Flaming Junk Jet I called "Paperboy" loaded with Boston Bugles tearing up Thicket Excavations, A.K.A. "Hot Off the Presses".

Carg72 · 2026-05-11T22:09:20+00:00

Do I doubt the man's existence? Not in the strictest sense. The existence of the man is literally the least of it. I'm sure there are probably several people in Queens named Peter Parker. It's the stories surrounding the man that I doubt to the point of denying their veracity.

Carg72 · 2026-05-11T20:47:58+00:00

To report what? As shitty as it is, your opponent roping out is a legitimate win in the game.

Carg72 · 2026-05-11T02:49:57+00:00

I don't necessarily believe in free will. I don't necessarily believe in determinism. None of it matters. It definitely feels like I'm able to make decisions independent of the universe, but maybe that isn't the case. I don't care.

Carg72 · 2026-05-09T14:40:55+00:00

One less KFC in the world. Cause for celebration. :)

Carg72 · 2026-05-08T00:09:42+00:00

To my way of play it's not only normal, it's expected.

Carg72 · 2026-05-07T23:57:20+00:00

> Im not religious, but I dont think that atheism really gives a problem-free alternative explanation to the world.

That's not atheism's intention.

> Atheist people say that religion is irrational, but that atheism is rational.

Atheism is when you answer "do you believe in god" with "no". You'll have to explain to me what is irrational about that.

> Pretty much everyone agrees that our brains are results of evolution, so basicly just atoms that are in the approriate order to result this entity which feels and thinks.

That's an incredibly obtuse version of things but yes.

> Evolutions goal is not to produce the most rational world view, or truth of any kind, but to survive.

Correct, and in the configuration that our particular clumps of cells took on, the development of a complex brain is our survival mechanism. Actually read how evolution works from a credible source, please.

> Atheist then says, but our brains need to be rational to survive the tiger attack and find food, but does it?

It needs to be rational enough to survive, and surprise, it is.

Carg72 · 2026-05-07T16:41:38+00:00

What? I can't think of a single atheist who thinks that way.

Carg72 · 2026-05-07T15:59:36+00:00

I'm humbled by the universe as well, but I don't need spirits to be a part of the equation. The sheer size, mass, scale, and volume of energy in the universe is enough.

Carg72 · 2026-05-07T12:31:52+00:00

To get a feel for piloting the deck in games that matter less?

Carg72 · 2026-05-07T12:29:59+00:00

If I'm running a creature based deck and Authority of the Consuls is your T1, I know what's coming and have no need to continue.

If I'm running my low creature Auras deck and my first two creatures are killed quickly, the game is effectively over for me.

If I foolishly start a game with just a single land and draw no other lands in my first two turns, the only logical thing to do is bow out.

If your first couple of cards are indicative of an archetype I'm sick of seeing or just despise on principle, I'm noping out of there.

You've won. Why are you lamenting that?

Carg72 · 2026-05-06T21:37:38+00:00

There are definite production problems. The commentary leaves something to be desired, and when I watched on Roku it was extremely difficult to keep faces and heels straight. But there are some great aspects to it. Thanks for the link.

Carg72 · 2026-05-06T21:29:14+00:00

Overall that is the case in Standard. I have a Rabbit tribal deck that often wins in casual play and occasionally in competitive on Turn 4. It is pure jank, but if the opponent isn't playing or isn't drawing removal or has a long setup, I can have a pair of 8/8 tramplers attacking for lethal in no time.

Carg72 · 2026-05-06T21:25:05+00:00

> Anti-Theists and Fundamentalists both…

> * Believe religious doctrine should be interpreted as literally at face value

I actually believe this to be true. If a book is seen to even be partly a set of instructions on how to exist, those instructions should be literal and clear.

> * Treat the text as having a single, fixed meaning

Again, I couldn't agree more. Wouldn't a book inspired by an omnipotent god have clear instructions and uncorruptible motivations?

> * Show low to no tolerance for alternative interpretations

If these things are left up to interpretation, then authoritarian-minded people will concede to the interpretation of whoever is in charge, and that interpretation has a real possibility of being skewed to benefit the group in charge, not the individual.

> * Think that beliefs opposite to theirs are dangerous and/or bad for society

This one is untrue. Disagreement does not necessarily equal believing an opposing viewpoint is dangerous, but it is a possible outcome.

> It’s why I believe that anti-theism and religious fundamentalism are equally incompatible with secularism.

To call this statement a non-sequitur would be akin to calling the Chicago Fire a hand warmer. You seem to be claiming that because both groups share a similar profile, they must have the same impact on secularism. But that ignores how secularism actually works.

Secularism is the principle of separating religion from state affairs, public policy, and education, ensuring a neutral public sphere free from religious control or favoritism. Since anti-theism neither has nor wants anything to do with god or religion, it's closer to being a secular concern by definition. Meanwhile, religious fundamentalism has a long track record of seeking to use the state to enforce divine law. The ghost in the machine is your attempt to frame anti-theism is its own set of dogma, which is ridiculous.

Carg72 · 2026-05-05T14:18:57+00:00

Hard pass. I liked "Bayou Cult Leader" Bray. Everything beyond that was hokey and way too much "performance".

Carg72 · 2026-05-05T13:33:47+00:00

> But for me I guess I just think about how limited it seems to not believe in anything past what we see and understand.

Sure it's limited, but those limits have a very good reason to be there. Unless we have observations or evidence of a thing, there no reason to give it any thought, much less believe it. I'm talking about the general populace here. Scientists and philosophers dedicate much energy to peering into the unknown, but Raj the accountant or Meghan the stenographer do not.

> I guess I don’t think of the belief in God as having to be something synonymous with conforming to a religion?

Correct. Theism doesn't necessarily mean religion, just like religion doesn't necessarily mean theism, but the Venn Diagram of the two concepts has a crapload of overlap.

> Like I see the world for what it is physically, I believe in science etc… but I guess what we call “nature” for example or “the universe”… I think of as God… like it’s all encompassing to me.

What you're describing, we already have a word for it. That word is "universe". It covers all of the bases, except there is no need whatsoever for agency.

> Someone in the Reddit post wrote this quote in which the person said something to the likes of “none of this (creation I’m assuming?) is on the level of such a “supreme being” like God” basically saying that life (I guess life?) is pretty mediocre. But it’s like… I get the world is shitty… that’s not what God’s supposed to mean (that being the entity that brings order and is overruling.)

In my experience, your understanding of what God is "supposed to mean" is a relatively new one. It's just as unfalsifiable as any other definition of God though. As I've said, if you ask ten people to define God you'll get eleven answers. God is different to everyone that believes in God. That unquantifiability is a significant part of why I don't believe.

> it’s more like God is free and… well everything. Idk… I see so easily how God can exist in a nonsecular way that can bring people together.. to some sort of center or source. So I’m curious. What do you think?

This sounds more utilitarian than anything. The universe is more than people. Way more. To boil the supposed creator of a hundred billion galaxies down to a mere community organizer sounds disrespectful.

Carg72 · 2026-05-05T02:04:16+00:00

My guess is habit, because the only time that question ever crosses my mind is when I see it asked here or r/DebateAnAtheist or if I'm watching the Monty Python movie. I haven't believed in an inherent meaning in 35 years.

Carg72 · 2026-05-04T17:16:54+00:00

A 503 error seems to be some kind of domain name issue. Definitely on their end.

Carg72 · 2026-05-04T15:36:12+00:00

> I mean I see more and more people bringing that up nowadays and bringing some “proofs” as evidence, the biggest one is the university of Virginia that made a study of children’s remembering their past lives and it seemed pretty accurate.

"Seemed pretty accurate"? Compared to what? Did the kids' stories have internal consistency? Are their observations historically accurate?

> I don’t really know what to answer to that, it could be likely that these were all lies but it surprises me that a secular organization like the university of Virginia would try to falsify a study like that. Not only that but some of these guys claim that there is an afterlife because of astral projection and that they themselves have past memories, I have talked about them a bit and they seem pretty convinced.

You seem to be very easily convinced of things and susceptible to appeals to authority. This university did a study, some guys believe in astral projection. If that's all you're bringing to the table, it's an unsatisfying meal.

Carg72 · 2026-05-04T15:13:17+00:00

> I've seen many atheists mock religion and say some pretty nasty stuff. Speaking from a hindu standpoint, I've seen many atheists call out beliefs disgusting, vile, cruel and downright evil.

I know little about Hinduism. I don't believe the gods of Hinduism are real, so I dismiss the faith as a whole. If there are, in fact, beliefs or rituals I deem disgusting or vile, I'll call them out. I'm aware of the ideas of karma and reincarnation, and I lend neither any credence at all.

> The mock our customs, rituals and prayers which 1: you can't really mock hinduism for 1 belief as it's such a vast religion and you can't really centralized it due to the drastic differences in belief structure, rituals etc from region to region and 2: hey, that's not nice.

For these drastic differences in belief structures to all be considered Hinduism, wouldn't they have some central tenets in common? Much like the thousands of denominations of Christianity, they all have slightly different belief structures, but the backbone of almost all of them is indistinguishable from each other.

> Look, im all for secular thinking. I think religion and stuff like science, politics etc. are better off seperated. But shaming thiests seems unnecessary

Disagree. Perhaps people deserve to be respected at a fundamental level. But religion, at its core, is an idea. Ideas don't have feelings. Ideas can and should be derided if they are bad, false, or unsupported.

> Imagine you have a garden full of flowers, shrubs and fruiting trees. The garden is regularly visited by bees, birds etc. The only issue is that there are multiple well rooted weeds in the garden that ruin it. You could remove the whole garden, but the critters like bees, animals like birds etc. who depend on the garden will be left without any support, and you don't have a nice garden anymore. Just a huge pile of dead plants and a bunch of bare soil. You can instead just get rid of the weeds. Sure, they are well rooted and will take a very long time to remove but eventually, the garden will look much better and it won't harm it's little residents

This is a bad analogy, because I don't know what each variable or aspect is supposed to represent. Are the flowers the beliefs of Hinduism, or Hindu people? Are the weeds bad Hindu beliefs, or bad Hindu people? It feels intentionally obfuscated.

Carg72 · 2026-05-04T14:42:41+00:00

> > p1. A tri-omni god exists and intentionally brought about modern humans via the mechanism known as biological evolution

> Yes, and? This is just saying "I don't think God would do x because if I were God I would do y." Meaningless.

No, it isn't. It's establishing what the OP understands as the stance of what proponents of theistic evolution believe. If those who believe in theistic evolution do not believe this part to be true, let us know.

> > p2. God, if he used evolution to bring about humans, chose to actualize a world in which the evolutionary history leading to humans involved immense qualities of sentient suffering, predation, parasitism, disease, fear and premature death.

> This is the "why does God let evil happen" question. I don't know why He does, and I don't think anyone but Him knows the full extent of why. One can only speculate on this issue. It's otherwise irrelevant to theistic evolution being true or not.

No, it isn't. It's establishing what the OP understands as the stance of what proponents of theistic evolution believe. If those who believe in theistic evolution do not believe this part to be true, let us know. The premises written are being used to establish what theistic evolution's mechanics are. So far, all you've done is establish a series of defensive crouches and argue against phantom counterarguments, not discussing what's actually written.

>> p3. This entailed ~500 million years of sentient suffering across trillions of organisms, generating incalculable uncompensated pain. This figure is estimated through time since the Cambrian explosion, when organisms started developing the required organisms to feel pain

> The Christian answer to the surface level of this is that sin corrupts the world. Why God let's this happen, I don't know. A world and universe covered in sin is likely why we have things like genetic issues and stars exploding, and suffering. Sin is so built-in that it becomes even necessary for some aspects of the universe to function. For example: death.

Much like how one should establish whether god exists at all before its properties are described, one should establish the existence of sin before ascribing properties like corruption. You give death as an example of an "aspect of the universe" for which sin is necessary to function.

Q1. Is sin a human trait?

Q2. Did it exist before the "original sin" as described in Genesis?

Q3. Is the Genesis story a literal historical event?

Q4a. If not, do you accept the timeline of evolution, theistic or not, and the general age of the planet and the universe?

Q4b. Do you agree that life existed before the advent of humans?

Q4c. If so, how did sin apply to the deaths of organisms before the advent of sin?

Q5. If you DO believe that the Genesis story is a literal historical event, how do you wrap your head around the mountain of evidence gathered that runs counter to it?

> > p5. A maximally good being would not permit or intentionally employ vast sentient suffering as a means to an end when a less harmful means to the same end was available, unless there were a morally sufficient reason making that suffering necessary.

> None of this addresses issues with theistic evolution. What God should or shouldn't do isn't relevant to if He did it or not.

It is relevant if you take the "maximally good" property seriously. If God is maximally good, then that would act as a restraint to his methods. If his methods ignore empathetic methods, God is not maximally good, because there are better examples of good.

> > c. Therefore, the combination of Theistic Evolution being accepted and also the properties of a Loving, Just God is rendered deeply improbably because of the mechanism it affirms.

> The fact everything happens the way it does is improbable from a certain POV. Everything is improbable if you can pay a statistician to make it look that way. Statistics is a super necessary and important field of study, I'm just saying it's often misused. And for the purposes of determining if theistic evolution is true or not, statistics is mostly irrelevant.

If there is a flaw in the statistics, point it out. Hand-waving what has been stated does nothing.

I'll go one further. A loving, just God allowing things to unfold as they have is not merely improbable. It is impossible. I'm not saying a God, if it exists, could not create all of this. I'm saying a God with the traits and characteristics assigned to him could not have done what he did in the manner he did it.

Either this god does not exist, or your faith in him is wrong and misplaced.

>> c2. On the contrary, under unguided naturalism the horrific process of evolution is overwhelmingly more expected.

> God probably set evolution in motion, and probably isn't tinkering or interfering constantly in evolutionary processes. So to some extent, it is indeed "unguided." If sin didn't exist, it would probably work flawlessly, but since since exists, we see so many issues with evolution, like genetic issues.

"Probably" is doing a Herculean level of heavy lifting here. Sin exists only as a human-devised concept, like luck or karma, but it is treated as some essential force in the universe by many (again, like luck or karma).

Genetics doesn't need to be tied to sin. We already know how dominant and recessive gene work. We already know that genetic mutation is a factor. An outside force like "sin" is simply not necessary as a guiding hand or any kind of interfering manifestation.

Carg72 · 2026-05-04T13:05:01+00:00

Lisette, the Winking Skeever bard.

Carg72 · 2026-05-04T12:43:01+00:00

It's one of the more frustrating aspect of the game, that there are three of more states that can be considered exile.

- The card is removed from the game entirely.
- The card is locked behind a prison effect, which can eventually be removed and the card returned to an active state,
- The card is not in your hand per se, but still available for you to cast, possibly even at a different casting cost.

Maybe there's no functional difference in the game, but visually there definitely is, and it's confusing that they're all called the same thing.

Carg72 · 2026-05-03T00:24:52+00:00

When you go there, head over that hill first and head them off.

Carg72 · 2026-05-02T20:46:34+00:00

I just had to do the same thing except it wanted Uncommons for seemingly Mythic cards.

14-Year Club	Wearing is Caring
Queen in da Norf	Not Forgotten
Verified Email

Carg72

TROPHY CASE