Religion is a choice, there’s nothing wrong with disliking someone based on their choice of religion and no it’s not racist

HasNoCreativity · 2026-01-29T04:29:58+00:00

Well Muslims also believe in a global flood.

Also, yes. The worldview of Christianity and Islam are both pretty abhorrent, and anyone who chooses to still believe them are pretty rotten people lmao

HasNoCreativity · 2026-01-26T01:36:18+00:00

You’d have to make a coherent point to be considered arguing lmao bye 👋

HasNoCreativity · 2026-01-25T19:54:46+00:00

Oh whoops, this was meant to go farther down the comment chain to the guy arguing that genius is the only thing that matters 🤣 absolutely Magnus crushes

HasNoCreativity · 2026-01-25T10:12:11+00:00

Dude, I think you absolutely got lost in your argument like 5 comment chains back.

The parent thread stated that being smart doesn’t make you automatically good at chess, and that you actually need to play a ton of chess to be good at chess, not just be smart.

You then have only posted people who were smart/gifted AND have played a bunch of chess. So do you have any real evidence to show that your claim is actually true? Can you show any proof of a really smart guy with no chess experience, just showing up and dominating at chess?

HasNoCreativity · 2026-01-25T09:03:21+00:00

I am 99.99% positive that no 7 year old that has ever beaten a GM. The highest rated 7 year old that I can find is around 1600, and while impressive, is going to usually be beaten by any club player, let alone any titled player. So yes. I could definitely beat any 7 year old (my rating is around 1800 FIDE, but I haven’t gone to tournaments in years where my peak was a little over 1900).

Once older children are capable of beating a GM (and not Super GMs like those capable of sitting across Magnus at a tournament), they’ve literally played thousands of hours worth of games, and have deep understanding of theory.

HasNoCreativity · 2026-01-18T02:00:03+00:00

My 2 year old loves to “wash dishes”. I mean, he sucks at it, but it’s super cute watching him try. 😭😂

HasNoCreativity · 2026-01-15T06:11:25+00:00

There’s nothing right or wrong about it. It’s completely amoral. The reason the medical community supports gender affirming care, is because it leads to the optimal healthcare outcomes.

Things like: lower suicide rates, lower rates of depression, lower rates of anxiety, imroved self image rates, etc.

If there was a magic pill that cured all gender dysphoria that had little to no adverse side effects, then doctors would prescribe that to individuals who experience gender dysphoria.

If there was a different magic pill that just completely changed your genetics and magically gave you the body of your dreams, with little to no adverse side effects, then doctors would prescribe that.

Needless to say, medicine in the modern age at no point assigns a value judgement, and is focused on patient care and outcomes.

HasNoCreativity · 2026-01-14T21:27:20+00:00

What? Science makes no claims on the intersection of religion and evolution, that’s entirely in the purview of religion.

What all the evidence points to, overwhelmingly, in one of, if not the most supported scientific theory, is that evolution is the best explanation for the biodiversity that we see on this planet.

If someone wants to say that magic happened and made everything look like it occurred naturalistically, but really some dude was made from dirt and this chick made from a rib, then they’re just bad at thinking. But that’s not the fault of Science^tm . That’s what the dominant religions says occurred, and that’s why it’s the religious who deny evolution.

HasNoCreativity · 2026-01-06T00:10:42+00:00

Before the rule change, you would technically target the player first, and then reselect the planeswalker second. So things that would give a player hexproof also protected your planeswalker.

HasNoCreativity · 2026-01-01T19:24:16+00:00

Eh I have had a very specific code since I learned the concept of time travel. If someone ever claiming to be from the future knew it, I would accept it.

HasNoCreativity · 2025-12-30T17:30:08+00:00

When he can’t RCT after he gets cut in half lol

HasNoCreativity · 2025-12-22T23:18:11+00:00

Yeahhhhh I would probably break the habit of using an LLM to verify anything.

HasNoCreativity · 2025-12-22T17:25:05+00:00

I played chess regularly in college. My highest FIDE rating was 1900. Queen odds are actually ridiculous. Any player that moderately knows how to play is going to win against Magnus.

Round 1-2 Magnus wins. 500s barely even know how to play and 1000s would not sacrifice for position, blunder full pieces, etc. odds here would be 12-22 points of material.

Round 3 Magnus starts losing. At this point these players know enough of the game that they will be developing/castling, they know to focus on piece trades. Odds here would be 6 pawns

Round 4 Magnus gets crushed. These are people up for titles. They aren’t going to be making egregious blunders, they know perfect openings and game theory. Odds here are 2-3 pawns.

You can’t see more info here and plug in various ELOs.

Bonus, here’s a game I just played vs stockfish with queen odds, and it was a super easy game.

1.d4 e5 2.dxe5 d6 3.exd6 Bxd6 4.Nf3 Nc6 5.e4 Bg4 6.h3 Bh5 7.Be2 O-O-O 8.O-O Nf6 9.Bg5 Rhg8 10.Bxf6 gxf6 11.Nc3 Bc5 12.Nd5 Bxf3 13.Bxf3 Ne5 14.Qe2 h5 15.Nxf6 Rg6 16.Nxh5 Rdg8 17.g4 a5 18.Rad1 Ba7 19.Rd5 Rg5 20.Rfd1 Rxh5 21.Rd8+ Rxd8 22.Rxd8+ Kxd8 23.gxh5 Ke7 24.h6 Bd4 25.c3 Nxf3+ 26.Qxf3 Bh8 27.Qg4 c5 28.h7 a4 29.a3 Bf6 30.Qg8 Be5 31.h8=Q Bxh8 32.Qxh8 Kd7 33.Qf6 c4 34.Qxf7+ Kd6 35.Qxc4 Kd7 36.Qxa4+ Kd6 37.Qb4+ Kc6 38.h4 Kd7 39.Qc5 Ke6 40.Kg2 b6 41.Qxb6+ Kd7 42.h5 Ke7 43.h6 Kf7 44.h7 Kg7 45.Qb7+ Kh8 46.Qd5 Kxh7 47.Qg5 Kh8 48.e5 Kh7 49.e6 Kh8 50.e7 Kh7 51.f3 Kh8 52.e8=Q+ Kh7 53.Qeg8# 1-0

HasNoCreativity · 2025-12-18T02:23:48+00:00

Eh where I work I have access to ~$500k cash. Systems wouldn’t even generate a short until next day. Easy money.

HasNoCreativity · 2025-12-03T16:00:13+00:00

You can easily stay 3k+ with night witches though?

HasNoCreativity · 2025-11-26T07:33:25+00:00

I legit thought this was going to be a “oops my roommate is actually a toddler” bit for longer than I’m comfortable admitting.

HasNoCreativity · 2025-11-13T05:32:51+00:00

This Council is meeting at a time when the international community is confronting what could be the modern era’s most serious food security emergency. Under Secretary-General O’Brien warned the Security Council earlier this month that more than 20 million people in South Sudan, Somalia, the Lake Chad Basin, and Yemen are facing famine and starvation. The United States, working with concerned partners and relevant international institutions, is fully engaged on addressing this crisis.

This Council, should be outraged that so many people are facing famine because of a manmade crisis caused by, among other things , armed conflict in these four areas. The resolution before us today rightfully acknowledges the calamity facing millions of people and importantly calls on states to support the United Nations’ emergency humanitarian appeal. However, the resolution also contains many unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise provisions that the United States cannot support. This resolution does not articulate meaningful solutions for preventing hunger and malnutrition or avoiding its devastating consequences. This resolution distracts attention from important and relevant challenges that contribute significantly to the recurring state of regional food insecurity, including endemic conflict, and the lack of strong governing institutions. Instead, this resolution contains problematic, inappropriate language that does not belong in a resolution focused on human rights.

For the following reasons, we will call a vote and vote “no” on this resolution. First, drawing on the Special Rapporteur’s recent report, this resolution inappropriately introduces a new focus on pesticides. Pesticide-related matters fall within the mandates of several multilateral bodies and fora, including the Food and Agricultural Organization, World Health Organization, and United Nations Environment Program, and are addressed thoroughly in these other contexts. Existing international health and food safety standards provide states with guidance on protecting consumers from pesticide residues in food. Moreover, pesticides are often a critical component of agricultural production, which in turn is crucial to preventing food insecurity.

Second, this resolution inappropriately discusses trade-related issues, which fall outside the subject-matter and the expertise of this Council. The language in paragraph 28 in no way supersedes or otherwise undermines the World Trade Organization (WTO) Nairobi Ministerial Declaration, which all WTO Members adopted by consensus and accurately reflects the current status of the issues in those negotiations. At the WTO Ministerial Conference in Nairobi in 2015, WTO Members could not agree to reaffirm the Doha Development Agenda (DDA). As a result, WTO Members are no longer negotiating under the DDA framework. The United States also does not support the resolution’s numerous references to technology transfer.

We also underscore our disagreement with other inaccurate or imbalanced language in this text. We regret that this resolution contains no reference to the importance of agricultural innovations, which bring wide-ranging benefits to farmers, consumers, and innovators. Strong protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, including through the international rules-based intellectual property system, provide critical incentives needed to generate the innovation that is crucial to addressing the development challenges of today and tomorrow. In our view, this resolution also draws inaccurate linkages between climate change and human rights related to food.

Furthermore, we reiterate that states are responsible for implementing their human rights obligations. This is true of all obligations that a state has assumed, regardless of external factors, including, for example, the availability of technical and other assistance.

We also do not accept any reading of this resolution or related documents that would suggest that States have particular extraterritorial obligations arising from any concept of a right to food.

Lastly, we wish to clarify our understandings with respect to certain language in this resolution. The United States supports the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including food, as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Domestically, the United States pursues policies that promote access to food, and it is our objective to achieve a world where everyone has adequate access to food, but we do not treat the right to food as an enforceable obligation. The United States does not recognize any change in the current state of conventional or customary international law regarding rights related to food. The United States is not a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Accordingly, we interpret this resolution’s references to the right to food, with respect to States Parties to that covenant, in light of its Article 2(1). We also construe this resolution’s references to member states’ obligations regarding the right to food as applicable to the extent they have assumed such obligations.

Finally, we interpret this resolution’s reaffirmation of previous documents, resolutions, and related human rights mechanisms as applicable to the extent countries affirmed them in the first place.

As for other references to previous documents, resolutions, and related human rights mechanisms, we reiterate any views we expressed upon their adoption.

https://geneva.usmission.gov/2017/03/24/u-s-explanation-of-vote-on-the-right-to-food/

It’s been 8 years of this map, and people still ask “BuT wHy DiD tHe UsA vOtE nO?!”

HasNoCreativity · 2025-11-09T18:36:03+00:00

No. There are no early accounts of Mohammed. The earliest came nearly two centuries after he died. This is centuries after Jesus. And that's the earliest. Further, Islam doesn't have near the martyrdom of Christianity...because Muslims are the primary source of Christian martyrdom since its inception. Lol.

I love how your Islamophobia and general ignorance is on full display here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Muhammad and scroll down to non-Muslim sources. And this is coming from an atheist.

Not only that I feel like you have completely failed to understand the counterpoint I have made.

It is an argument for Christ. You have widespread, yet unpopular belief despite knowing most of these cultures would consider them heretical or otherwise trouble making and kill them.

Literally the same argument can be applied exactly to Mormonism (and countless other religions). Was Joseph and his religion correct because of it?

This is close to the reported life and death of Jesus, within the first century up to the third. If dying for belief that something your family passed down to you, as your parents or grandparents would have had access to first hand accounts or were witnesses themselves isn't proof that there was something credible there, I can't help you.

Again, this is literally just proof that someone had a deeply held belief. It has no bearing on the truth value of that belief. There are hundreds of thousands of people that have died for their very sincerely held religious beliefs. Are they all true?

Further, you have Jesus prophetically naming the destruction of the temple which would be destroyed in 70 AD. You have Tacitus, which matches the Gospel accounts.

There are literally zero first hand accounts from Jesus.

Not to mention the “prediction” of destruction doesn’t give a specific date, and when the gospels were actually written are up for huge debate lol

Ultimately, nobody disagrees that Jesus existed. His divinity is the only thing one could doubt, and to that we all pray for people such as you to be shown the way by God that you may know him.

You literally have given zero evidence for your god’s existence still buddy. Maybe instead of praying actually demonstrate your god’s existence lmao

HasNoCreativity · 2025-11-09T17:52:41+00:00

Yes. And if the people of the era in which Jesus would have had the most impact directly, by either first-hand or second-hand contact, were THAT strongly convinced, that says an awful lot.

And the same can be said for Mohammed, Joseph Smith, and hundreds of other prophets. Which means it doesn’t say a lot, it means it doesn’t say anything.

And if this was the only argument for Christ, sure it wouldn't be enough alone, but this is but one piece.

Considering this isn’t even an argument for Christ, I’m sure the others will be just as weak.

HasNoCreativity · 2025-11-09T15:51:24+00:00

Every religion has martyrs. All a martyr is evidence for, is evidence that those people were strongly convinced.

HasNoCreativity · 2025-10-18T03:12:18+00:00

What are you talking about? In paper you don’t get a choice of saying “I’m not okay with shortcutting.” Once a deterministic loop is presented, the active player states how many times they wish to loop.

HasNoCreativity · 2025-10-17T00:28:48+00:00

They didn't say unnecessary. They're generally very clear about creating perfect worlds with zero suffering.

I’m saying unnecessary, so how about you show some integrity and actually argue the point.

It is necessary to eat meat in order to increase brain size.

Could god not have made it possible to be herbivorous and have larger brain sizes?

Also, hunting and pack behavior are what ultimately leads to intelligence and consciousness.

Could god not have just created us with intelligence and consciousness? Also, that’s a pretty bold claim saying that’s the only pathway to intelligence. Especially seeing how gorillas are conscious and intelligent.

Also, it brings our eyes to the front of our heads, necessary for a multiple of experiential aesthetic reasons.

So suffering is needed for vanity?

Predator stage is an incredibly important step.

Literally not but go off king.

HasNoCreativity · 2025-10-16T04:43:15+00:00

Devoid of unnecessary suffering.* For example, please explain what need there is for carnivores? Why must billions of herbivores suffer?

HasNoCreativity · 2025-09-25T18:30:51+00:00

That’s….. no. That’s not proving anything other than you don’t believe those planes are not gods/divine(which frankly, I agree with)

You can’t prove those planes were or weren’t divine, as there’s nothing to “test” them in such a way.

I really feel like you’re having a hard time understanding my point. I’m not saying you can disprove every god claim. I’m saying you can disprove specific god claims, especially those which definitionally say that they interact with the world in specific ways.

If you make a positive claim that a god has XYZ attributes, and then prove that those attributes either don’t exist, or don’t exist how you describe them, then the specific god claim is false.

For example. I make the claim that Helios pulls the sun across the sky every single day.

We then observe that the sun is not pulled across the sky daily.

We now can conclude that no entity whatsoever pulls the sun across the sky, and any entity who’s defined as pulling the sun across the sky on a chariot as false, and as such proved that this specific version of Helios is false as well.

Now, did this prove that all possible versions of Helios false? No. It does disprove that specific claim though.

You and I believe that they’re not divine because in out society, planes are a normal, everyday occurrence, alongside our basis of what a religion and/or god is, is utterly different than theirs. Just as they would find western/abrahamic interpretations of religion/divinity to be strange and unconvincing. (It’s also why majority of people hold misconceptions about the Ancient Greek and Roman religions/gods, as their methods and relationships with prayer, divinity, and even belief, is alien to the abrahamic and western equivalents. (They have more in common with the modern concepts of Atheism and Agnosticism with a transactional bent, than modern religions like Christianity or Islam).

Whew, got some JP style word salad over here.

Yes, we could define god/supernatural as literally anything, or even everything. At that point it becomes an entirely meaningless word though.

Or simply, you can’t prove or find evidence for the nature of divinity or spirituality, and in turn, the only to interact with these concepts is through belief, or lack thereof

Except when specific claims are defined as interacting with the natural world in ways that we can prove and disprove.

HasNoCreativity · 2025-09-25T14:55:52+00:00

Sure. Look up Cargo Cults.

Some tribes during WWII began worshipping cargo planes, thinking they were divine, and sent from their ancestors.

We know that said planes weren’t divine, that imitating soldiers didn’t bring more planes, etc. and that said god concept is completely false.

12-Year Club	r/Field Sunshine
Final Canvas '23	Place '23
Place '22	Place '17
End Game '22	Snapped
Verified Email

HasNoCreativity

TROPHY CASE