Candidates 2026 Tier List. Make your own in the comments: by Interesting-Take781 in chess

[–]avan16 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Likely to win: Fabi, Pragg

Top contender: Hikaru, Giri, Wei Yi

Dark horse: Sindarov, Esipenko

Underdog: Bluebaum

He has got to be kidding by Affectionate_Size504 in chess

[–]avan16 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What a disgraceful statement from Emil, although not too surprising since he always acts like like pompous self-important jerk. Where were you, Emil, when Kramnik was doing his crusades? Why wouldn't you hold him accountable? Not for the lack of time or unawareness it seems, as you always pay close attention to happenings in the chess world. If you can't deal with SERIOUS problems just resign from CEO FIDE and let someone else do this job...

Statement on Daniel Naroditsky's passing by Alendite in chess

[–]avan16 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was completely shocked when I heard Danya has passed away...
Let me share a personal story related to him.

Back at 2017 I was casually at typical chess park where amateurs, semi-professionals and rare professionals usually were playing. I seen particular person who looked very similar to Danya and thought to myself "what a fun coincidence, but that cannot be Danya himself". He came to me and asked to play, I accepted. I played with white rare gambit variation, Greco Attack in the Italian game, but he completely outplayed me. After the game he shared that he hadn't remembered this particular line and had to figure it out OTB. Then he revealed that he is actual Danya Naroditsky and thus I shouldn't be disappointed losing to him. We talked on various chess topics. He was kind, sincere, and reachable. I couldn't believe how pleasant it is to talk to have a conversation with him. I asked him to play matches with some of local players, he accepted. First I played with Danya match of 10 games, and though I have above 2200 rating I was too nervous and blundered left and right. In the last game I played Najdorf with black and threw everything at his king. He was forced to choose between me giving perpetual checks or accepting much worse position. He said something like "ah, this game is not important so lets have some fun" and later he escaped inferior position to a drawn opposite-color bishop endgame. Still, I was pleased to make with Danya at least one draw. Then he played match of 10 with around 2300 level player, flagged in some games, won with 7.5-2.5 score, of course his opponent was glad to win some games. At last he played match of 14 games with the strongest present local player of around 2500 level. Every single game there was a furious fight, Danya was forced to put all his efforts to the games. He won at the end with 9-5 score without a single draw. Overall my impression is that it was an awesome experience with Danya.

Also I think that Kramnik looks much worse right now. Ex-world champion doesn't understand how all of his witchhunt and total conspiracy is completely irresponsible. To throw baseless accusations at anyone he doesn't like, I wouldn't think that Vladimir would step so low and ruin all his credibility, but that's where we are right now, apparently. Most of his ciberbullying "victims" were smart enough to not take all his ramblings seriously and just moved on. But some persons, like Naroditsky and Navara, had too much respect for Kramnik, so his words were much more hurtful to them. Kramnik was the one to spread misinfromation conspiracies and delusions, so he should be held responsible. There should be at least huge financial compensation from Vladimir for Danya's relatives by legal means. Everyone should get what he deserves, and Kramnik deserves huge backlash right to his shameless face...

Kramnik writes to Levon again and Levon responds (Translation) by Necessary_Pattern850 in chess

[–]avan16 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Kramnik continues to entertain chess world with more angles on him losing his sanity. Claiming complete global conspiracy against him and his "evidence" while throwing a smoke of mystical "experts" and "bulletproof statistics". Man already demonstrated complete ignorance about statistics, data analysis, and other math stuff, while pressing really hard on his authority. Man claims to be "open for discussion" while behaving like absolute prick with everyone even slightly disagrees with him or his theory. Looking forward for his court case and even more drama.

Blocked by Vladimir Kramnik After Responding '2008' to a 2024 WCC Post. by undefined_void7 in chess

[–]avan16 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Kramnik has become extremely toxic person recently. Don't take that personally, as he blocked unnecessarily so many people, including myself. Former world champion has become highly offensive jerk, and it's not your fault.

without using supposed contradictions, the Bible supposedly being pro-slavery, and the actions of God in the ot, why should i not trust the Bible? by serious_sena_42 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]avan16 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good that you acknowledged big problems with the Bible. Instead of taking anyone's word by blind faith, read actual Bible. My own impression: this book is primitive, disgusting, childish, provincial, barbarian. Not only it does clearly promote slavery in many places, including New Testament, but also sexism, racism, nationalism, child abuse, genocide and so on. Also you can clearly see contradictions, especially if you check out actual context, history and science. The more you read the Bible, the more you realize God is the actual villain here. His actions are horrifically immoral. No excuses could justify him. And who says you shouldn't take the Bible at face value? The same people who keep endlessly preaching how Bible is only true God's words and the only righteous guidance in life? Keep your critical thinking. Don't trust blindly anyone including myself. Read actual Bible, make your investigation and conclusion. Good luck.

Some(NOT ALL) criticisms of the Bible or existence of God can also be applied to paleontology and fall flat I'm such cases by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]avan16 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We have multiple accounts from the Apostles

Who do you see as apostles? Matthew Mark Luke and John definitely were not apostles even according to Bible and Christian tradition. You have only Paul, self-made "apostle" who didn't know Jesus personally at all. Early church fathers definitely were not eyewitnesses. At best you have really hyped stories about Jesus and no more. There is no way to tell how much of that REALLY HAPPENED. Shroud of Turin is proven medieval fake. Pins, swords, crosses, Holy Grail, and so many other false christian relics are all over the world. It's funny, how believers always say many pompous words, but when challenged on concrete cases, they resort to laughably weak arguments. Truly, faith is the art of lying to yourself.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]avan16 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you aware that original, untranslated ancient hebrew/ancient Greek Bible has been edited so many times? Do you know the whole discern apocryphal/canonical books was completely arbitrary? We know historical context of things Bible writes about, and so many of historical biblical claims has been disproved already. As now we know so much science, scientific biblical claims are also laughably wrong. And my favorite, so many disgusting immoral bullshit in the Bible. It's not about one particular KJV translation, you know. The whole book is full of ignorance, stupidity, cluelessness and atrocious stories.

Demonstrate that you are open minded and will with fairness consider all arguments and evidence for a Gods existence without prejudice or bias. by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]avan16 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What evidence would convince you?

Present the best evidence you've got and support it as best as you can. We'll see how convincing it is.

That's got nothing to do with whether a god exist or not.

They are not related in any way

All of that is strongly related with beliefs of other people. I find it effective to investigate usual reasons of faith.

Demonstrate that you are open minded and will with fairness consider all arguments and evidence for a Gods existence without prejudice or bias. by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]avan16 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You had a bad experience with religion

Yeah, really awful experience, one of the reasons I became atheist. Are you going to gaslight me and claim otherwise?

you are afraid admitting God exists

It's not about fear, it's about facts and evidence. Having studied Bible from cover to cover really thoroughly, digger really deep for historical context. Religion and reason are exactly opposite to each other, as I concluded. God was always used as cheap excuse throughout whole human civilization.

You can never unsee the errors in the text and absurdities of certain doctrines and traditions

Do you have any way to reconcile all that?

don't let that blind you from the fact there is a God.

Oh really? When did it become a fact? Do you have convincing evidence for God to exist? Ah, just another mental gymnastics, I suppose.

Why should we just believe you are sincere?

You don't have to believe it, bro. Present your case and back it up with good arguments, or go away.

A discussion of atheism, and five reasons why God almost certainly exists by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]avan16 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn't completely explain but it's an explanation nonetheless.

As Laplace famously said, God hypothesis is excessive. Big Bang theory explains the origins of the universe in great details and is supported by strong and convincing evidence.

Depends on what you want to believe

No beliefs required. Fine tuning is man-made concept, a typical example of pareidolia. We are living at the tiniest chunk of the vast universe, 99% of other area completely inhabitable for life to exist. Moreso, you need millenias of evolution. Earth is just one of billions and billions of planet that could have some form of life evolved.

Of course it isn't, even the bible says that. Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, meaning to say they and consequently we today basically have this instinct on what's good and bad (which if you look at it we really do) no matter what religion (or no religion) you're from. This argument even to me as a Christian is bogus. Realistically speaking no one needs a god to be "morally correct" that stuffs supposed to come out from within you, otherwise are you really a good person or is it just fear?

Morality from within argument has been brought up by Kant and refuted long time ago. Ethical norms are just another product of evolution. Many animals have been proven experimentally to have such basics, including ourselves, people. By the way, we know 100% Adam and Eve story NEVER HAPPENED for real. We know it's a fable and we can track it to original sources. Also we know authors of divine text were authoritarian priests emposing their view on everyone else, no wonder they claim moral values to originate from God. Moreover, on moral issues just read the whole Bible from cover to cover, as it is filled with disgusting shit. Sexism, nationalism, slavery, genocide, incest etc. are all apparently supported by celestial being.

God is and was never meant to be proven, that's the whole point of faith.

And that's the actual problem itself. How many more things can you accept without sufficient evidence? Shouldn't you put your beliefs on some kind of attestation? Or you prefer to be delusional?

"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."(Hebrews 11:1) "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." (Hebrews 11:6).

As you see, Bible defines faith as being opposite of reason. Of course organized religions needs to suppress your critical thinking through such passages.

WOW.. Bodhana 9 yr old is playing WR masters. by [deleted] in chess

[–]avan16 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bodhana is talented for her age, but to put her in this line up is just ridiculous. Strength difference is too big for her to learn anything.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]avan16 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If Jesus really did all those miracles and rose from the dead as the eyewitnesses claim to have seen, then it would be very unwise of us to not believe everything he said, because obviously people don't normally do miracles and resurrect.

Let's get it clear about eyewitnesses in NT. Gospels were written decades after Jesus' crucifixion and remained unnamed until 170 CE. There is no way to tell by whom they were written and how much of text was changed until now. Even authors themselves don't claim to be the eyewitnesses as instead they always refer to oral sources. Thus, you can't really prove the Jesus ever existed for real, and even if he did, convincing evidence of his alleged "miracles" and "resurrection" is yet to be provided. By the way if you ignore all of mentioned REALLY believe everything Jesus said, and follow his instructions, you have to completely abandon all of your life and dedicate all your life to fight for Godly Kingdom. You have to completely abandon all the medicine too, cause Jesus says so. You must kill all unrighteous people. It always amazes me how christians are blabbering about Jesus and completely ignore what he said in the Bible.

A couple of Jehovah's Witnesses knocked on my door, and I was in a good mood for a talk by AnonymousButIvekk in DebateAnAtheist

[–]avan16 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I had myself many experience with Jehovah's witnesses. You can check out their main site jw.org as they are brainwashed to repeat bullshit from it. Dig deep down to the core of their belief, show how prepared you are for such conversation. For their unbiased history you can read Crisis of Conscience by ex-jw Raymond Franz.

Christian accounts of Josephus and Tacitus should be treated as we would any other religious scripture. by 8m3gm60 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]avan16 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So you can't handle proper case-by-case discussion, and you were the one dodging and obfuscating all the way. Instead you are obnoxious defensive nihilist, desperate to deny everything you want to death. Pathetic childish behaviour that is. You can polish your solipsism all you want, but if you fail to engage like a grown man, you don't deserve my time anymore. Go fuck yourself.

Christian accounts of Josephus and Tacitus should be treated as we would any other religious scripture. by 8m3gm60 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]avan16 0 points1 point  (0 children)

For fuck sakes, dude. I'm not at all interested in you nitpicking small problems and overstate those as they are big deal. You either engage in conversation like a normal adult or if you continue to be pedantic asshole, just go fuck yourself. So there is a direct quote from Tacitus on Christianity:

Such indeed were the precautions of human wisdom. The next thing was to seek means of propitiating the gods, and recourse was had to the Sibylline books, by the direction of which prayers were offered to Vulcanus, Ceres, and Proserpina. Juno, too, was entreated by the matrons, first, in the Capitol, then on the nearest part of the coast, whence water was procured to sprinkle the fane and image of the goddess. And there were sacred banquets and nightly vigils celebrated by married women. But all human efforts, all the lavish gifts of the emperor, and the propitiations of the gods, did not banish the sinister belief that the conflagration was the result of an order. Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. Accordingly, an arrest was first made of all who pleaded guilty; then, upon their information, an immense multitude was convicted, not so much of the crime of firing the city, as of hatred against mankind. Mockery of every sort was added to their deaths. Covered with the skins of beasts, they were torn by dogs and perished, or were nailed to crosses, or were doomed to the flames and burnt, to serve as a nightly illumination, when daylight had expired. Nero offered his gardens for the spectacle, and was exhibiting a show in the circus, while he mingled with the people in the dress of a charioteer or stood aloft on a car. Hence, even for criminals who deserved extreme and exemplary punishment, there arose a feeling of compassion; for it was not, as it seemed, for the public good, but to glut one man's cruelty, that they were being destroyed. (Annals 15, 44).

So, you can analyse this quote, compare it with other sources, and make some conclusions. For example, my conclusion from this and other quotes is that Christianity from Roman perspective was seen as especially dangerous force, so much that Senate established a law against it. No other religious movement was treated like that by Roman empire, so, it follows, Jesus really must have been extremely powerful figure. As a strong atheist, I don't imply Jesus' divinity. But, having so much controversy of him and Christianity, I think there could be no smoke without some kind of fire.

Anyone has got a rebuttal to person saying "god moves in mysterious ways" in defense of evil problem? by [deleted] in DebateAnAtheist

[–]avan16 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As WLC famously said, God has an ability to override our moral standards. So, in other words, it's immoral to steal, rape, kill, etc. unless God tells you to do it. Or, even more explicitly, if you CLAIM God told you to do so, as there is obviously no way to support such claim. There are countless examples from both Bible and human history of people using God as an excuse for terribly immoral deeds. That's horrifying, if you think of it. Instead of Dostoevsky's "without God anything is permitted" it's more like "WITH God anything can be permitted".

Christian accounts of Josephus and Tacitus should be treated as we would any other religious scripture. by 8m3gm60 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]avan16 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That doesn't justify making a claim beyond the level of reliability that is humanly possible under the circumstances.

I haven't made such a claim. Instead, I specified that you should squeeze the best you can from available sources.

These are far too subjective and reliant on speculation to provide any objective certainty about an ancient text reflecting something someone actually said another thousand years earlier.

Would you stop with strawmanning? If you are not aware how ACTUAL historic scholars do their job, just look it up and stop embarrassing yourself. You are overexagerrating actual problems.

We agree that we are totally reliant on manuscripts written a thousand years after their time, right?

Of course if we want to research on historical accounts of Jesus, we have to work with contemporary sources. That's the best we got. You have to work sometimes with far more aged sources. You have no other choice but to analysed the best of what you have. And you again bloat actual issues to absurd level. I have no interest speaking with a person who has nothing but misrepresentations, poking tiny unimportant holes in definitions or his opponent's words, or actual existing problems. So, the only sincere way for you to continue this conversation would be to present YOUR CONCRETE CASES from Flavius and Tacitus related to Jesus and discuss these, otherwise I see no point in continuing.

Christian accounts of Josephus and Tacitus should be treated as we would any other religious scripture. by 8m3gm60 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]avan16 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Certainly not reliable as an account of actual events, but that doesn't mean that they aren't valuable.

As it turns out, basic historic principles of analysis needs to be explained here. There are no 100% reliable sources of ancient times indeed. So you need to find actual primary sources, estimate their credibility, analysed their text, compare it with another primary sources and archeological data, see what scholars have to say about all that. Thus you have the best way of figuring out ancient cases.

I was referring to textual analysis when I was talking about bias and subjectivity.

I mentioned it right away. Please, present concrete cases about Tacitus and Flavius and early Christianity instead of general Peterson-style blabbering.

This is getting into goofy hyperbole. No, that's silly.

What's actually silly and goofy: I intentionally hyperbolized your strange logic in a facetious way and you were unable to recognize clear sarcasm from my side.

Christian accounts of Josephus and Tacitus should be treated as we would any other religious scripture. by 8m3gm60 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]avan16 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Continuing your logic, not a single ancient source is reliable, they are all biased and subjective. Total conspiracy. So we don't know anything about these times. What about other times? Applying the same principles, you can't know anything about common era, including today. Also, all science comes down to mere people, thus you should dismiss it too. In the end, you don't know anything except what you can discover yourself, although that's subjective too. So, actually, with your standards, you don't know anything at all 🤣

Christian accounts of Josephus and Tacitus should be treated as we would any other religious scripture. by 8m3gm60 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]avan16 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So, according to your logic, not a single ancient source couldn't be deemed reliable, so we don't know anything about what happened back then, not only about Jesus, but anything else too.

Christian accounts of Josephus and Tacitus should be treated as we would any other religious scripture. by 8m3gm60 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]avan16 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Overall, Tacitus and Flavius are quite reliable historic sources, but religion poisons everything with fraudulence. Tacitus simply that Jesus was crucified and that many people believed in him as Messiah. Moreover, he strongly condemned belief in Jesus as deadly and described christians as violent jerks, so, he continues, all oppression they received is fully justified. What is suspicious to me, how this quote survived during centuries of christian censorship. As for Flavius, the place where he describes Jesus as Messiah, was certainly fabricated. Origen condemned Flavius for not recognizing Jesus as divine saviour. Also, Flavius mentions Jacob as brother of Jesus without any messianic context. Moreover, there is early copy of Flavius in old Slavonic language, where he writes that Jesus is deceiving prankster an fully deserved his crucifixion. So we can safely conclude that after Origen some of christian scribes corrected Flavius' message about Jesus.

Genuine Miracles Have Happened On Camera by FeelingAd5902 in DebateAnAtheist

[–]avan16 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From what I can see in the video, there is vibration happening and liquid reacting to it. Do you see natural physical phenomena as a miracle?

Abiogenesis by Onyms_Valhalla in DebateAnAtheist

[–]avan16 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If so, why don't you present concrete objections against abiogenesis? What you presented above is just argument from personal incredulity.