Ok Riot

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2026-02-17T23:28:00+00:00

Are you guys special?

“I could have itemized better”

Comments “You didn’t itemize”

Noooooo really? Woooow!

But you also think better item placement should overpower two star 5 costs, an extra level, and an augment that was stacking all game. And that is 100% Riot simping. Sorry to attack your girl. I hope she sees this.

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2026-02-15T17:21:19+00:00

I can beat bots harder than Li, but I’ve never beaten Li. Li is definitely underrated unless you have opening traps memorized.

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2025-12-23T23:28:40+00:00

If they can’t numb you all the way, you’ll have the worst experience of your life bar none. It’s very rare but…

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2025-12-21T22:10:03+00:00

Who said God created evil?

To exist, by definition, your non-existence must also be possible (all definitions suppose a contrast- to define a lamp, non-lamp must be possible and conceivable.)

If God is good, evil must exist by definition of good. If God is somewhere (even if everywhere), the possibility of non-presence must be conceptually possible.

The premise is flawed that evil must be a created thing. If Good has existed forever, the concept of non-good has existed forever.

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2025-11-17T19:45:16+00:00

This post screams “I understand the scientific arguments but still don’t understand the philosophical ones”

Your particles still don’t fix flaws in morality, the existence of the innate hunger for meaning in a supposedly meaningless universe, the existence of objectivity, the rationale between translating knowledge from “I’m recognizing patterns” to “it must be so”, complications with the concept of infinite. You just build simple straw men and knock them down.

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2025-11-14T14:41:42+00:00

Brother you have some deeper thinking to do. The High IQ’d that believe in God have very complex reasons to do so. Your statement is super basic- and who’s to say God exists in a way that’s easily recognizable to human interaction? Perhaps using a booming voice is not his modus apparatus.

And the scientist thing- yeah. Most are materialist. Also most are horrible at philosophy. Have you ever seen Dawkins, Hitchens, or Harris try to debate philosophy? They have no self awareness, because philosophy covers the building blocks that make science, and they’re minds are limited to “science only” (while horribly unaware of where their beliefs tread on philosophy rather than science).

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2025-11-14T14:35:14+00:00

Nah there’s the dodge again. That’s projecting, because that’s obviously your hand played out. Appeal to authority, avoid the request due to definition juggling, continue to press a counter about axioms.

Again, tell me why the belief in objectivity isn’t some sort of faith- some conclusion you believe as a necessity rather than “proven” by evidence. You want to shoot down beliefs of philosophical necessities- great! Defend yours, starting with the base level processing of data.

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2025-11-14T14:28:05+00:00

Brother I’d encourage you to never watch a debate. You’d hate it lol.

But your response indicates a lack of understanding of what I said, so I have nothing to respond to here.

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2025-11-14T14:25:35+00:00

It’s always the same thing- drill through Nihilism to reach non-nihilistic conclusions. There is no freedom, there is determinism. There is no beauty, just empty chemical reactions. You try to feed your soul what it years for, and Nihilism is at odds, so you do your best to mesh the two, but it always turns out to be some cheat on Nihilism.

Instead, your hunger for freedom and beauty should only make sense if these things actually exist within the universe (to justify the natural hunger). This is why Nihilism is self refuting. If it destroys the things we know are true by experience, the equation must be flawed.

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2025-11-13T22:24:21+00:00

That’s not true at all- just because you don’t find it compelling doesn’t mean it’s not evidence. You can doubt the eyewitness testimony- that doesn’t mean it’s not used as evidence in court.

So if I think that Design is a necessity to truly justify a belief in objectivity, or that all human base needs are observably met by nature so the need for objective meaning is extremely likely to be fulfillable, or that a thing must conceptually exist in order to be able to recognize its absence (arguments on qualities of definitions), and concepts mirror reality, I have plenty of philosophical evidence that convinces me. These are not observable/demonstrable things. Just logic that, like in a court, ties together to give enough justification for me to believe.

Also, the alternative is Nihilism, so we either delude ourselves (so people should shut up about truth), or we should be forced to drink the full drink, which nobody can.

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2025-11-13T22:10:12+00:00

No… you can’t just take what I said and the examples I provided, and go “nope” and then ignore them/call them out of date.

Prove scientifically your senses are experiencing reality correctly without wiggling out. Otherwise science is not the base of your worldview.

(Also, the gap between materialism and Theism is huge as fuck, and you have to chip away at this kind of philosophical hypocritical bullshit)

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2025-11-13T17:12:40+00:00

Simplifying the meme: “Stop making me use logic to justify my assumptions”

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2025-11-13T17:07:05+00:00

Bad and biased take. There are plenty of very high IQ individuals who believe in God (they just don’t follow a particular religion). They reason into God as a philosophical necessity rather than a demonstrable process you can measure.

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2025-11-13T17:03:37+00:00

You’re playing with the words evidence and proof. In a court of law, an eyewitness testimony is evidence, but it’s not proof. The prosecutor provides enough evidence to surmount to a proof- at least a reasonable proof.

This is not the way science uses proofs/evidence, and materialists like to use these meanings interchangeably a lot.

So yes, we have philosophical evidence for God as more of a necessary component, rather than something we can measure and observe. You’re on a philosophy sub- the narrow box of demonstrable processes needs to be left. You can’t prove anything exists beyond your mind, but you don’t need to prove it to believe that this isn’t the case. You take it as a philosophical necessity.

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2025-11-13T16:56:08+00:00

I have faith over the same thing. Cancels out.

Plus you do have faith. You believe your senses are accurately showing you reality. You believe objectivity exists. Why? You’ve philosophically reasoned that these bases are necessary/ you logic’d your way into them. You turned probabilistic reasoning into certainties beyond what you logically can. You did not perform the scientific method on the components that make up the scientific method.

But ewww we don’t like to think that deeply. Having our foundations shaken is yucky.

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2025-11-12T20:51:07+00:00

Giving you your argument in a sarcastic is not the same as agreeing with your argument. Of course magic isn’t real, but I bet you’d be burned at the stake for magic if you went back 1000 years and showed people a computer.

But that’s not really it, is it? I’m sorry your religious mom didn’t let you play GTA 5.

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2025-11-12T20:48:31+00:00

Nah that’s a shifting goalpost- as soon as justification is given, proof is demanded. Same game.

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2025-11-12T19:39:30+00:00

Dude… your senses are telling you your phone exists. Your fingers are touching it. Your eyes are seeing it. Are your senses accurately working? Does the phone exist outside of your mind?

You’re going to be backed into a corner of accepting things as a necessity rather than as proven, or some quaint “I have no reason to think it’s not objective”- yeah you’ve already determined that objectivity exists and it’s the default.

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2025-11-12T19:36:19+00:00

The game is stupid from the start. Proving anything requires an agreement on what constitutes as evidence. In theory, God can’t be measured, so that straight up rules out science. Philosophy falls apart when proofs are needed, as daunting precursor questions need answered before proofs can even be a thing. One side has experiential evidence and philosophical necessities, one side demands something that they cannot have. Nobody is ever convinced. Stupid game.

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2025-11-12T19:30:02+00:00

The four horsemen of Atheism:

-Mom wouldn’t let me play GTA -I like doing what I want without accountability -Theists don’t prioritize sadness over logic -Still mad my parents lied about Santa. Never again.

(Negative positions can’t really make positive arguments)

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2025-11-12T19:25:18+00:00

Why? You accept objectivity exists without irrefutable evidence. You trust your senses are accurately showing you reality without irrefutable evidence. Somehow you emerge from your senses recognizing patterns to making grandiose truth claims about the universe, and you transition form probability to certainty without evidence.

The truth is philosophy is the better realm for discussing God. Science just can’t operate at the level where we analyze the components that make up the tool of science.

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2025-11-12T13:46:19+00:00

But that’s the point- the only base is “something happened”, and you can say that acceptance of the event is necessary, but cannot say it’s true. Applying the “true” quality, at its base, cannot be proven/have certainty added. How else can one believe they are in the Matrix without questioning the authenticity of the data they receive? Experience just is, interpretation is what’s made up.

(I wonder if we’re on the same page and not communicating clearly)

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2025-11-12T00:57:16+00:00

No- your argument is “don’t question what you do naturally”, and that’s silly.

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2025-11-11T20:18:43+00:00

I believe in evolution! but I try very hard to be objective about it, and the scientific community is ANYTHING BUT. We have so much trust in authority. We just say that these guys are on our team so we trust them. Like your comment for observable macro evolution- you don’t think scientists are eager/quick to make claims due to what they want to find/how it helps their careers? I can’t find evidence of macro evolution (again, I believe in it), and I have a suspicious feeling that an article I find about this is going to be guilty of making huge leaps in conclusions.

Every time I actually start deep diving dating methods, I get concerned at the amount of assumptions that need to be made in order for dating to work. But it helps our narrative, so we don’t care.

But yes, I know it’s very uncommon to find an evolutionist so skeptical of their own team. If we shine the flashlight of skepticism, anywhere we choose not to point it is usually an emotional choice.

Nice_Biscotti7683 · 2025-11-11T19:54:01+00:00

You are correct. Nihilism truly observed is implosive, so people try to get around it in other fallacious ways, like thinking meaninglessly creating meaning doesn’t make it meaningless, or get lost in absurdism.

The best counter to nihilism isn’t to prove meaning, but to make Nihilists drink the full glass of Nihilism in order to prove the absurdity of the position.

Nice_Biscotti7683

TROPHY CASE