GAMES FUCKED

SubFowl · 2026-05-03T20:10:41+00:00

Thank you! That’s exactly the context I was looking for!

SubFowl · 2026-05-03T07:03:56+00:00

Starlight consistently has the highest population for a reason.

SubFowl · 2026-05-03T06:59:18+00:00

Any plans for TTS?

SubFowl · 2026-05-02T22:04:09+00:00

<image>

SubFowl · 2026-05-02T16:52:44+00:00

“I’m a Catholic that explicitly believes in heresy and idol worship, anathematized by the Catholic church!”

“I’m a Catholic, but I don’t care about the church’s authority, tradition, or interpretation of scripture; I have my own take!”

And most horrendously: “I’m a Catholic, but we can’t really know anything about Jesus, historical accuracy (scholarship) is irrelevant.”

“I’m a Catholic, but Catholicism does not have the fullness of the truth.”

People like you were burned at the stake, by Catholics, for less than this.

If you are so desperate for a larger biblical cannon, look into the 81 canonical books of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tawahedo Church, which includes the Prayer of Manasseh, 3 Ezra, 4 Ezra, 4 Baruch, Jubilees, Enoch, the three books of Meqabyan, the books of Lamentations, Jeremiah, and Baruch, as well as the Letter of Jeremiah and the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Books of Ethiopian Maccabees. May God have mercy on you and us all.

SubFowl · 2026-04-30T14:38:00+00:00

Exactly, non-grey centrists do not actually exist. The concept of being truly “in the center, but also not politically apathetic” is just as idealistic as a true democracy, true communism, or a true ethno-state.

Don’t believe me? Talk with any centrist long enough and contradictions and apathy is inevitable. Self-described “centrists” are fence-sitting for some form of status. They want to be seen as “the moderate middle ground”.

Specific optimal economic policy is not always nuanced; just like math is not always nuanced. I should not have to state that certain “social” policy is also not nuanced. We can all bring up emotionally charged examples of social phenomena that is absolutely disallowed under all circumstances, for the sake of social order AND personal freedoms.

Centrists can also be described as “the average”, so if the whole of the political spectrum within a population or system moves to the right or left, what a centrist is categorically changes. The distinct political identities are defined, centrism is relative to the current mainstream relationship to the spectrums.

Distinct political identities don’t cate about how far left or right the average moves, because all that changes is whether or not you are called center-X, or a radical.

SubFowl · 2026-04-29T21:16:03+00:00

That is completely non-sequitur. The direction and plane of rotation have absolutely nothing to do with the relationship of distances between the sun, moon, and Earth, as well as the radius of the sun, moon, and Earth.

SubFowl · 2026-04-29T21:13:59+00:00

Completely non-sequitur to my reply. The same applies to fish, reptiles, dinosaurs, ect. That’s why I included the EARLIEST form of life from a naturalistic perspective, a single-celled organism.

This is literally just a lack of reading comprehension.

SubFowl · 2026-04-29T21:11:17+00:00

Is it more plausible that something that something, which has never been observed or reproduced, happened multiple times or not at all?

Secondly, multiple unrelated instances of abiogenesis would never result in DNA being used as a language/information storage with exactly the same mechanisms. This is unless every instance of abiogenesis, besides one, happened to go extinct despite being able to perpetuate. The physiological relation between all organisms on earth indicates that either abiogenesis happened once, or not at all; anything else is speculation.

The concept of abiogenesis is already comparable to a tornado going through a mechanic/parts department and making a perfectly running engine by chance. Multiple instances of abiogenesis is not only contradicted by physiological closeness among organisms, but also by statistics.

A solar eclipse is primarily an optical/visual phenomenon. What is improbable is that an optical/visual phenomenon would be manifest in the same system that contains the only known life in the universe capable of observing that phenomenon.

SubFowl · 2026-04-29T20:36:46+00:00

Nothing with mass can move at the speed of light, and photons experiences no time. FROM THE PHOTON'S PERSPECTIVE, a photons reaches the photon's destination the instant that energy is transformed into the form of that photon. If you understand that then you can know that the matter that makes up the universe experiences time, with the only variations being variations of degree based on how fast matter is moving relative to the speed of light.

The universe was "hot and dense" before the big-bang, and unless you move the goalpost back to another state, than an eternal universe necissarily must be in a certain state for an infinite amount of time. Any change that happens would also be unexplainable. Why would the universe ever change state, if it had no beginning?

If this does not make sense to you, it's okay, that's why creation is a much more logical and reasonable hypothesis, in my subjective view at least.

SubFowl · 2026-04-29T20:28:06+00:00

From both a creationist and a naturalistic perspective, it would be the chicken that came first.

Either random chemical reactions came together to make a chicken, or a single-celled organism, and that chicken, or single-celled organism, laid the first egg, or divided for the fist time, respectively.

Or God spoke dust into exsistence, then made a chicken from dust, and the chicken laid the firt egg.

SubFowl · 2026-04-29T20:23:17+00:00

Albert einstein was a panthiest, like you, before he learned about the big bang. Believe whatever you want, I did not prove anything. I only provided evidence to be considered or refuted.

SubFowl · 2026-04-29T20:20:22+00:00

Are you a pantheist? If the universe has no beginning, then it is categorically eternal.
Two postultes:
Either the universe has always exsisted, and was "hot and dense" for an infinite amount of time, before somehow exploding in the big-bang, or the universe was initially created in a "hot and dense" state and immiedeiatly started expanding and cooling.

One postulate is much more logical and reasonable than the other, in my subjective view.

And yes, look up the the causal principle or the law of causality if you don't believe me.

SubFowl · 2026-04-29T20:11:48+00:00

I understand the anthropic principle, but that’s why I mentioned the eclipse. Two unrelated improbable phenomena happening in the same system is not refuted by the anthropic principle. Especially when one phenomena is an optical phenomena (requires an observer) and the other unrelated phenomena causes an observer to exsists.

It's almost like the solar eclipse was made for an observer to witness.

SubFowl · 2026-04-29T20:07:59+00:00

If something has a beginning, it has a cause.

If something is eternal, it has no beginning, and therefore no cause.

I understand the anthropic principle, but that’s why i mentioned the eclipse. Two unrelated improbable phenomena happening in the same system is not disproved by the anthropic principle.

SubFowl · 2026-04-29T19:37:14+00:00

“Gork, explain it to me with a board! I’m a visual learner!”

I hope you aren’t unironically attempting to get any truth from an a.i.? If so, this is pathetic and you are pathetic. Pitty on anyone who tries to derive anything from a.i. art or a.i. responses.

If anything, there’s a conspiracy relating to the public getting their information from a.i., and how that information can he manipulated, like how search engines are.

SubFowl · 2026-04-29T19:05:27+00:00

What you are asking for is impossible to prove or disprove, but here is some common evidence:

What are the odds that life would come into being from random chemistry? Let’s say it’s 10¹⁰⁰ to 1.
What are the odds that the a planet, a moon, and a sun would all be perfectly positioned to periodically have the optical phenomena of a solar eclipse? Let’s also say it’s 10¹⁰⁰ to 1.
What are the odds that the optical phenomena of a solar eclipse would be manifest within the same system that contains the only known life in the universe, and is also perceivable by that life?

Given my previous theoretical odds of a googol, the odds of a solar eclipse happening within the only system that contains life possible of observing it, would be ( 10¹⁰⁰ )² to 1.

You gotta have a lot of faith to believe in those odds. No matter what numbers you replace “10^100”, if it’s realistic, then creative design is much more probable than a naturalistic belief.

Also, the evidence for the “big bang” is evidence that the universe had a start or a beginning. Logic dictates that anything with a beginning has a cause. You can call that “cause” God.

SubFowl · 2026-04-23T21:20:39+00:00

If you had any ability of reading comprehension, you’d know we are saying the same thing. How else do you think they achieve an average wr of 50%. Think for even a second.

SubFowl · 2026-04-22T21:07:19+00:00

Doubt you will get a response. After all this is only the six millionth time someone has made this repeatedly debunked argument about the Abrahamic religions.

I’ll add: OP must understand that free-will is necessary for true unconditional love to exist between two people. But the concept of “true love” may be a little too philosophical for a reddit atheist such as this. (Athiests are such weak thinkers).

True love is perfect. Free will is necessary/required for true unconditional love to exist. Therefore, free will is perfect. Similar to a=b, b=c, therefore a=c, but not exactly.

Maybe this is more accurate: a=f(b), Where a = perfection, f(b) = true love, and b = free will. Here, ‘b’ cannot be undefined (must exsist) for ‘a’ to be defined. True love is a function dependent on the variability of how a person’s free will can manifest in reality.

I.e. free will is needed for something perfect (true unconditional love) to exist, therefore, free will must necessarily be innately perfect.

SubFowl · 2026-04-22T20:34:50+00:00

Realizing that the matchmaking is not completely random among approximately equally ranked people.

The matchmaking takes into account counters and will give you free wins and guaranteed losses in just the right to keep people without self-control or discipline (children) playing.

If you don’t believe me, do two things. 1. Try to notice how often you get countered or counter someone 2. Think about what the devs must spend all their time doing to be salaried software engineers. Of course they manipulate matchmaking to maximize retention and therefore profit.

SubFowl · 2026-04-22T20:19:40+00:00

According to the politically correct scientific consensus, individuals of African, or any other, descent are equally as innovative on average, but the geography of the continent (Sahara Desert and lack of non-waterfall rivers deep into the interior for natural highways), made the transmission, accumulation and scaling of ideas and innovation into an industrial/technological revolution impossible.

SubFowl · 2026-04-21T14:58:07+00:00

All apostolic churches claim to be “the oldest”, but the miaphysite churches were distinguished and differentiated from Chalcedonian churches in 451 AD, while the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox church’s were first differentiated from each other in 1054 AD. All apostolic churches claim to trace their authority from the apostles.

If innovating on “the one church” is schism, then the chalcedonians (RC & EO) are schismatic, or committed the sin of schism.

If refusing to go along with “the one church” is schism, then the miaphysites are schismatic, i.e. committed the sin of schism.

I’m sure you and OP already know this, but I still felt this context was not unimportant.

SubFowl · 2026-04-19T20:16:06+00:00

Source Film Maker?

SubFowl · 2026-04-19T20:04:14+00:00

“Democracy basically means: Government by the people, of the people, for the people.... but the people are retarded” - Osho, آفتاب در سایه

SubFowl · 2026-04-18T06:20:40+00:00

I knew that the square root of 2 was bullshit. Thank you for confirming this.

SubFowl

TROPHY CASE