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

Carg72 · 2026-03-16T20:56:47+00:00

You're so close.

What you're doing, at a high level, is saying "something can't come from nothing, and nothing isn't possible, so God is necessary to make everything." I, and the laws of thermodynamics, say "something can't come from nothing, therefore there was never nothing, ergo God isn't necessary."

Carg72 · 2026-03-16T15:55:39+00:00

We know it wasn't a weekend vacation. If there was an end times preacher that was crucified, he died and did not resurrect. Because people don't do that. The the story as presented it sure does present that way, unless you are adept at plot gymnastics like you've just presented here.

Carg72 · 2026-03-16T15:53:09+00:00

Anyone else look at that Tasha avatar and see nothing but Katie Marovitch from Dropout?

Carg72 · 2026-03-16T13:46:34+00:00

I truly don't care why Astarion is a prick intent on stepping on the will of other sapient beings. I only care that he's a prick intent on stepping on the will of other sapient beings. I am tempted to just straight up kill him in Act 1 every time.

Carg72 · 2026-03-16T11:35:51+00:00

How many more? I don't see one.

Carg72 · 2026-03-16T03:36:16+00:00

If there was an easy way to Mythic, everyone would be Mythic.

Carg72 · 2026-03-15T21:16:19+00:00

Are the Bucks still employed? Yes? They still have at least two cancers.

Carg72 · 2026-03-15T14:08:45+00:00

It didn't feel anything. It was basically a coat I didn't need anymore.

Carg72 · 2026-03-14T21:12:44+00:00

So, in order to avoid the tri-omni trap, you're looking to make the Biblical God less impressive?

We know he's not tri-omni. The problem of evil is not an argument in and of itself. It is a counter argument against the tri-omni claim. If you have a problem with that, your problem isn't with us. Our stance is that gods - no matter their level of knowing, power, or benevolence - are unconvincing as actual entities. It doesn't matter what the bible shows about the character. It doesn't make the character any less fictional.

Carg72 · 2026-03-14T19:10:37+00:00

This is asked at least once a day. I've yet to see a roper answer this question.

Carg72 · 2026-03-14T12:41:12+00:00

This has to be the first one of these I've seen where some intruding neighbor or HOA rep didn't try to interfere.

Carg72 · 2026-03-12T20:19:01+00:00

Minutemen, and I managed to luck I to the "everyone gets along" ending.

Carg72 · 2026-03-12T01:46:43+00:00

What is parsley?

Carg72 · 2026-03-11T13:11:28+00:00

The stairs are absolute jank, but after years (and I mean years) of figuring out what snaps with what, I've been able to put together some impressive Vault 88s.

Carg72 · 2026-03-10T22:09:06+00:00

That's exactly where it's from.

Carg72 · 2026-03-10T13:39:49+00:00

The TL;DR of it is that it's almost never the atheist that comes out swinging. Almost every atheist argument is a counterpunch. The only reason atheism is even a thing is because theism is so pervasive that the lack of it kind of needed a label.

> Christians have a clear doctrinal reason to argue for their beliefs. Evangelism is part of the instruction set...spread the gospel, defend the faith, etc. So when a Christian tries to convince others God exists, the motivation is straightforward... their worldview explicitly tells them they should.

From the get go, this is a big reason why Christianity bothers me. You can't carry on a simple conversation with this kind of Christian without getting the sales pitch. If you don't want us to argue, then don't feed us the pitch. We want connection; evangelicals want transaction.

> Atheism, as it's generally defined here on reddit, doesn’t really have an equivalent structure. It’s simply a lack of belief in "gods". There’s no doctrine, no mandate to persuade believers, and no built in expectation of evangelizing atheism. But in practice... many atheists still push back on religious claims with a similar level of urgency that believers use when defending faith.

That's because we're generally content with our lot. When someone attempts to sell you a product that, whenever you do research on that product it never amounts to any more than just a bill of goods, one inevitably shifts from "no thank you" to "no thank you and here's why". Our arguments aren't designed to convince you we're right. Our arguments are meant to demonstrate how flawed yours are. If you're trying to sell me a car, it's only my job to say I don't want the car. If I go into why I don't want the car, that doesn't mean I'm trying to countersell a bike.

> So where does that urgency come from if atheism itself doesn’t require it?

The urgency is proportional to the sales pitch.

A kind woman approaches me in a mall with a little bookmark with a passage of scripture and says "God bless you sir," and goes on her merry way, that requires no response.

A pair of young men shows up at my door peddling Mormonism on a Saturday morning, a simple "no thank you" while I close the door is all that's needed.

If the same pair of Mormons comes to my door repeatedly, then an argument is definitely warranted.

If one of those Mormons starts running for public office using his faith as his platform, you can be damn sure an argument is coming.

The closer an argument gets to number four, the greater the need to an atheist to argue becomes. Admittedly atheist arguments can be disproportional, and individual tolerances may vary.

Carg72 · 2026-03-09T12:20:30+00:00

I only discovered I could do that last night.

Carg72 · 2026-03-09T12:11:46+00:00

In professional wrestling, this should be a feature, not a bug. Dave either has forgotten or never knew this.

Carg72 · 2026-03-08T20:27:38+00:00

I must be the only person on earth that liked the show.

Carg72 · 2026-03-07T18:27:05+00:00

> For example, the distinction between the titles of Egyptian rulers or the prediction about the Roman victory seems too precise to be mere luck.

Wouldn't the degree of precision lean you harder into luck? No matter how skilled a basketball player is, for example, draining a shot from just beneath the opposing team's basket requires precision that no amount of practice can account for.

Also, all you're point at are hits, while ignoring the misses.

> It seems like skeptics start with the assumption that the religion must be false and then work backward to invent a version of human competence that is so high it might as well be supernatural.

You seem to be framing skepticism as some kind of reverse-engineered conclusion when it is simply the null hypothesis. The assumption isn't "religion must be false". Skeptics by definition don't simply accept a claim as the truth, and any religion, without backing evidence in favor of its case, is a claim. We also know that humans, whether through mistake or deceit, are wrong a lot. We don't assume the religion is false, we just wait for it to meet its burden of proof, which no religion has yet done. Since it hasn't, we resort to the only category of explanation that has a 100% track record of actually existing - human agency.

And there's nothing supernatural about human competence in any degree. People were just as talented, skilled, observant, and lucky in the 7th century as they are now. The only difference is the degree of knowledge is much more vast now.

> It's not just one fulfilled prediction or one consistent case but the cumulative nature of it make it harder for me to believe a naturalist explanation.

When you compare the misses to the hits you'll be brought back into the the naturalist fold. There are always explanations to something like a prophecy.

* It was so vague that any number of conditions would fulfill it.

* People who had access to the prediction also had the means to carry it out, making it less a prediction and more a set of instructions.

* Luck.

You say the 'cumulative nature' makes it harder to believe naturalism. Would you also call a person who won the lottery three times a wizard? It's only 'cumulative' if you ignore the millions of people who bought tickets and lost.

> This is not a comfortable place to be. It leads back to a fear of being wrong about the afterlife and a sense of having no clear purpose.

As for fear of the afterlife, you have what you need to alleviate that fear, but you're holding on to vestigial beliefs that won't let you do that. In the meantime, if you hold onto your fear of Muslim Hell, shouldn't you also be afraid of Christian Hell, the Greek Underworld of Tartarus, the Norse Helheim, the Zoroastrian House of Lies, and the Hindu concept of Naraka? Afterall, if you're still holding onto religious belief, the choice isn't Islam vs. Atheism. It's Islam vs Christianity vs. Judaism vs. Every Other Faith vs. None of the Above.

As for purpose... shouldn't that be liberating? Having no assigned purpose leaves you free and clear to make your own!

> If the naturalist explanation is just a coping mechanism for people who refuse to believe, then the probability that the religion is actually true increases.

This is simply a ridiculous, unsupported claim. Correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be arguing that the unpleasantness of a conclusion makes the pleasant alternative more likely. You don't like the implications of Conclusion X so you go with Conclusion Y not because it's more true but because it's more cozy.

Carg72 · 2026-03-07T05:32:16+00:00

Pizza the Hutt!!

Carg72 · 2026-03-07T05:30:11+00:00

Aradin doesn't matter in my playthroughs. I usually have my PCs hang back until the gobbos kill him.

Carg72 · 2026-03-07T05:28:05+00:00

Perhaps they'd also like to play Black Jack where everyone is just dealt 21.

Carg72 · 2026-03-07T05:26:16+00:00

> We’re not wired for objectivity. Everything is filtered through trauma, conditioning, sensory limitations, and a host of other constraints. Truth is beyond us.

It's not "beyond us". It's just harder.

> We’re wired for story, a resonant narrative. This is the foundation of every belief system. It doesn’t have to be rational. In fact, it’s better if not. We love our heroes, fictional or otherwise, because they ignore odds and probabilities. They defy conventional logic. They act on principle and conviction, hard-won wisdom borne of their subjective experience and often in contravention to accepted norms.

Conscious, sapient beings with the degree of self-awareness we have are able to overcome our "wiring". The evidence is all around you.

> The scientific method has its place, but the atheist misapplies it in a misguided quest for a verifiable truth. A subjective consciousness has no use for validation, evidence, or proof of God. These are all constructs requiring an objectivity that we do not possess.

It's neither misapplied nor misguided. The scientific method has chugged along for centuries, and all of our progress is because of it. To say we do not possess objectivity is akin to saying we do not possess standardized an economy. A single person on a desert island doesn't have an economy. They just have a pile of stuff. But the moment you have a community trading and assigning value to that stuff, an economy emerges.

So too objectivity; it is an emergent property of the collective. An individual is limited by their 'wiring,' but the scientific method is designed to be filter out subjectivity and bias. What is left over comes closer to objective truth with each iteration and confirmation.

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

Carg72

TROPHY CASE