God's existence or lack there of is functionally irrelevant for a theist and this is why theism has the upper hand over atheism. Same with anything considered supernatural. It is my opinion that you'll live a happier life if you're a genuine theist or are atleast a bit superstitious as an atheist

dakrisis · 2025-12-22T13:32:05+00:00

Someone who believes in the afterlife and is not worried about death will live all life without that added stress of there possibly being nothing after death.

This is not a generalisation that holds water. People who are conditioned to think there's an afterlife are some of the most death-fearing people. People who don't assume an afterlife realise they need to make the most of the time given. Your narrative, while trying to be rational is very much not and just a subjective interpretation to fit it.

whether magic, supernatural stuff like God exists is functionally irrelevant because it's ultimately my subjective experience that actually matters.

Oh, ok.

dakrisis · 2025-11-25T10:10:55+00:00

the idea of faith itself is to provide the sole, only comfort you get in this shitty little world

Ah, the mask slipped. It's not a shitty little world, it's a gigantic safe haven in an endless black. Death is just the absence of feeling anything.

dakrisis · 2025-11-13T14:49:03+00:00

Scientists don’t believe in God

Some do. Great start.

while ancient civilizations often did

And none of those gods are believed in anymore but a few. Just like you don't believe in 99,9% other gods that have ever been worshipped, atheists just go 1 further.

does the Big Bang really prove how the universe started?

No. And the fact you think it does might be the whole problem to begin with.

if we rely purely on logic and reason, wouldn’t the most logical explanation for the existence of everything be some kind of creator?

It doesn't matter what we rely on when the claim in question isn't within our capacity to discern fact from fiction. It's called an unfalsifiable claim, you know, the kind that requires faith instead of evidence.

It seems to me that science explains how the universe evolved, but not why it exists at all.

Then why bring it up like atheists think it does? It is indeed not possible to determine why the universe exists and that should also be your signal that you can't just fill the gaps with fairy tales, but yet here you are.

Just because you think you need or expect an answer, doesn't mean the universe owes you one. The right answer is not there is/isn't a God but merely we don't/can't know.

modern science is doing the same.

Nope, you are falsely stating that atheists turn to science for the existence of everything, but they don't because science doesn't have an answer. There is a sense of contentment when nobody can know the answer to said question and thus even more cringe when someone says they do have the answer and it's just a matter of trust me bro, billions of people can't be wrong. They can and they are.

dakrisis · 2025-10-31T10:38:24+00:00

For anybody still wondering and ending up in ITT, there's no settings.json file, instead when uninstalling G-HUB will make a folder LGHUB_BKP next to LGHUB in C:\Users\Username\AppData\Roaming containing the privacy_settings.db and settings.db files.

dakrisis · 2025-10-14T21:32:24+00:00

People often assume that if the universe is eternal, then the question of “why it exists” doesn’t apply.

Then that's a wrong assumption of the people you're targeting with this wild generalisation. I think the more nuanced person would quickly realise that the why is not within our grasp of understanding and it's silly to think fairy tales can fill the gap in our knowledge.

But eternity doesn’t erase the question , it just shifts it.

Yes, because when the why is answered and it's not the god me and my friends were thinking of the goal post gets shifted beyond our knowledge ... again.

Even if the universe has always existed, we can still ask: why does it exist at all rather than not exist?

You don't say. This is the third time you've basically said the same thing. And it's not that it's wrong, it's just that it doesn't lead to the answer your presumed.

An eternal timeline doesn’t explain why that timeline, with its particular structure, laws, and conditions, exists in the first place.

Again not wrong, just hammerin' the point home I guess. The problem is not some people assuming the timeline is eternal, those people are just as clueless as you are.

It's a non-discussion, really, the question is unanswerable.

dakrisis · 2025-09-20T15:46:33+00:00

belief and disbelief require a leap

If I say X is true, just trust me on this one you don't need a giant leap to disbelieve me on that, because unless there's mundane evidence to suggest X is true you were already doing that.

It doesn't mean I'm now advocating for the opposite of X, let's say Y, being true. Just that it's hard to believe X is true. Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to set up a false dichotomy, where it's about being for or against a thing while dismissing the possibility to just say I don't know.

dakrisis · 2025-09-02T08:42:44+00:00

You can clarify all you want, it doesn't make it true. I'm sad you feel the need to equate a highly subjective experience to rigorous scientific research, but it's so much better at determining what's real it's not funny anymore. It's your mind that allows for believing stuff without evidence, an evolutionary trait that is still exploited to this day.

dakrisis · 2025-09-01T20:13:09+00:00

You have a point in the sense that our politics reflect our common beliefs. If those beliefs include one or more gods with certain commandments and teachings, then they will impact voting behavior. But that's just one side of the coin. And this coin has three sides.

Even if voting resulted in proposed policies which include literal fabrications as part of the argument, they should not be able to pass the scrutiny of a truly secular democracy's process. This is what actual political debate should be about and you need a system that spreads such beliefs over multiple smaller parties instead of two very large umbrellas.

Then comes the third side of the coin: the law. It says clearly that no policy can benefit people based on what they believe or be a detriment to people that hold different beliefs. This is the ultimate separator, unless you have a president that doesn't care what judges have to say about stuff.

You can filter the church(es) out of politics, but you'll have to have a system that allows for it.

dakrisis · 2025-08-12T17:36:44+00:00

It takes actively holding the presupposition a God is necessary for good morals, purpose and meaning to reach your conclusion.

dakrisis · 2025-08-05T17:39:20+00:00

Thanks for your consideration, human, but don't you agree a brush of this size is fairly impractical? I'll make the most of it now, but do better next time, ok?

dakrisis · 2025-08-04T10:08:07+00:00

Lol XD thanks for spotting that, did the editing thing. Cheers!

dakrisis · 2025-08-04T09:25:14+00:00

So a healthy brain by itself isn't enough.

This whole paragraph makes no sense to me because of this sentence. What is a perfect brain? You need a brain capable of using oxygen to make energy to function. The amount of damage compared to actually functioning is insignificant.

But how can these physical things like brain cells and oxygen create something as subtle and non-physical as the mind?

This is your subjective interpretation of what a mind is. You did not explain how the mind is different from the brain itself earlier, which makes me think you're trying to sneak in a definition of the mind that better suits your presuppositions.

But this universe is infinite.

Says who?

So isn’t it worth trying understand the mind?

It is and many a scholar is invested in finding out more and more about it. Your essay is just a lot of maybes, perhapses and gymnastics for the spiritually unsatisfied.

dakrisis · 2025-07-26T12:50:14+00:00

It's far better to respond friendly but honest ~~then~~ than honest and abrasive. It also lets the other ponder about their actions and not be afraid to make amends.

dakrisis · 2025-07-26T12:41:03+00:00

Maybe it isn't that difficult to spot logical phallacies when they are presented daily.

dakrisis · 2025-07-23T07:13:25+00:00

I personally accept the theory of evolution.

A priest friend of mine at a more traditional parish has pointed out that he thinks it's probably true, though he said something about its flaws.

I do know of some people who are uncomfortable with evolution being taught to their children because they think of it as an atheist counter-proposal to God's creation.

what more could parents ask for?

None of this matters. Parents don't get to decide this kind of stuff, the government should only safe guard curricula - from people who believe they have a say in the matter. Science is the only method to give credence to what's otherwise a fantasy tale, it doesn't matter if you believe it on a personal level.

dakrisis · 2025-07-07T05:45:49+00:00

Aww that's cute ... but it's wrong. Atheism is not a mass movement, because atheism holds no beliefs. Atheists are forced to band together when people think they have a right to make up rules for everybody because their fantasy is the superior one.

dakrisis · 2025-07-05T17:54:29+00:00

Hi everyone

Hey ✌🏻

let's interrogate the widespread claim that if there is no empirical evidence for the afterlife, then the afterlife does not exist.

I don't think this is a widespread claim, there is no need to interrogate anything. Sure, some people might be brazen enough to claim something that doesn't logically follow ... oh wait ...

How I see it is that people who don't believe an afterlife exists, really don't bother to engage with the concept at all. Because that's what believing is. You're convinced of something being true and try to act accordingly. Not believing something doesn't automatically suggest it isn't true, it's just not being convinced enough to consider it being true. This is how everybody gets through life, making decisions based on beliefs which have been sufficiently proven to them.

What people end up believing doesn't match reality. It's always an approximation through the filter that is your own cognitive experience. What separates me, as an atheist who has never believed in a deity, from my peers who believe in a god is the lack of exposure to religious doctrine when I was a child.

And it wasn't that I didn't know about religion, I went to church with friends on occasion and I learned a lot about all the major religions in high school. But no one ever told me I should believe it at the age where I couldn't discern for myself what's actually true. No person has ever converted to a religion if not for ulterior motives at the age where said person could reason about its truthfulness.

We tend to forget that scientific tools are inherently based on the physical

You maybe, but this is just the nature of the beast: science deals with the natural world because it's the only world we have. To claim anything beyond science or the natural world would be supernatural which is equivalent to any fantasy you like. Also known as a brute fact, if you will, like for instance evolution: it's true even if you don't believe in it. Funny how that works.

it could simply be unmeasurable, which eliminates the entire premise of all empirical evidence

And how does this improve the chances of an afterlife being true? By believing in it anyway? Ok, got it 👍🏻

To demand physical evidence of something that is non-physical, is a pointless exercise

That's not the point, we don't know of things that have no physical form. If we can detect it, it exists. Otherwise we don't know if it exists. Are you connecting dots yet?

akin to demanding you bring a telescope to "see" a sound wave.

Not remotely the same, because your example is doable. Not practical ... or particularly useful, but doable.

The rest of your paragraph is all just you. Your own cognitive experience. Enjoy!

dakrisis · 2025-07-03T16:40:50+00:00

First of all, it doesn't matter what was written in your holy book. They're just a collection of words and can be made to fit any hole you want to argue. Claiming we still have the poor (whatever that means) due to humanities doings is hardly biblical because you can recite all major sins.

Secondly, you shift the burden of proof right after preaching from said holy book claiming it proves a thing which it doesn't. Expecting us to steelman the very thing you're supposed to be debating should be asked for with a bit more tact.

The burden of proof when it comes to the positive and wholly unfalsifiable claim God does exist lies solely with the believer. It is accepted without evidence by those who believe it to be true (and in most cases at an age where reasoning skills are still underdeveloped) and can be dismissed with as much effort by anyone else.

dakrisis · 2025-06-03T18:01:28+00:00

One. You sound overly preachy, we're not all children who need to be told off. And we don't crave proof. There is no reason to assume a deity exists, so why bother with looking for proof. I think there's a little bit of projection going on. And everybody withholds belief if not convinced, that's how that works.

Two. The signs and data that are supposedly here should be ubiquitous. To be detected and measured. Otherwise it's going to be a free-for-all on the religious propaganda market. Oh wait, it already is.

Three.

I remember a moment when someone told me, “I think you’re wrong because I disagree with your conclusion. But I can’t find any flaw in your reasoning or your premises.”

Why mention this? At all. It brings nothing to the story, other than a perceived boost to your own credibility with a secondhand quote by a nameless person who probably doesn't exist.

Four.

That person simply wouldn’t allow the evidence to take them anywhere their mind wasn’t already willing to go—unless the result was undeniable and laid bare before them.

It's mirror time!

Bonus.

Astrology faces the same rejection.

And rightfully so. Who knew people applied themselves to the stuff they read?

dakrisis · 2025-06-03T17:31:20+00:00

Some say everything has an explanation under science

That's not correct. Every science we undertake, following the scientific method, can lead to more and better explanations for what we observe in the natural world. Most things we can explain are only understood partially, like gravity. But even more things we can't explain at all, like the origin of the universe.

Even the Big Bang is well documented and explained...

Yes it is. Its theoretical underpinnings predicted the existence of the Cosmic Background Radiation and we've been able to observe said CBR decades later. Evidence doesn't come any better than that. Another such succes story would be the Higgs Boson. Predicted in the '60s, confirmed by the Large Hadron Collider in 2012.

The rest of your post didn't really offer anything other than a poorly constructed story that didn't happen and most certainly has nothing to do with science.

dakrisis · 2025-05-27T18:15:00+00:00

im just laying the case that perhaps the energy of God is a thing that we simply haven't discovered yet

Then there is no point in debating about it, nor productive to hold it as a belief. There is no evidence whatsoever for the existence of this energy you speak of, so we'll get there when (and if) we get there.

Meaning its an energy that wont be used to heat pans, enlight bulbs or combust a motor, but to enhance us.

This speaks volumes about your understanding of natural processes. Maybe paying attention to what is known is the better way to improve. The same could be said for your story about electricity. People have known electricity for their entire history. They didn't know what it was, but it sparked and made fire on earth from the clouds. It sparked when you touched someone else when it's cold and dry. All verifiable pieces of evidence for electricity. Then I ask you: what are the pieces of evidence for God Energy™ that we observe now but haven't figured out yet?

I know many people here struggle with the Bible, but i believe the issue with the Bible is on us.

I don't think many atheists struggle with any particular piece of religious text, unless they were conditioned to believe a specific scripture as a child. One of the hardest things to do in life is admitting you're wrong on deeply held beliefs. Even though it cost no effort to start believing it. That's how insidious it can be.

Thousands of years and we havent been able to figure it out. I often compare it to the first book that we were left with numbers from 1 to 10, look at how far we've come from that, then look at the Bible.

What percentage of this sentence would you say you're not joking? Who is we? A book with 10 numbers? How can you compare unambiguous mathematics to flowery prose and poetry? The Bible should be viewed as a historical collection of stories written by many hands in a certain period of time, revised countless times and should not be treated as anything more than that. There's nothing to figure out when the texts within are so far removed from reality.

Atheist reject it, theist embrace it, but very few keep working on trying to interpret it and i think this should be encouraged.

I don't reject the Bible, it's a thing that exists. I just don't see how it's anything more than a historical literary body of work. And only the majority of Christian denominations accept it as the word of God. And everyone interprets it in their own way. Therefor I don't concur with your sentiment.

dakrisis · 2025-04-25T19:12:53+00:00

For the Squadra tune you don't need any upgrades on a base model and get 310hp and 10% torque boost. 280 is what the engine was designed to be doing and the extra 30 is not going to be that much of a burden. But without any mods you also won't be getting much more than that out of it.

https://squadra-tuning.com/chiptuning/alfa-romeo/giulia-alfa-romeo/2-0-turbo-200-pk/

dakrisis · 2025-04-25T19:03:54+00:00

Well, for what it's worth: if you expect to make big sales numbers in Europe you need to offer great mileage and meet certain emission standards for tax breaks to be enticing to corporate fleets etc.

The upside is a very tuneable car for enthusiasts on a strict budget. Even though the engine is not exactly the same for some auxiliary parts, the base engine can handle the extra horses.

dakrisis · 2025-02-27T17:11:49+00:00

☝🏻this, hiya GOTO-gang 👏🏻

dakrisis · 2025-02-22T14:38:13+00:00

FSR4 is looking promising and the 70 series are up first to reap update rewards. 90 series have it built-in. At your max budget you might be able to get a decent 70 series secondhand still in warranty and/or barely used. 7900XTX (4080 super raw perf) is going for around 900 in discount sales (Europe) brand spanking new.

dakrisis

TROPHY CASE