Bitcoin Forum
September 26, 2018, 04:05:55 PM *
News: ♦♦ New info! Bitcoin Core users absolutely must upgrade to previously-announced 0.16.3 [Torrent]. All Bitcoin users should temporarily trust confirmations slightly less. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 ... 414 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion?  (Read 870745 times)
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 13, 2015, 03:47:10 PM
 #181

You'd think being involved in bitcoin would make them a little more enlightened.

Unfortunately it is the 'theist scientist' fallacy at play, namely, while they may understand that the scientific method is applicable to the working environment they are in, the same degree of rigorous standards are suspended when it comes to their theism because, you know, special pleading.



Devil's advocate:  The 'atheist scientist" fallacy at play is that they believe 1) the scientific method should have the final say, or that 2) only empirical things are real, or that 3) scientific falsification is the only kind that exists, or that 4) the scientific method sets the standard for explanatory rigor.

1)  In this case it shouldn't as it is entirely inapplicable (there is no possible, theoretical way to even conceptualize a means of empirical falsification even if you assume outright God exists).  Actually, it can't even explore the topic of God or Intelligent Design in any meaningful way.

2)  Non-empirical (i.e. non-physical) things exist.  This is self-apparent every moment of your conscious experience.

3)  Logical falsification > empirical falsification.  The scientific method has no built-in mechanism for distinguishing between contradictory observations (e.g. our extrapolation based upon observations of Universal expansion that the Universe is 'x' years-old vs. our observations that galaxies at similar ages of development appear equidistant from our locality in every direction).  Science must defer to logic to distinguish between contradictory conclusions derived from observations.  In such a case, logic can reconcile what Science cannot.

4)  The scientific method is a philosophical subset.  Its roots are entirely abstract and philosophical, and stem from empirical epistemology.  In an empirical context (i.e. where the role of observation is controlled and assumed to have no causal effect on reality whatsoever), the scientific method does set the standard for explanatory rigor.  Outside of an empirical context, its explanatory rigor is exactly zero.  Nil.  Zip.  Nothing.  Nada.  It has absolutely no capacity whatsoever to explore or comment upon abstract phenomena, including its own abstract assumptions, and also the abstract rules of logical inference and theory-making which it utilizes at every experimental turn.

At the height of generality, logic is self-descriptively the most capable of forming sound explanatory models.

1537977955
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537977955

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537977955
Reply with quote  #2

1537977955
Report to moderator
Make a difference with your Ether.
Donate Ether for the greater good.
SPRING.WETRUST.IO
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1537977955
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1537977955

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1537977955
Reply with quote  #2

1537977955
Report to moderator
celestio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 13, 2015, 04:35:02 PM
 #182

You'd think being involved in bitcoin would make them a little more enlightened.

Unfortunately it is the 'theist scientist' fallacy at play, namely, while they may understand that the scientific method is applicable to the working environment they are in, the same degree of rigorous standards are suspended when it comes to their theism because, you know, special pleading.


snip-

Hello the joint, I know you believe in a "god", and that metaphysical things exist. But can you explain to me why and how?

"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime" - Satoshi Nakamoto, June 17, 2010
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 13, 2015, 05:27:30 PM
 #183

You'd think being involved in bitcoin would make them a little more enlightened.

Unfortunately it is the 'theist scientist' fallacy at play, namely, while they may understand that the scientific method is applicable to the working environment they are in, the same degree of rigorous standards are suspended when it comes to their theism because, you know, special pleading.


snip-

Hello the joint, I know you believe in a "god", and that metaphysical things exist. But can you explain to me why and how?

All identifiable, real things must self-apparently have an abstract basis.

The reason for this is that real things/reality are defined by metrics, which are abstract scales of measurement.

The most fundamental metric is binary.  A binary metric is fundamentally necessary in order for something to exist.  For example "1" vs. "0" or "yes" or "no" is a fundamental metric which allows us to assert something exists, which is distinguishable from non-existence.

Perception is the catalyst which invokes this primary metric, and reality is literally defined and affirmed to exist by it.  Without such a metric, there is nothing by which to differentiate betwee existence and non-existence, real and unreal.

Secondary metrics provide similar functions.  For example, after first distinguishing between space and not-space, we can invoke a secondary metric.  If we select a metric that can be divided infinitesimally, then space is continuous.  If we instead invoke a metric that cannot be divided infinitesimally, then space is discontinuous.  Neat, eh?

In the absence of such metrics, we can't assert reality to exist at all.  Born of these metrics, which differentiate between real objects and define them, are rational statements.  The root word of rationale is "ratio," and every rational statement is one describing a relationship between real objects.  Because logic is a predicate for truth, and because any logical statement is a rational statement, truth only takes the form of such relational statements; there is no truth relevant of consideration outside these rational statements.

So, without metrics, we can't even begin to explore what's true and what isn't.  Metrics differentiate between things, thereby setting a ratio between them and allowing us to form true, rational statements about them.  Because metrics are self-descriptively invoked by an [intelligent] mind, and because all real definition is a product of these metrics, Intelligent Design is the necessary mechanism by which reality is created/defined.

celestio
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 250



View Profile
May 13, 2015, 09:40:50 PM
 #184

You'd think being involved in bitcoin would make them a little more enlightened.

Unfortunately it is the 'theist scientist' fallacy at play, namely, while they may understand that the scientific method is applicable to the working environment they are in, the same degree of rigorous standards are suspended when it comes to their theism because, you know, special pleading.


snip-

Hello the joint, I know you believe in a "god", and that metaphysical things exist. But can you explain to me why and how?

All identifiable, real things must self-apparently have an abstract basis.

The reason for this is that real things/reality are defined by metrics, which are abstract scales of measurement.

The most fundamental metric is binary.  A binary metric is fundamentally necessary in order for something to exist.  For example "1" vs. "0" or "yes" or "no" is a fundamental metric which allows us to assert something exists, which is distinguishable from non-existence.

Perception is the catalyst which invokes this primary metric, and reality is literally defined and affirmed to exist by it.  Without such a metric, there is nothing by which to differentiate betwee existence and non-existence, real and unreal.

Secondary metrics provide similar functions.  For example, after first distinguishing between space and not-space, we can invoke a secondary metric.  If we select a metric that can be divided infinitesimally, then space is continuous.  If we instead invoke a metric that cannot be divided infinitesimally, then space is discontinuous.  Neat, eh?

In the absence of such metrics, we can't assert reality to exist at all.  Born of these metrics, which differentiate between real objects and define them, are rational statements.  The root word of rationale is "ratio," and every rational statement is one describing a relationship between real objects.  Because logic is a predicate for truth, and because any logical statement is a rational statement, truth only takes the form of such relational statements; there is no truth relevant of consideration outside these rational statements.

So, without metrics, we can't even begin to explore what's true and what isn't.  Metrics differentiate between things, thereby setting a ratio between them and allowing us to form true, rational statements about them.  Because metrics are self-descriptively invoked by an [intelligent] mind, and because all real definition is a product of these metrics, Intelligent Design is the necessary mechanism by which reality is created/defined.

Ok thank you it's an interesting read.

"The nature of Bitcoin is such that once version 0.1 was released, the core design was set in stone for the rest of its lifetime" - Satoshi Nakamoto, June 17, 2010
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1047


View Profile
May 13, 2015, 11:21:17 PM
 #185

You'd think being involved in bitcoin would make them a little more enlightened.

Unfortunately it is the 'theist scientist' fallacy at play, namely, while they may understand that the scientific method is applicable to the working environment they are in, the same degree of rigorous standards are suspended when it comes to their theism because, you know, special pleading.


snip-

Hello the joint, I know you believe in a "god", and that metaphysical things exist. But can you explain to me why and how?

All identifiable, real things must self-apparently have an abstract basis.

The reason for this is that real things/reality are defined by metrics, which are abstract scales of measurement.

The most fundamental metric is binary.  A binary metric is fundamentally necessary in order for something to exist.  For example "1" vs. "0" or "yes" or "no" is a fundamental metric which allows us to assert something exists, which is distinguishable from non-existence.

Perception is the catalyst which invokes this primary metric, and reality is literally defined and affirmed to exist by it.  Without such a metric, there is nothing by which to differentiate betwee existence and non-existence, real and unreal.

Secondary metrics provide similar functions.  For example, after first distinguishing between space and not-space, we can invoke a secondary metric.  If we select a metric that can be divided infinitesimally, then space is continuous.  If we instead invoke a metric that cannot be divided infinitesimally, then space is discontinuous.  Neat, eh?

In the absence of such metrics, we can't assert reality to exist at all.  Born of these metrics, which differentiate between real objects and define them, are rational statements.  The root word of rationale is "ratio," and every rational statement is one describing a relationship between real objects.  Because logic is a predicate for truth, and because any logical statement is a rational statement, truth only takes the form of such relational statements; there is no truth relevant of consideration outside these rational statements.

So, without metrics, we can't even begin to explore what's true and what isn't.  Metrics differentiate between things, thereby setting a ratio between them and allowing us to form true, rational statements about them.  Because metrics are self-descriptively invoked by an [intelligent] mind, and because all real definition is a product of these metrics, Intelligent Design is the necessary mechanism by which reality is created/defined.

Ok thank you it's an interesting read.

Of course, none f this matters to anyone in great pain or great joy, except that the pain won't stop or that the joy will.

Smiley
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 14, 2015, 06:36:41 AM
 #186

You'd think being involved in bitcoin would make them a little more enlightened.

Unfortunately it is the 'theist scientist' fallacy at play, namely, while they may understand that the scientific method is applicable to the working environment they are in, the same degree of rigorous standards are suspended when it comes to their theism because, you know, special pleading.


snip-

Hello the joint, I know you believe in a "god", and that metaphysical things exist. But can you explain to me why and how?

All identifiable, real things must self-apparently have an abstract basis.

The reason for this is that real things/reality are defined by metrics, which are abstract scales of measurement.

The most fundamental metric is binary.  A binary metric is fundamentally necessary in order for something to exist.  For example "1" vs. "0" or "yes" or "no" is a fundamental metric which allows us to assert something exists, which is distinguishable from non-existence.

Perception is the catalyst which invokes this primary metric, and reality is literally defined and affirmed to exist by it.  Without such a metric, there is nothing by which to differentiate betwee existence and non-existence, real and unreal.

Secondary metrics provide similar functions.  For example, after first distinguishing between space and not-space, we can invoke a secondary metric.  If we select a metric that can be divided infinitesimally, then space is continuous.  If we instead invoke a metric that cannot be divided infinitesimally, then space is discontinuous.  Neat, eh?

In the absence of such metrics, we can't assert reality to exist at all.  Born of these metrics, which differentiate between real objects and define them, are rational statements.  The root word of rationale is "ratio," and every rational statement is one describing a relationship between real objects.  Because logic is a predicate for truth, and because any logical statement is a rational statement, truth only takes the form of such relational statements; there is no truth relevant of consideration outside these rational statements.

So, without metrics, we can't even begin to explore what's true and what isn't.  Metrics differentiate between things, thereby setting a ratio between them and allowing us to form true, rational statements about them.  Because metrics are self-descriptively invoked by an [intelligent] mind, and because all real definition is a product of these metrics, Intelligent Design is the necessary mechanism by which reality is created/defined.

Ok thank you it's an interesting read.

Of course, none f this matters to anyone in great pain or great joy, except that the pain won't stop or that the joy will.

Smiley


None of that sentence matters regarding anything I said.

Beliathon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
May 14, 2015, 03:24:32 PM
 #187

I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.
QFT in science this concept is known as "burden of proof" and it means he who makes the claim must provide the supporting evidence.
Religions are failed sciences, so naturally they're losing every philosophical and ethical battle to science proper. It's only a matter of time now. Since the birth of the internet religion has become a dead thing walking.



Religion offers a Perfect Answer to end all questions, it's the intellectual equivalent of closing a door. Every question in science leads to still more questions, this is why science survives and thrives while religion wanes toward irrelevance.

Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1047


View Profile
May 14, 2015, 03:45:34 PM
 #188

I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.
QFT in science this concept is known as "burden of proof" and it means he who makes the claim must provide the supporting evidence.
Religions are failed sciences, so naturally they're losing every philosophical and ethical battle to science proper. It's only a matter of time now. Since the birth of the internet religion has become a dead thing walking.



Religion offers a Perfect Answer to end all questions, it's the intellectual equivalent of closing a door. Every question in science leads to still more questions, this is why science survives and thrives while religion wanes toward irrelevance.


Religions are not failed sciences, simply for the fact that science and the scientific method are failed sciences. After all, what is the real goal of science? Of course, it is different for every person/scientist (some want to use it to benefit humanity, others to take over the world, all to live at least a reasonable personal life).

Science will never get to the goal it is looking for. Why not? Because the universe is too large for science to achieve any real coherence within its various fields of endeavor. Only religion can do that.

If you are going to contest what I have written here, be my guest. But come back with something serious when science proves that it has allowed people to live for 200 years in good health... better, 500 years... or a thousand years.

Long before science can do this, religion will have proven itself to be true as mankind nears destroying the earth, and Jesus God returns in glory as He has said He would.

Smiley
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 14, 2015, 04:20:42 PM
 #189

I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.
QFT in science this concept is known as "burden of proof" and it means he who makes the claim must provide the supporting evidence.
Religions are failed sciences, so naturally they're losing every philosophical and ethical battle to science proper. It's only a matter of time now. Since the birth of the internet religion has become a dead thing walking.



Religion offers a Perfect Answer to end all questions, it's the intellectual equivalent of closing a door. Every question in science leads to still more questions, this is why science survives and thrives while religion wanes toward irrelevance.


Religions are not failed sciences, simply for the fact that science and the scientific method are failed sciences. After all, what is the real goal of science? Of course, it is different for every person/scientist (some want to use it to benefit humanity, others to take over the world, all to live at least a reasonable personal life).

Science will never get to the goal it is looking for. Why not? Because the universe is too large for science to achieve any real coherence within its various fields of endeavor. Only religion can do that.

If you are going to contest what I have written here, be my guest. But come back with something serious when science proves that it has allowed people to live for 200 years in good health... better, 500 years... or a thousand years.

Long before science can do this, religion will have proven itself to be true as mankind nears destroying the earth, and Jesus God returns in glory as He has said He would.

Smiley

1) The scientific method is perfect, it just has limitations.  Philosophy and logic in general don't have such limitations and accordingly have greater scope.  But you have no desire to learn how or why.  You *could* learn about how and why so you don't keep making dumbass statements which, after hundreds of posts, indicate you still have no idea what the scientific method is, how it works, why it works, and why it works perfectly within the boundaries of its scope.

2) Religion isn't epistemology.  It's a belief system.  It's not even comparable.  Religon is not a method which leads to knowledge acquisition.  Again, its a belief system. Different religions are derived from various epistemological roots (e.g. "Read the Bible because the Bible is true") but it's the epistemology which must be evaluate for its rigor, not the religion itself.

3) The size of the Universe has nothing to do with science's inability to form a comprehensive explanatory model of reality.  Instead, it's limited by the rules of inductive reasoning which do not permit such explanations.

4) Consider yourself contested and defeated.  Care to contest what I said?  And by "contest," I don't mean just disagreeing.  I mean, can you actually provide reasons?

5) Way to equate "religion" with "Chrisianity" and ignore every other religion.  

BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1047


View Profile
May 14, 2015, 05:17:47 PM
 #190

I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.
QFT in science this concept is known as "burden of proof" and it means he who makes the claim must provide the supporting evidence.
Religions are failed sciences, so naturally they're losing every philosophical and ethical battle to science proper. It's only a matter of time now. Since the birth of the internet religion has become a dead thing walking.



Religion offers a Perfect Answer to end all questions, it's the intellectual equivalent of closing a door. Every question in science leads to still more questions, this is why science survives and thrives while religion wanes toward irrelevance.


Religions are not failed sciences, simply for the fact that science and the scientific method are failed sciences. After all, what is the real goal of science? Of course, it is different for every person/scientist (some want to use it to benefit humanity, others to take over the world, all to live at least a reasonable personal life).

Science will never get to the goal it is looking for. Why not? Because the universe is too large for science to achieve any real coherence within its various fields of endeavor. Only religion can do that.

If you are going to contest what I have written here, be my guest. But come back with something serious when science proves that it has allowed people to live for 200 years in good health... better, 500 years... or a thousand years.

Long before science can do this, religion will have proven itself to be true as mankind nears destroying the earth, and Jesus God returns in glory as He has said He would.

Smiley

1) The scientific method is perfect, it just has limitations.  Philosophy and logic in general don't have such limitations and accordingly have greater scope.  But you have no desire to learn how or why.  You *could* learn about how and why so you don't keep making dumbass statements which, after hundreds of posts, indicate you still have no idea what the scientific method is, how it works, why it works, and why it works perfectly within the boundaries of its scope.

2) Religion isn't epistemology.  It's a belief system.  It's not even comparable.  Religon is not a method which leads to knowledge acquisition.  Again, its a belief system. Different religions are derived from various epistemological roots (e.g. "Read the Bible because the Bible is true") but it's the epistemology which must be evaluate for its rigor, not the religion itself.

3) The size of the Universe has nothing to do with science's inability to form a comprehensive explanatory model of reality.  Instead, it's limited by the rules of inductive reasoning which do not permit such explanations.

4) Consider yourself contested and defeated.  Care to contest what I said?  And by "contest," I don't mean just disagreeing.  I mean, can you actually provide reasons?

5) Way to equate "religion" with "Chrisianity" and ignore every other religion.  

1. The scientific method is perfect with regard to itself. No limitations. But that is all it has. What's the matter. Do you have problems recognizing the truth, so you attempt to do character assassinations of my understandings which are, obviously, way beyond your simplistic thinking?

2. Science is a belief system. The scientific method simply describes the details of science. Thus science, at least the way that it is expressed, is a religion. It is a weak religion, because by the time that it finishes what it is attempting to do, the whole universe will have crumbled to beyond dust, through entropy.

3. I would consider science a much better tool than that, as long as it remains in truthful expression.

4. You might prove things to many people. But if you do, it is only because they are willing to accept what you "evidence" to them as proof.

5. Actually, Christianity is not really religion. It is reality. The way scientific knowledge is exaggerated in the expressions of scientists and politicians, science is one of the biggest religions out there, surpassed only by atheism.

Smiley
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 14, 2015, 06:00:19 PM
 #191

I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.
QFT in science this concept is known as "burden of proof" and it means he who makes the claim must provide the supporting evidence.
Religions are failed sciences, so naturally they're losing every philosophical and ethical battle to science proper. It's only a matter of time now. Since the birth of the internet religion has become a dead thing walking.



Religion offers a Perfect Answer to end all questions, it's the intellectual equivalent of closing a door. Every question in science leads to still more questions, this is why science survives and thrives while religion wanes toward irrelevance.


Religions are not failed sciences, simply for the fact that science and the scientific method are failed sciences. After all, what is the real goal of science? Of course, it is different for every person/scientist (some want to use it to benefit humanity, others to take over the world, all to live at least a reasonable personal life).

Science will never get to the goal it is looking for. Why not? Because the universe is too large for science to achieve any real coherence within its various fields of endeavor. Only religion can do that.

If you are going to contest what I have written here, be my guest. But come back with something serious when science proves that it has allowed people to live for 200 years in good health... better, 500 years... or a thousand years.

Long before science can do this, religion will have proven itself to be true as mankind nears destroying the earth, and Jesus God returns in glory as He has said He would.

Smiley

1) The scientific method is perfect, it just has limitations.  Philosophy and logic in general don't have such limitations and accordingly have greater scope.  But you have no desire to learn how or why.  You *could* learn about how and why so you don't keep making dumbass statements which, after hundreds of posts, indicate you still have no idea what the scientific method is, how it works, why it works, and why it works perfectly within the boundaries of its scope.

2) Religion isn't epistemology.  It's a belief system.  It's not even comparable.  Religon is not a method which leads to knowledge acquisition.  Again, its a belief system. Different religions are derived from various epistemological roots (e.g. "Read the Bible because the Bible is true") but it's the epistemology which must be evaluate for its rigor, not the religion itself.

3) The size of the Universe has nothing to do with science's inability to form a comprehensive explanatory model of reality.  Instead, it's limited by the rules of inductive reasoning which do not permit such explanations.

4) Consider yourself contested and defeated.  Care to contest what I said?  And by "contest," I don't mean just disagreeing.  I mean, can you actually provide reasons?

5) Way to equate "religion" with "Chrisianity" and ignore every other religion.  

1. The scientific method is perfect with regard to itself. No limitations. But that is all it has. What's the matter. Do you have problems recognizing the truth, so you attempt to do character assassinations of my understandings which are, obviously, way beyond your simplistic thinking?

2. Science is a belief system. The scientific method simply describes the details of science. Thus science, at least the way that it is expressed, is a religion. It is a weak religion, because by the time that it finishes what it is attempting to do, the whole universe will have crumbled to beyond dust, through entropy.

3. I would consider science a much better tool than that, as long as it remains in truthful expression.

4. You might prove things to many people. But if you do, it is only because they are willing to accept what you "evidence" to them as proof.

5. Actually, Christianity is not really religion. It is reality. The way scientific knowledge is exaggerated in the expressions of scientists and politicians, science is one of the biggest religions out there, surpassed only by atheism.

Smiley

1) Blah blah blah, hot air and no actual point.  I love how you claim I have "simplistic thinking" when you don't actually provide any reasons for your own statements.

2) No.  *Empiricism* is a belief system.  Science is an empirical *method.*  The scientific method is in no way a belief system.

3)  It *must* remain truthful by acknowledging its limitations at every turn, especially in the conclusion section.  No problem here.  If it didn't, it wouldn't be good scientific practice.

4)  It's called "margin-of-error," and *every* scientific conclusion has one.  No problem, here.  There is no person more humble or cautious about a conclusion than a good scientist, for it is his duty to explicitly describe where scientific experiments have points of weakness.

5) What kind of fucking moron do you have to be to create a belief system in which you think an actual religion isn't one, and a total non-religion is one?  Here we go again.  This type of thinking meets the criteria for psychosis.  I'm not kidding.

Can you possibly frame your beliefs using the words everyone else uses?  No?  Of course not, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

I'm going to create a thread where I do nothing but quote you and show your own quotes directly contradict yourself.  Out of curiosity, how would you plan to wiggle out and explain your own contradictions, such as saying "religion will be shown to be true" and "Christianity isn't even a religion"?  Furthermore, how so you intend to reconcile several dozen of these types of contradictory quotes?

BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1047


View Profile
May 14, 2015, 09:11:15 PM
 #192

I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.
QFT in science this concept is known as "burden of proof" and it means he who makes the claim must provide the supporting evidence.
Religions are failed sciences, so naturally they're losing every philosophical and ethical battle to science proper. It's only a matter of time now. Since the birth of the internet religion has become a dead thing walking.



Religion offers a Perfect Answer to end all questions, it's the intellectual equivalent of closing a door. Every question in science leads to still more questions, this is why science survives and thrives while religion wanes toward irrelevance.


Religions are not failed sciences, simply for the fact that science and the scientific method are failed sciences. After all, what is the real goal of science? Of course, it is different for every person/scientist (some want to use it to benefit humanity, others to take over the world, all to live at least a reasonable personal life).

Science will never get to the goal it is looking for. Why not? Because the universe is too large for science to achieve any real coherence within its various fields of endeavor. Only religion can do that.

If you are going to contest what I have written here, be my guest. But come back with something serious when science proves that it has allowed people to live for 200 years in good health... better, 500 years... or a thousand years.

Long before science can do this, religion will have proven itself to be true as mankind nears destroying the earth, and Jesus God returns in glory as He has said He would.

Smiley

1) The scientific method is perfect, it just has limitations.  Philosophy and logic in general don't have such limitations and accordingly have greater scope.  But you have no desire to learn how or why.  You *could* learn about how and why so you don't keep making dumbass statements which, after hundreds of posts, indicate you still have no idea what the scientific method is, how it works, why it works, and why it works perfectly within the boundaries of its scope.

2) Religion isn't epistemology.  It's a belief system.  It's not even comparable.  Religon is not a method which leads to knowledge acquisition.  Again, its a belief system. Different religions are derived from various epistemological roots (e.g. "Read the Bible because the Bible is true") but it's the epistemology which must be evaluate for its rigor, not the religion itself.

3) The size of the Universe has nothing to do with science's inability to form a comprehensive explanatory model of reality.  Instead, it's limited by the rules of inductive reasoning which do not permit such explanations.

4) Consider yourself contested and defeated.  Care to contest what I said?  And by "contest," I don't mean just disagreeing.  I mean, can you actually provide reasons?

5) Way to equate "religion" with "Chrisianity" and ignore every other religion.  

1. The scientific method is perfect with regard to itself. No limitations. But that is all it has. What's the matter. Do you have problems recognizing the truth, so you attempt to do character assassinations of my understandings which are, obviously, way beyond your simplistic thinking?

2. Science is a belief system. The scientific method simply describes the details of science. Thus science, at least the way that it is expressed, is a religion. It is a weak religion, because by the time that it finishes what it is attempting to do, the whole universe will have crumbled to beyond dust, through entropy.

3. I would consider science a much better tool than that, as long as it remains in truthful expression.

4. You might prove things to many people. But if you do, it is only because they are willing to accept what you "evidence" to them as proof.

5. Actually, Christianity is not really religion. It is reality. The way scientific knowledge is exaggerated in the expressions of scientists and politicians, science is one of the biggest religions out there, surpassed only by atheism.

Smiley

1) Blah blah blah, hot air and no actual point.  I love how you claim I have "simplistic thinking" when you don't actually provide any reasons for your own statements.

2) No.  *Empiricism* is a belief system.  Science is an empirical *method.*  The scientific method is in no way a belief system.

3)  It *must* remain truthful by acknowledging its limitations at every turn, especially in the conclusion section.  No problem here.  If it didn't, it wouldn't be good scientific practice.

4)  It's called "margin-of-error," and *every* scientific conclusion has one.  No problem, here.  There is no person more humble or cautious about a conclusion than a good scientist, for it is his duty to explicitly describe where scientific experiments have points of weakness.

5) What kind of fucking moron do you have to be to create a belief system in which you think an actual religion isn't one, and a total non-religion is one?  Here we go again.  This type of thinking meets the criteria for psychosis.  I'm not kidding.

Can you possibly frame your beliefs using the words everyone else uses?  No?  Of course not, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

I'm going to create a thread where I do nothing but quote you and show your own quotes directly contradict yourself.  Out of curiosity, how would you plan to wiggle out and explain your own contradictions, such as saying "religion will be shown to be true" and "Christianity isn't even a religion"?  Furthermore, how so you intend to reconcile several dozen of these types of contradictory quotes?

(Chuckle.)

C'mon, now. Relax. You are losing the connection between your soul and your brain, and your corpus callosum is turning into hemorrhoids.

 Cheesy
the joint
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1000



View Profile
May 14, 2015, 09:25:56 PM
 #193

I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.
QFT in science this concept is known as "burden of proof" and it means he who makes the claim must provide the supporting evidence.
Religions are failed sciences, so naturally they're losing every philosophical and ethical battle to science proper. It's only a matter of time now. Since the birth of the internet religion has become a dead thing walking.



Religion offers a Perfect Answer to end all questions, it's the intellectual equivalent of closing a door. Every question in science leads to still more questions, this is why science survives and thrives while religion wanes toward irrelevance.


Religions are not failed sciences, simply for the fact that science and the scientific method are failed sciences. After all, what is the real goal of science? Of course, it is different for every person/scientist (some want to use it to benefit humanity, others to take over the world, all to live at least a reasonable personal life).

Science will never get to the goal it is looking for. Why not? Because the universe is too large for science to achieve any real coherence within its various fields of endeavor. Only religion can do that.

If you are going to contest what I have written here, be my guest. But come back with something serious when science proves that it has allowed people to live for 200 years in good health... better, 500 years... or a thousand years.

Long before science can do this, religion will have proven itself to be true as mankind nears destroying the earth, and Jesus God returns in glory as He has said He would.

Smiley

1) The scientific method is perfect, it just has limitations.  Philosophy and logic in general don't have such limitations and accordingly have greater scope.  But you have no desire to learn how or why.  You *could* learn about how and why so you don't keep making dumbass statements which, after hundreds of posts, indicate you still have no idea what the scientific method is, how it works, why it works, and why it works perfectly within the boundaries of its scope.

2) Religion isn't epistemology.  It's a belief system.  It's not even comparable.  Religon is not a method which leads to knowledge acquisition.  Again, its a belief system. Different religions are derived from various epistemological roots (e.g. "Read the Bible because the Bible is true") but it's the epistemology which must be evaluate for its rigor, not the religion itself.

3) The size of the Universe has nothing to do with science's inability to form a comprehensive explanatory model of reality.  Instead, it's limited by the rules of inductive reasoning which do not permit such explanations.

4) Consider yourself contested and defeated.  Care to contest what I said?  And by "contest," I don't mean just disagreeing.  I mean, can you actually provide reasons?

5) Way to equate "religion" with "Chrisianity" and ignore every other religion.  

1. The scientific method is perfect with regard to itself. No limitations. But that is all it has. What's the matter. Do you have problems recognizing the truth, so you attempt to do character assassinations of my understandings which are, obviously, way beyond your simplistic thinking?

2. Science is a belief system. The scientific method simply describes the details of science. Thus science, at least the way that it is expressed, is a religion. It is a weak religion, because by the time that it finishes what it is attempting to do, the whole universe will have crumbled to beyond dust, through entropy.

3. I would consider science a much better tool than that, as long as it remains in truthful expression.

4. You might prove things to many people. But if you do, it is only because they are willing to accept what you "evidence" to them as proof.

5. Actually, Christianity is not really religion. It is reality. The way scientific knowledge is exaggerated in the expressions of scientists and politicians, science is one of the biggest religions out there, surpassed only by atheism.

Smiley

1) Blah blah blah, hot air and no actual point.  I love how you claim I have "simplistic thinking" when you don't actually provide any reasons for your own statements.

2) No.  *Empiricism* is a belief system.  Science is an empirical *method.*  The scientific method is in no way a belief system.

3)  It *must* remain truthful by acknowledging its limitations at every turn, especially in the conclusion section.  No problem here.  If it didn't, it wouldn't be good scientific practice.

4)  It's called "margin-of-error," and *every* scientific conclusion has one.  No problem, here.  There is no person more humble or cautious about a conclusion than a good scientist, for it is his duty to explicitly describe where scientific experiments have points of weakness.

5) What kind of fucking moron do you have to be to create a belief system in which you think an actual religion isn't one, and a total non-religion is one?  Here we go again.  This type of thinking meets the criteria for psychosis.  I'm not kidding.

Can you possibly frame your beliefs using the words everyone else uses?  No?  Of course not, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

I'm going to create a thread where I do nothing but quote you and show your own quotes directly contradict yourself.  Out of curiosity, how would you plan to wiggle out and explain your own contradictions, such as saying "religion will be shown to be true" and "Christianity isn't even a religion"?  Furthermore, how so you intend to reconcile several dozen of these types of contradictory quotes?

(Chuckle.)

C'mon, now. Relax. You are losing the connection between your soul and your brain, and your corpus callosum is turning into hemorrhoids.

 Cheesy

Says the guy who thinks an inductive fallacy is about poor electrical semiconductors.

TKO.

RitzBitzz
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 330
Merit: 250


View Profile
May 14, 2015, 09:41:13 PM
 #194

The christian's heaven is a joke.  I couldn't imagine sharing it with people like Osama Bin Laden.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_JoE2GioXY
Wouldn't it be better to go to hell? We'd have all the awesome guys and chicks there. The best part of it all is that Lauda is going to be there too.  Wink

This thread is going out of control. This has already happened to a few threads with similar topics. The deluded people won't give in no matter what one presents them with, hence they are deluded.

It's hard for me to tell if the religious nuts on here are trolling or not. You'd think being involved in bitcoin would make them a little more enlightened.

Theists are the ones who reject atheists much more.

That's because they get hurt when their belief system is threatened and can't help but chime in, whereas Atheists tend to not really care or just discredit their opinion as nonsense whilst religious people have to continually defend themselves (and always poorly when it's vs reason and science).

How does working with new currency make you "enlightened"?


FuzeX
.l...l...



CBT JULY!
JOIN NOW



                        ▄▄▄▄▄▄     
                  ▄████████     
                 █████▀▀▀▀   
                ▐████   
                ▐████     
            ██████████     
            ██████████     
                ▐████     
                ▐████     
                ▐████     
                ▐████     






█████▄                      ▄███▄
███████▄                ████████▄
████████▌▄          ███████████
████████▌▐█    ▄█████████▀▄█
████████▌▐██▄▀█████████  ██
████████▌▐████▀███████  ███
████████▌▐█████  █████▀▄███
████████▌ ▀█████▄  ███ █████
████████▌      ▀▀████  █▄█████
▀███████▌           ▀▀▀▀ ▄██████
    ▀▀████▌                        ▀████
            ▀█▌                            ▀▀█


.



                         ▄▄██▄
                   ▄▄█▀▀  ██
               ▄▄█▀▀      █▌
        ▄▄█▀▀   ▄▀    ██
  ▄▄█▀▀    ▄█▀     ▐█
 ██       ▄██▀       █▌
 ▀▀█████▀        ██
    ██▀▀█▄▄      █▌
    █▄  ██▀▀▀▄██
     █▄█▀







                               ▄███▄▄    ▄
██                       █████████▀
████▄                ██████████▀
▀████████▄▄    ██████████
▄▄████████████████████
█████████████████████
  ▀███████████████████
    ██████████████████
     ▀██████████████▀
        ▄██████████▀
▄▄██████████▀
      ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀


BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1047


View Profile
May 15, 2015, 01:44:05 AM
 #195

I'll make it easier for you. If belief equals '1', in that an affirmative statement towards the existence of something is held to be true by the theist, the atheist position is not '-1', it is still '0' because the atheist is not asserting the existence or non-existence of anything, the atheist is rejecting the theist assertion, he is not disproving it. There is no need to disprove because the theist is the one who is making a claim towards the existence of something and that claim is invalid.
QFT in science this concept is known as "burden of proof" and it means he who makes the claim must provide the supporting evidence.
Religions are failed sciences, so naturally they're losing every philosophical and ethical battle to science proper. It's only a matter of time now. Since the birth of the internet religion has become a dead thing walking.



Religion offers a Perfect Answer to end all questions, it's the intellectual equivalent of closing a door. Every question in science leads to still more questions, this is why science survives and thrives while religion wanes toward irrelevance.


Religions are not failed sciences, simply for the fact that science and the scientific method are failed sciences. After all, what is the real goal of science? Of course, it is different for every person/scientist (some want to use it to benefit humanity, others to take over the world, all to live at least a reasonable personal life).

Science will never get to the goal it is looking for. Why not? Because the universe is too large for science to achieve any real coherence within its various fields of endeavor. Only religion can do that.

If you are going to contest what I have written here, be my guest. But come back with something serious when science proves that it has allowed people to live for 200 years in good health... better, 500 years... or a thousand years.

Long before science can do this, religion will have proven itself to be true as mankind nears destroying the earth, and Jesus God returns in glory as He has said He would.

Smiley

1) The scientific method is perfect, it just has limitations.  Philosophy and logic in general don't have such limitations and accordingly have greater scope.  But you have no desire to learn how or why.  You *could* learn about how and why so you don't keep making dumbass statements which, after hundreds of posts, indicate you still have no idea what the scientific method is, how it works, why it works, and why it works perfectly within the boundaries of its scope.

2) Religion isn't epistemology.  It's a belief system.  It's not even comparable.  Religon is not a method which leads to knowledge acquisition.  Again, its a belief system. Different religions are derived from various epistemological roots (e.g. "Read the Bible because the Bible is true") but it's the epistemology which must be evaluate for its rigor, not the religion itself.

3) The size of the Universe has nothing to do with science's inability to form a comprehensive explanatory model of reality.  Instead, it's limited by the rules of inductive reasoning which do not permit such explanations.

4) Consider yourself contested and defeated.  Care to contest what I said?  And by "contest," I don't mean just disagreeing.  I mean, can you actually provide reasons?

5) Way to equate "religion" with "Chrisianity" and ignore every other religion.  

1. The scientific method is perfect with regard to itself. No limitations. But that is all it has. What's the matter. Do you have problems recognizing the truth, so you attempt to do character assassinations of my understandings which are, obviously, way beyond your simplistic thinking?

2. Science is a belief system. The scientific method simply describes the details of science. Thus science, at least the way that it is expressed, is a religion. It is a weak religion, because by the time that it finishes what it is attempting to do, the whole universe will have crumbled to beyond dust, through entropy.

3. I would consider science a much better tool than that, as long as it remains in truthful expression.

4. You might prove things to many people. But if you do, it is only because they are willing to accept what you "evidence" to them as proof.

5. Actually, Christianity is not really religion. It is reality. The way scientific knowledge is exaggerated in the expressions of scientists and politicians, science is one of the biggest religions out there, surpassed only by atheism.

Smiley

1) Blah blah blah, hot air and no actual point.  I love how you claim I have "simplistic thinking" when you don't actually provide any reasons for your own statements.

2) No.  *Empiricism* is a belief system.  Science is an empirical *method.*  The scientific method is in no way a belief system.

3)  It *must* remain truthful by acknowledging its limitations at every turn, especially in the conclusion section.  No problem here.  If it didn't, it wouldn't be good scientific practice.

4)  It's called "margin-of-error," and *every* scientific conclusion has one.  No problem, here.  There is no person more humble or cautious about a conclusion than a good scientist, for it is his duty to explicitly describe where scientific experiments have points of weakness.

5) What kind of fucking moron do you have to be to create a belief system in which you think an actual religion isn't one, and a total non-religion is one?  Here we go again.  This type of thinking meets the criteria for psychosis.  I'm not kidding.

Can you possibly frame your beliefs using the words everyone else uses?  No?  Of course not, because you have no clue what you're talking about.

I'm going to create a thread where I do nothing but quote you and show your own quotes directly contradict yourself.  Out of curiosity, how would you plan to wiggle out and explain your own contradictions, such as saying "religion will be shown to be true" and "Christianity isn't even a religion"?  Furthermore, how so you intend to reconcile several dozen of these types of contradictory quotes?

(Chuckle.)

C'mon, now. Relax. You are losing the connection between your soul and your brain, and your corpus callosum is turning into hemorrhoids.

 Cheesy

Says the guy who thinks an inductive fallacy is about poor electrical semiconductors.

TKO.

Well, it could be if the transformer was shorting. Is your transformer shorting? 

 Cheesy
gangz
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 71
Merit: 10


View Profile
May 15, 2015, 02:23:18 AM
 #196

Seems like there's extremists on both sides, Atheists that will argue with priests and priests who will argue back. They're both fucking crazy  Grin
Vod
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2520
Merit: 1714


Licking my boob since 1970


View Profile WWW
May 15, 2015, 02:30:22 AM
 #197

Seems like there's extremists on both sides, Atheists that will argue with priests and priests who will argue back. They're both fucking crazy  Grin

Atheists use facts.  Theists use beliefs.  Only one is crazy, and you are either one or the other!  Smiley

Every person had their own "god" inside their own mind. (Yes, you could claim there are over seven billion gods in the world.)  Atheists call it our consciousness. However, most theists are vain and believe their god can influence things outside of their own mind.  That's where the conflict comes in - with atheists and with each other.  Theists can't even decide on what heaven would be like, because each one has people they do and don't want there.  So obviously heaven exists just within your mind as well.

As an atheist I know your god is limited to your brain, so it doesn't bother me what you believe.  I don't hate religion, but I do feel sorry for their brainwashed cult members, and it does bother me when they try and push their ignorance on other people.  

Here's a hint to Theists:  The majority of people in the world do not believe what you believe!  Take the hint!

I'm into creating universes, smiting people, writing holy books and listening to Prayer Messages (PMs).
BitcoinTalk Public Information Project (BPIP)
"Masturbation makes you feel good but doesn't do anything for the person you're thinking of.  Just like prayer."
BADecker
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1806
Merit: 1047


View Profile
May 15, 2015, 03:05:07 AM
 #198

Seems like there's extremists on both sides, Atheists that will argue with priests and priests who will argue back. They're both fucking crazy  Grin

Atheists use facts.  Theists use beliefs.  Only one is crazy, and you are either one or the other!  Smiley
Where do you find atheists? Where do you find theists? In the same places - on the job, driving cars and trucks etc., at school, in the libraries, in the shopping centers, at the movie theaters. There are even a few atheists in churches on Sunday for one reason or another.

The point? Atheists and theists use the same things. The only difference is their focus.


Quote
Every person had their own "god" inside their own mind. (Yes, you could claim there are over seven billion gods in the world.)  Atheists call it our consciousness. However, most theists are vain and believe their god can influence things outside of their own mind.  That's where the conflict comes in - with atheists and with each other.  Theists can't even decide on what heaven would be like, because each one has people they do and don't want there.  So obviously heaven exists just within your mind as well.
The point is, both atheists and theists don't know for a fact that God exists or doesn't exist, or that God can or can't affect things outside or inside the minds of any people. Their differing focus is in how they believe, making atheism a religion just like theists have their religions.

Deciding on what Heaven is like or is not like is simply a slightly greater focus on an opinion that Heaven does exist, while others are of the opinion that Heaven does not exist.


Quote
As an atheist I know your god is limited to your brain, so it doesn't bother me what you believe.  I don't hate religion, but I do feel sorry for their brainwashed cult members, and it does bother me when they try and push their ignorance on other people.  

Here's a hint to Theists:  The majority of people in the world do not believe what you believe!  Take the hint!

As a thinking, reasoning person, it is easy to see that proof for or against the existence of God is a difficult thing to find. And understanding this proves that atheism is at least near religion, if not in fact religion. However, I do respect the atheist's right to his/her beliefs.

Smiley
Vod
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2520
Merit: 1714


Licking my boob since 1970


View Profile WWW
May 15, 2015, 03:22:01 AM
 #199

gangz - while I haven't been able to read from the user above me for over a year, I know from seeing quotes that he is one of the theists/cult members I warned you about.

Is he claiming his god is the true god? delusion
Is he claiming everyone else in the world is wrong? delusion
Is he claiming he knows better than science? delusion
Is he making statements told to him by his parent's which he can't back up?  brainwashing

He is a perfect example of why atheists don't get along with theists.  We understand everyone has their own belief, while they believe their belief is THE belief.  (understand?  lol)  They attempt to push their beliefs on us, while we believe everyone has the right to their own beliefs.  conflict/hate

Just ignore people like him (like I do) and the conflict/hate will go away.  Smiley

I'm into creating universes, smiting people, writing holy books and listening to Prayer Messages (PMs).
BitcoinTalk Public Information Project (BPIP)
"Masturbation makes you feel good but doesn't do anything for the person you're thinking of.  Just like prayer."
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1988
Merit: 1610


GUNBOT Licenses up to 50% OFF - 'GrumpyKitty'.


View Profile WWW
May 15, 2015, 06:21:42 AM
 #200

gangz - while I haven't been able to read from the user above me for over a year, I know from seeing quotes that he is one of the theists/cult members I warned you about.

Is he claiming his god is the true god? delusion
Is he claiming everyone else in the world is wrong? delusion
Is he claiming he knows better than science? delusion
Is he making statements told to him by his parent's which he can't back up?  brainwashing

He is a perfect example of why atheists don't get along with theists.  We understand everyone has their own belief, while they believe their belief is THE belief.  (understand?  lol)  They attempt to push their beliefs on us, while we believe everyone has the right to their own beliefs.  conflict/hate

Just ignore people like him (like I do) and the conflict/hate will go away.  Smiley
Correct. I've recently also put that user to ignore. Anyone who can't properly lead a discussion and use arguments should be ignored. Why should I waste my time trying to prove something to a deluded person?
He will either go into a defensive stance and defend theists while saying that "god" is love, everything and whatnot. delusion  ;or he will put atheists and theists in the same bag.
This is actually quite simple to understand. They believe that their belief is 'the truth', while it isn't based on anything aside from fairy tales written in some random book.

.FORTUNE.JACK.
      ▄▄███████▄▄
   ▄████▀▀ ▄ ██████▄
  ████ ▄▄███ ████████
 █████▌▐███▌ ▀▄ ▀█████
███████▄██▀▀▀▀▄████████
█████▀▄▄▄▄█████████████
████▄▄▄▄ █████████████
 ██████▌ ███▀████████
  ███████▄▀▄████████
   ▀█████▀▀███████▀
      ▀▀██████▀▀
         
         █
...FortuneJack.com                                             
...THE BIGGEST BITCOIN GAMBLING SITE
       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄█████████████████▄
  ▄█████████████████████▄
 ▄██
█████████▀███████████▄
██████████▀   ▀██████████
█████████▀       ▀█████████
████████           ████████
████████▄   ▄ ▄   ▄████████
██████████▀   ▀██████████
 ▀██
█████████████████████▀
  ▀██
███████████████████▀
    ▀█████████████████▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
#JACKMATE
WIN 1 BTC
▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
██████████▀█████▀██████████
███████▀░░▀░░░░░▀░░▀███████
██████▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐██████
██████░░░░██░░░██░░░░██████
█████▌░░░░▀▀░░░▀▀░░░░▐█████
██████▄░░▄▄▄░░░▄▄▄░░▄██████
████████▄▄███████▄▄████████

███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████▀
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 ... 414 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!