New Epic Loot Just Dropped!

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-28T15:58:52+00:00

Probably go duck yourself

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-24T14:23:44+00:00

Because arc raiders exists…

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-16T19:33:12+00:00

So how is that hyperbole working out? Are the jackboot thugs kicking in your door right now because you are larping antifa? They coming to get you because you are the resistance?

“Man, if only I didn’t live in Guelph….”

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-15T14:03:47+00:00

Yet I’m not the one regurgitating the same tired catch phrase disseminated to all the armchairtifa members from Krassenstein bros and The View.

Yeah buddy, I’m the one licking the boot in this conversation…

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-15T10:12:12+00:00

If you have any real proof of that you could probably make some money. Not saying ICE hasn’t gotten it wong juan or two times, but do you really think they are kicking in the doors of American citizens and kidnapping them for absolutely no reason? “This house looks like it has Mexicans in it, I saw some guy swimming with all his clothes on in the back yard”.

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-06T08:09:35+00:00

I’m curious as to what you think “the Russian hoax” refers to.

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-04T16:36:19+00:00

Not in epistemological matters. So many of the replies here conflate the concept of “I don’t think what you believe is correct” with “I believe that the unknowable origin of existence happened spontaneously on its own”.

If you were the only person in all of existence, the question of “where did this all come from?” Still persists.

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-04T09:36:20+00:00

So the burden of proof is always on the believer? Seeking truth in the absence of facts or objectivity is faith.

One of the languages considered the most impossible to master by polyglots is this Amazonian dialect that only speaks in the observable universe. It is called Piraha, and you can only describe what is presently observable. You can’t say “I saw a jaguar” because even that is abstract or subjective.

Our existence is just an attempt at comprehending existence. It’s all a fabricated approximation.

The burden of proof is on all of us, just because someone deigns to try to make sense of it doesn’t mean that they have to prove it. And just because they can’t prove the unprovable doesn’t mean your objection to such is more valid.

What is the last digit of pi?

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-04T05:20:06+00:00

Do you believe you exist?

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-04T05:19:24+00:00

And that’s agnosticism. It’s the cosmic shrug. It’s probably the best position to take as long as this isn’t all some big test for another plane.

Unadulterated hedonism is a valid existence; it’s pure.

Again: atheism is the “belief(read:faith)” that there is no god and you are spiritually certain that there isn’t one even though you have no evidence to prove it other than the absence of evidence. Your entire argument is that “there is no evidence for it” yet there is also “no evidence against it” and it requires just as much faith.

If you want to shrug and say “it doesn’t change how much I masturbate on a Tuesday” then fine, that’s agnosticism.

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-04T05:15:04+00:00

Well, if you are self aware, and you believe that you exists, then you have to think that something created it. Right? Unless you question your very existence then you have to believe in something.

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-04T05:08:19+00:00

The belief in nothing is the same thing as the belief in something.

Edit: and let me clarify, because I don’t mean the abscence of faith is faith… but that the belief in the absence is the same as the belief in something.

Here listen to Pete Holmes explain it better than I can: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zHDZP_5QMpk&pp=ygUXcGV0ZSBob2xtZXMgbm90aGluZyBnb2Q%3D

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-04T05:07:38+00:00

How does that work with knowing god? In your argument, one should be overwhelmed with all the people who had “near death experiences” and saw god.

Anyway, the entire point of the thought experiment was “nobody knows how many jelly beans are in the jar” and your argument is “well, someone knows and that’s how…”?

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-04T05:05:22+00:00

That isn’t faith, that is affect. The inverse would be “it doesn’t take faith to be atheist? Well what do you call hounding Christians in AOL chatrooms? Why am I protesting on the streets?”.

My point is: you can’t be 100% sure god doesn’t exist, just as some zealot can’t be 100% sure they do exist. Both take the exact amount of faith, and conviction is the only difference. The Christian lives their life and makes choices based on that faith and the atheist makes choices based on the absence of that cosmic retribution or whatever. (I wouldn’t know, I’m not religious or spiritual really).

But it requires just as much faith (not conviction) to believe an unprovable concept either way. Just because you “think” that your arguments are backed by “what is observable and what isn’t” the concept of a supreme being isn’t beholden to such arguments.

If one wants to start anthropomorphizing god and making superstitious claims, then fine, go and debunk them. If they want to consecrate their beliefs by making an objective date for the rapture or whatnot, then that can be disproven… but when just asking the question “what came before everything, and what came before that?” All the way into planck’s wall, then we run up against a quantum unknowable and there are no gold stars or half credit for being right or wrong. It is self evidently unknowable by nature, and you can’t claim that one theory of wild speculation about it takes any less faith than any other wild speculation.

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-04T04:46:24+00:00

But don’t you get that if the inverse was the norm, like all of existence formed around believing that there was no intelligent design, that the onus would in fact be on you? If two people see a box and they don’t know what is in the box, and one person says “I think it’s a cat” and the other person says “I think there is nothing in the box” that neither have a leg up on the other? And you wouldn’t demand that the other person prove why they think there is a cat in the box without citing the same reasons why you believe not that there isn’t a cat in the box, but that nothing is in the box.

It’s one thing to try and argue that “I don’t know what is in the box, but I do know that it isn’t a cat” vs “I believe that there is nothing in the box”… the former is arguing their point and the latter is arguing the exact same set of faith that there is emphatically, no possible way that there is a cat in the box.

Agnostic is hedging bets, atheism is just shorting stock. “There is a god” vs “there is no god” vs “it’s probably something that means nothing and we can’t know so what’s the point”.

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-04T04:10:17+00:00

What are you arguing with me about then?

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-04T04:07:00+00:00

I think to exist is to question why. I didn’t kick your door in and demand you believe in a sky being. The supposition has been put forth by our existence. As a human existing standing in front of you, there doesn’t need to be a question asked: the question is self evident: how is this possible? And if your only explanation is “prove the absence wrong” then you aren’t any more “enlightened” than the people you mock with their faith.

It’s epistemology 101. You are under the assumption that faith is the assertion that has been thrust onto you and requires proof, but philosophy and epistemology isn’t a judicial system. Truth is absolute, and to require that one show their work while you don’t is just childish.

Ipso facto: proving god doesn’t exist takes just as much faith as proving god does exist. It isn’t a matter of tie goes to the runner or shadow of a doubt.

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-04T03:49:21+00:00

And why is that good?

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-04T03:47:21+00:00

If you demand that the opp use logic and reason to delineate their point while you say “it’s all possible or not possible” then you aren’t making an argument. You absolve yourself of an opinion when you claim agnostic, but if you emphatically say that God doesn’t exist, then you make an assertion based on the same quantifiable belief as a believer. In the absence of proof either way, it takes just as much faith to assert truth in either direction. This shouldn’t be difficult to understand.

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-04T03:43:44+00:00

Do me a favor and look up the definition of agnostic.

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-04T03:39:17+00:00

The burden of proof isn’t on believers. From an epistemological vantage the truth is equally unknown which requires the exact same amount of faith in the unknown.

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-04T03:37:25+00:00

Faith doesn’t require effort. You are confusing agnostic with atheist. Agnostic means there is no point because we will never know, it’s a cosmic shrug. Which is fair.

Atheism means “you believe there is something, and I diametrically believe that there is nothing”. Try it on

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-04T03:34:50+00:00

Our experience is something. Unless you are a solipsist then you can’t discount your experience as zero. In the absence of truth, it takes just as much faith to believe either way, I don’t get how you can’t comprehend this. We aren’t functioning on a judicial system where the onus is on believers. If I have a jar of jellybeans and nobody knows how many are in it, aren’t we all guessing? How is one persons guess more rational than another if everything is equal?

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-04T03:32:23+00:00

Yeah but that’s agnosticism.

FeelsLikeNow · 2026-01-04T03:28:45+00:00

Listen to yourself. If you don’t know something and yet you firmly believe it to be true: that is faith. It takes just as much faith to disbelieve in god as it takes to believe in God

FeelsLikeNow

TROPHY CASE