a communist and a discussion about bread should, in fact, be about Communism instead?

They did not dictate that atheism be the norm in order to promote atheism as an intellectual position, they dictated atheism be the norm because they did not want to lose control of the people to the Russian Orthodox Church.

To question those at the top of any powerful organisation is to be a threat to that organisation.

The Chinese, for example are predominantly atheist, yet they still believe no end of superstitious nonsense because their atheism is not one borne of rejecting theism as an unsound premise because, if that was the case, they would also reject their superstitious claptrap too.

So, yet again, we are back at this situation where you are desperately still trying to make excuses for your false insistence that atheism should be associated with Communism simply because you want it to be in order to paint it as negatively as possible rather than actually being honest enough to acknowledge that Atheism is simply the rejection of the theist assertion, "There is a God", on the basis that said assertion is baseless.

Where does the rejection of a fallacious assertion equal sociopolitical ideology? I'll answer that for you - It doesn't.

Are you ready to be honest about your 'Holy' book's origins yet?

Again with the forced association of atheism with Communism, why?

This is not a discussion about communism, this is about theism and atheism, why are you repeatedly bringing in a social system that is nothing to do with atheism and everything to do with communism?

Yeah I'll chip in with my opinion, too. Recently used this site to buy an Origin game key and the transaction was completed in seconds.

Very clean and straightforward process with no messing about.

I ask that anyone who uses BTC to purchase anything online to find the associated thread for that provider here, there will usually be one, and rate the service. It's only fair to take a small amount of time to let other members know of reliable places to spend their coins and you can help these fledgling businesses to survive and grow.

The ticker could always be changed to 'XB*' and the units referred to as 'Bstars' or just 'Stars'

If this BTC renaming convention is going to be an issue, that is.

Hey Homero, quick, recoup all your customers losses through this DRK/DASH exploit whilst the going is still good.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1026547.0
How to get free Bitcoin by exploiting a DASH InstantX

Problem solved, everybody happy! No?

Make up your mind which point you're trying to make here. I don't think anybody claimed that Communists were not Atheists, but there is a massive distinction between being told that religion is forbidden by the State and having the intellectual capability yourself to recognise the multiple fallacies required to maintain a religious 'belief' based on dogma.

As for your "I'm not saying that all atheists are commies", why bring it up then? Atheism is, by definition, *solely* a position held by a person which rejects the theist position on the basis that it is a logically fallacious assertion.

Communism is absolutely some else entirely, but I get that theists like to, as RodeoX quite rightly pointed out, attempt to demonise-by-association a word which has long since lost its negative image as more people have gained the intellectual capability to properly understand what it actually means.

Atheism is a religion like "Not collecting stamps" is a hobby.


That's called prejudice.

But you need to understand the major difference between the fact that knowing somebody is a theist, from which you can reasonably apply a set of values that person must have without ever meeting them, and knowing somebody has, say, black skin, from which you cannot reasonably assert any values as skin colour does not tell you a single thing about the type of person they are.


That's a baseless assumption you are attempting to imply is a fact in order to bolster your position. Being 'social creatures' does not correlate with 'needing' a figure to 'worship'.

The two things are unrelated.

Again, it appears you are implying that the Communist practice of forbidding religion is equal to the Atheist position of rejecting the theist assertion for the fact it is a fallacious argument.

Care to explain why?

I don't understand what you mean by this, could you expand on it?

Ah, yes, the Atheists as Communists schtick, never get tired of hearing that old one.

Atheism is not Communism. Communism is Communism.

Forbidding religion is not the same as educating people enough to intellectually understand why religion is delusional nonsense.

Bravo! Well done sirs, top wheeze!

Well I am telling you that in order for you to believe that *any* religious book contains truthful answers to the questions of life you have opted to employ fallacious reasoning or, for that matter, you are insufficiently able to practice objective reasoning or critical thinking.

For you to 'choose' the Islamic version of 'truth' is no difference to any other theism. Your book contains statements which purport to be true, yet common sense would tell you, for instance, that if I were to say to you that I had a vision of a god speaking to me while I was having an epileptic fit, chances are pretty damn likely the experience I had was caused by neurological misfiring taking place.

But because your book is chock full of 'mystical' woo and magic, which you again fail to question sufficiently, you choose to believe that your 'prophet' was, indeed, a messenger spoken to regularly by a god.

Because, you know, he said so.

Your failure to recognise that him saying so is no different, IN ANY WAY, from me saying so, is why your erroneously believing you have a worthwhile investment in that particular brand of intellectual dishonesty, continues to deceive the one small part of your mind that is capable of acknowledging that you're not being particularly honest about how you choose to look at your theism-of-choice.

I get that everybody wants answers to the deep, meaningful, questions. What I don't get is the willingness most show towards simply accepting when one person, or a group of people, profess to have those answers and that all you have to do is accept their word for it. In any other aspect of your life you would not accept that, but when it comes to theism, you give it a 'special' pass on looking too closely at it for fear of seeing all the cracks and flaws it is riddled with.

Here's something for you, to keep this post on topic, most American Christians profess their love of the Bible, particularly the King James Version, which is full of 'thee' and 'thou' and much in the way of olde-worlde English terms and phrases. Except that at the time King James commissioned it, most people didn't actually speak that way anymore, but he specifically required his version of the Bible maintain the old-fashioned-even-for-back-then style of language because he felt, quite rightly it turned out, that people would be more inclined to feel it had gravitas and deep meaning.

So, today, we see the Xtian yanks citing Bible quote after Bible quote with their hearts aflutter at the use of 'thee' and 'thou' etc. etc. completely oblivious to the fact that it is an artificial spin on the original texts.

Poor ol' Stu, I'm starting to think he genuinely might have been entirely scammed by Homero Joshua Garza for the last several years. By the time Homero is offering him a second-hand Tesla, Garza's plans have clearly cost him dearly and he seems done-in by the constant weasel-words. For Garza to then bait-and-switch by telling him that he can't actually have the car, but he can buy it off him, is just sad. Then, come Xmas, Garza owes Stu so much that he eventually realises he has to give him a little something to keep him from breaking off from him completely, so he finally gives him his car. With vanity-plates in the name of Garza. So that every day he drives around in it, people will think what a great guy that Josh Garza is for giving Stu a hand-out.

That's my take on it.

BTW, absolutely, any sick bastards bringing the children into this deserve locking up themselves. Those kids have a hard enough life ahead of them being that goober's children without weird internet psychos getting involved. Back off or you make yourself the bad guy just as much as Garza is.

Wait, are you saying XPY has a max of 2 Billion?

Two fucking billion?

NXT is a 1 Billion coin platform with a staggering amount of properly crypto 2.0 features and a bright future ahead of it and it sits generally around the 4.5-5.5k sats range.

Are you telling me that XPY, with fuck all in the way of actual technical innovation, but with twice the number of coins, is worth even 2k sats?

See, typically dishonest theism statement.

Atheism is not about asserting our lack of belief to be superior to your belief system. Atheism is simply the assertion that your belief system requires logical fallacy and loss of intellectual integrity in order to be maintained, which is an erroneous mindset.


Again, no, Atheism is simply an assertion based on the recognition that Theism is erroneous and intellectually dishonest.

Theists tell you what to think, because they say it is the truth.

Atheists tell you not to listen to somebody who tells you to simply believe what they say, atheists assert that theists can learn the psychological tools to more honestly define reality. We don't have to tell you what that reality is, you are, after all, living your own reality. Unfortunately, however, as a theist you define reality erroneously and dishonestly.

You, like most theists, want to claim we are two sides of the same argument, which is false. You are one side of an erroneously-based assertion. We simply explain that you are asserting your position by way of fallacious reasoning and encourage you to learn critical thinking skills, instead of being told what to think by a system of theism which is based on dogma, not reasoning.

We are peaceful, you don't see anybody telling theists they are going to burn in hell etc. The difference is that theism absolutely *requires* one to maintain a state of intellectual dishonesty. The atheist position does not require logical fallacies, the theist argument does.


I didn't say they were, I said that it is the same dysfunctional mindset required for theism as for racism and homophobia.

First you remove the sense of entitlement most theists believe they are due. To continue feigning some sort of respect for their conditioned brain-state is akin to telling someone you respect their racism, or homophobia.

You don't begin a conversation with a racist or a homophobe by reassuringly agreeing that they are entitled to respect for their warped opinion. What is needed is a clear definition from the outset that their dysfunctional psychology is not deserving of respect, but needs to be challenged and shown to be the toxic mindset it is. That it is harming them as much as the choices they make in life, when guided by this dysfunction, which harm others.

Salvaged? As what?

Honestly, what do you see this altcoin ever being perceived as anything other than a harsh lesson in what scams to be on the lookout for in crypto?

Nobody has the right to demand to never be offended. Nobody.

Why would ridiculing religion be assumed to be a hateful act, or are you saying that it is the religious who would be filled with hate?

We spread the message of free-thought, releasing people from the shackles of their conditioned minds which are trained to maintain a toxic persistent state of intellectual dishonesty. We are not telling people what to think, we are saying to people they can learn the tools which allow them to objectively think for themselves and feel the release and liberation that intellectual honesty brings.

Mother Theresa, she believed the people she 'cared' for should suffer, that her god wanted them to suffer and that she was performing many righteous deeds by ensuring they did suffer while muttering 'magic' words and making 'magical' gestures with her hands, all the while refusing to permit them medicines or appropriate medical treatment. Intellectual dishonesty doesn't just hurt you, it hurts those who you pretend you are caring for, those who have no idea just how warped your mind is and are tricked into believing what you are doing is actually what is best for them, because you have conditioned them equally to be unable to see the truth of the situation they are in. Surrounded by stupid old ladies who imagine themselves to be 'married' to a mythical super-being.