• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 08:53
CEST 14:53
KST 21:53
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall2HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6
Community News
Flash Announces Retirement From ASL19Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form?12FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event16Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster14Weekly Cups (June 16-22): Clem strikes back1
StarCraft 2
General
The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation Weekly Cups (June 23-29): Reynor in world title form? StarCraft Mass Recall: SC1 campaigns on SC2 thread How does the number of casters affect your enjoyment of esports? Esports World Cup 2025 - Final Player Roster
Tourneys
FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event HomeStory Cup 27 (June 27-29) WardiTV Mondays SOOPer7s Showmatches 2025 $200 Biweekly - StarCraft Evolution League #1
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma Mutation # 477 Slow and Steady
Brood War
General
Flash Announces Retirement From ASL [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall ASL20 Preliminary Maps BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] GosuLeague RO16 - Tue & Wed 20:00+CET The Casual Games of the Week Thread [BSL20] ProLeague LB Final - Saturday 20:00 CET
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Trading/Investing Thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Russo-Ukrainian War Thread
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Korean Music Discussion
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion Formula 1 Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
Blog #2
tankgirl
Game Sound vs. Music: The Im…
TrAiDoS
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Heero Yuy & the Tax…
KrillinFromwales
Trip to the Zoo
micronesia
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 623 users

Reply to EtherealDeath's closed thread on beliefs

Blogs > BluzMan
Post a Reply
1 2 Next All
BluzMan
Profile Blog Joined April 2006
Russian Federation4235 Posts
March 06 2008 14:14 GMT
#1
FUCK! Just as I spent an assload of time writing this I realize that the topic I've been responding into has been closed. Not going to let this go to waste though, so I'll make a blog post in reply to the OP of the closed thread, since the original idea of it was not that bad.

First, I think you mess up terminology somewhat. To be more precise, axioms and postulates. An axiom should be treated mostly as a basis for abstract analysis. According to Kant, analysis doesn't give any essentially new data, it just reveals the "hidden" properties of the initial statement. Well, an axiom is that initial statement. The difference from postulate, however, is that that initial statement may be totally random in case of an axiom, since it's absract. I can axiomatize "10=0" (oh well, we all know I actually can't, since I will also need to redefine "10", "0" and "=" in a different way that doesn't automatically imply that "10!=0" which it does in common definitions, but that's not the point, let's take it the simplest) and build a mathematical theory out of it, and it will be valid. To be more precise, validity is not even a concern here, as it's not something that can be applied to axioms. In contrast, a postulate is a statement that too, serves as a basis for analysis, but actually comes from some observations of the real world. It's not necessary to delve deeper into this, it's enough to say that postulates are based on observations, while axioms are based on nothing. Therefore, it's perfectly okay to question the validity of a postulate, but not an axiom. That for Neumann thing is somewhat different, as it's just an assumption that was later crushed by analysis, it's not an axiom, but since it's on the borderline between empyric and abstract (as much of probability and statistics is), it's best called a hypothesis, much like the ergodic hypothesis. Nothing wrong with a hypothesis proven false.

Well, that was somewhat offtopic, but messing up definitions when talking on such complex subjects generally leads to nothing good. Returning to the subject of faith (again, a little more proper word for this case, but not nearly that relevant), speaking of it, it's quite logical to discuss god. I'm sorry if my wording is poor, it's hard to discuss it even in my native language. God is an absolution of the idea of faith and studying extreme cases of something is a common scientific method. Well, as an idea, what properties does god have? It's main property is absolution, let's assume it takes manifest in absolute power in context of the material world. Definition is the hardest thing here, it will probably lead to a different result if defined differently, but I'll also try to provide some basis for why I define it like this. Had power not been absolute, the subject should be adhering to some sort of law, physical, mystical or whatever. Something that strictly adheres a law, however, is a phenomenon. Now moving on to the next part - to scientifically prove if something exists, we must conduct an experiment. What is experiment in it's essence? In essence, an experiment is a question to nature, to the world, but the point is that it's a question nature has to answer. If me measure voltage, we may ask "is voltage above 100mV?" and there is no way that question won't be answered. You can't get "no answer" from nature when experimenting, unless, of course, your equipment stops to function (but as fun as this picture is when applied to a god-measuring experiment, equipment malfunction in 100 consecutive tests is a result as well). One of the main postulates of quantum mechanics is that it's impossible to conduct a measurement that won't influence the object being studied. Experiment, therefore, implies we take some action on the studied object it can't resist. So, assuming it's possible to conduct an experiment that would prove the existence of god, we're automatically saying that we can ask god questions he can't refuse to answer or, wording it differently, we can apply some sort of force to god, which contradicts his absolute power. Therefore, in we define god with absolution in mind, it's inherently immeasurable. Inherentely unobservable. That doesn't in any way "prove" that god doesn't exist, since any kind of that proof would too rely on an experiment, but it immediately raises a point with the neo-positivist "verifying principle" that states:

Whatever isn't verifiable (it's impossible to think of an experiment that proves or disproves our statement) is not a scientific matter.

That simple, absolute god is not a scientific matter. The only way it limits us that any attempts to "prove" god's existence are fool's endeavours and frankly I'm amazed how many pseudo-scientifical books came out lately that try to blend god and science, and even more amazed at how many people actually buy this bullshit.

We can, however, define god as a non-absolute something, but those definitions are all inherently flawed. They are all either taken out by Occam's Razor (if god is just something that designed human without any additional properties, well, isn't it easier to assume that it's just an extraterrestrial intelligence, besides, synergetics tell us that simple laws with large numbers may lead to complexity and order being formed out of chaos by itself which is even more preferable) or have inherent definition loops (god made us, who made god?). The presence of absolution in god's definition should seem obvious.

Well, that was a long introduction for a very short point. Faith is irrational. It doesn't have any basis and can't have one. You just believe in god, you draw him in whatever colors you want, and it's meant to make you happier. Nothing more, leave the explanation of the universe to science. Besides, science doesn't answer the question "why?", it only answers "how?", so the former one is still a matter of faith.

Finishing the post with some offtopic, I'll quote one post from this thread:

"If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

This is both right and wrong. From one point of view, it's not a religion because it doesn't have the religious traits - no rites, no sacred texts, no clergy. But from another point of view, it IS a religion because believing god doesn't exist is just as irrational as believing it does. Agnosticism seems much more of a rational position.

+ Show Spoiler [appendix] +
I apologize to all people who might be offended by me referencing god as "it", but I'm more talking about god as an idea, without any gender specification.


You want 20 good men, but you need a bad pussy.
Equinox_kr
Profile Blog Joined December 2006
United States7395 Posts
March 06 2008 14:54 GMT
#2
Hmm, that's a pretty interesting topic there ^_^

Sucks that all that work had to go to waste without really proving its point
^-^
Nyovne
Profile Joined March 2006
Netherlands19133 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-03-06 15:02:36
March 06 2008 15:01 GMT
#3
*NEVERMIND*
ModeratorFor remember, that in the end, some are born to live, others born to die. I belong to those last, born to burn, born to cry. For I shall remain alone... forsaken.
Southlight
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
United States11767 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-03-06 15:32:40
March 06 2008 15:29 GMT
#4
On March 06 2008 23:14 BluzMan wrote:
This is both right and wrong. From one point of view, it's not a religion because it doesn't have the religious traits - no rites, no sacred texts, no clergy. But from another point of view, it IS a religion because believing god doesn't exist is just as irrational as believing it does.


Common misconception of atheism is that it is a belief that there is no god. This is generally untrue. Atheism is not antitheism. This sort of messes up your last argument about atheism.

EDIT:
To clarify, the difference is that if scientific proof of gods and/or the supernatural were to be found, every true atheism would begin preaching the word of god, whereas antitheists would remain the same.
oraoraoraoraoraoraoraora
BluzMan
Profile Blog Joined April 2006
Russian Federation4235 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-03-06 15:38:10
March 06 2008 15:36 GMT
#5
Well, after reading that, I stand corrected. Apply all the previous arguments to antitheism, atheism, I admit, was misunderstood by me. But it's still a system of beliefs I don't really like as it discards theism as destructive even though it has evident benefical features.

Replying to your edit:

Ain't what you're describing agnosticism? Besides, I hope that "scientifical proof" is as much of a loose assumption as "10=0".
You want 20 good men, but you need a bad pussy.
glassmazarin
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
Sweden158 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-03-06 16:00:48
March 06 2008 15:56 GMT
#6
very well written!

my opinion is however different regarding your answer to someones quote:

On March 06 2008 23:14 BluzMan wrote:
"If atheism is a religion then not collecting stamps is a hobby."

This is both right and wrong. From one point of view, it's not a religion because it doesn't have the religious traits - no rites, no sacred texts, no clergy. But from another point of view, it IS a religion because believing god doesn't exist is just as irrational as believing it does. Agnosticism seems much more of a rational position.


the most rational thing to me is to believe in stuff that can be proven by experiment (science). this makes me think that god doesnt exist (there doesnt seem to be a need for some sort of absolute being in the world). i wouldnt say i strictly believe that there is no god, but if i had to bet money on the issue, i would choose the "no god" answer.

if i get a question where i know answer a) is 30% chance of being right, and answer b) has a 70% chance the rational way would be to answer b) and this IMO makes me a rational atheist

EDIT:
didnt see Southlights post, he writes sort of the same thing but with better wording T_T
Physician *
Profile Blog Joined January 2004
United States4146 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-03-06 17:32:41
March 06 2008 16:15 GMT
#7
the thread is not closed now, it is open
edit closed again, strange was decent thread
"I have beheld the births of negative-suns and borne witness to the entropy of entire realities...."
BlackStar
Profile Blog Joined July 2007
Netherlands3029 Posts
March 06 2008 16:26 GMT
#8
So it's most rational to be agnostic towards Wodan or Xenu? What about fairies?

If you have never heard of Anu then are you agnostic towards that god? Probably not. Does that mean you are irrational.

No. Being an atheist is the neutral position. Also, being an agnost means you claim one cannot know if something exists or not. You can be both a theistic agnost and an atheist agnost.

Since you can't proof that something doesn't exist, if there is a total lack of evidence, the only position you can take is one of disbelief. Once you stop doing that you are merely suspending your disbelief.

Everyone understands this. Even all theists understand this perfectly well and make the same argument when it's about a god they don't believe in. They just refuse to apply it to their own god because then they would stop believing. And that can't be happening.
MasterOfChaos
Profile Blog Joined April 2007
Germany2896 Posts
March 06 2008 16:28 GMT
#9
You only proved that you can't disprove a god with absolute power. And that you can't prove his existance against his will.
But you could observe an experimental result which(assuming your postulats are correct) is impossible to get without the existance of a god.
LiquipediaOne eye to kill. Two eyes to live.
Southlight
Profile Blog Joined August 2007
United States11767 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-03-06 16:30:45
March 06 2008 16:29 GMT
#10
On March 07 2008 00:36 BluzMan wrote:
Ain't what you're describing agnosticism? Besides, I hope that "scientifical proof" is as much of a loose assumption as "10=0".


The difference between atheism and agnosticism lies primarily in the beliefs of the believers. Atheists in general, or dare I say every atheist, do not believe in any sort of god, because of the lack of proof. On the other hand, a fair number of agnostics believe in a god, for agnosticism is merely the acknowledgment that there is no proof either way. It's a more skeptical version of faith, so to speak, but a lot less rigid, in terms of 'non-belief' than atheism. In a sense, you can have a Christian agnostic, but a true agnostic would call themselves an agnostic Christian, in that order.

As for scientific proof, it's tough, isn't it? There are those that devise strict, scientific experiments to test whether people have supernatural powers - I forget who the name of the guy who's most famous about this was. However, without any sort of knowledge about a god, it's tough to really describe what sort of 'proof' would be necessary to prove the existence of gods, because you cannot even begin to create an experimental methodology to test it. That's why the presence of gods has not been proven either way, and there is no headway into that segment of study.
oraoraoraoraoraoraoraora
fusionsdf
Profile Blog Joined June 2006
Canada15390 Posts
March 06 2008 16:33 GMT
#11
On March 07 2008 00:29 Southlight wrote:
Show nested quote +
On March 06 2008 23:14 BluzMan wrote:
This is both right and wrong. From one point of view, it's not a religion because it doesn't have the religious traits - no rites, no sacred texts, no clergy. But from another point of view, it IS a religion because believing god doesn't exist is just as irrational as believing it does.


Common misconception of atheism is that it is a belief that there is no god. This is generally untrue. Atheism is not antitheism. This sort of messes up your last argument about atheism.

EDIT:
To clarify, the difference is that if scientific proof of gods and/or the supernatural were to be found, every true atheism would begin preaching the word of god, whereas antitheists would remain the same.


In other words, we consider the existence of god so unlikely as to be without merit.
If he does exist (and could be proven to exist) then obviously we would believe. If any evidence at all that he exists existed, then we would be more likely to believe.

But that evidence hasnt surfaced in the past 2000 years
SKT_Best: "I actually chose Protoss because it was so hard for me to defeat Protoss as a Terran. When I first started Brood War, my main race was Terran."
Jibba
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
United States22883 Posts
March 06 2008 17:38 GMT
#12
Southlight hit it dead on. Buddhism is an atheist religion.

While it's true we can't deductively prove that God doesn't exist, I think we have done a fairly good job doing so inductively. That is, given the nature of God, it is impossible to prove 100% that it doesn't exist, but I think we're closer to 100% than 0%.

Many religious philosophers (from all religions) accept that faith is irrational. The more pertinent question is then - does being irrational necessarily make religion false? I'd answer more fully but I'm busy doing intern applications. >.> Some people believe that because faith is private, subjective and irrational that it becomes even stronger. Essentially, how can you disprove God to someone who believes they have been touched by God? Not proven by something like Ontological/Cosmological/Teleological argument, but from within.
ModeratorNow I'm distant, dark in this anthrobeat
Meta
Profile Blog Joined June 2003
United States6225 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-03-06 19:48:59
March 06 2008 19:48 GMT
#13

This is both right and wrong. From one point of view, it's not a religion because it doesn't have the religious traits - no rites, no sacred texts, no clergy. But from another point of view, it IS a religion because believing god doesn't exist is just as irrational as believing it does. Agnosticism seems much more of a rational position.


All smart atheists are agnostic to some degree. But, as dawkins puts it, just because we can't prove the inexistence of a god doesn't mean the chances of there being one are 50:50. Bertrand Russel gav the argument of the celestial teapot, and it goes something like this:

You argue there is a possibility of a god because there's no proof that one doesn't exist. I retort that there must be a possiblity, then, of a teapot which is orbiting the sun precisely halfway between earth and mars, because there's no way to prove there isn't one. It seems silly, but now imagine people here on earth building shrines, sacrificing animals, and preforming otherwise nonsense rituals because they fear the wrath of this celestial teapot.

Clearly just because we can't disprove something doesn't mean that the chance of the existence of that something isn't 50:50.
good vibes only
EtherealDeath
Profile Blog Joined July 2007
United States8366 Posts
March 06 2008 20:25 GMT
#14
On March 07 2008 01:28 MasterOfChaos wrote:
You only proved that you can't disprove a god with absolute power. And that you can't prove his existance against his will.
But you could observe an experimental result which(assuming your postulats are correct) is impossible to get without the existance of a god.



That sounds plausible, but the thing is what experiment could you carry out that would rule out all other reasonable explanations for the observed phenomena?

Another thing considering terminology I used in the OP, yea my use of axiom/postulate was screwy. Also, by religion I actually meant religion not faith, cause as far as I can tell, most everyone is part of a religion NOT a faith. A faith is belief in a God of some nature or another, whereas in the religion you believe in everythign else that accompanies that statement in whatever holy book or another you may have.

Being agnostic in faith I can see as being a justified position, but for religion? Religion seems to be completely irrational to me if for nothing else than its completely silly, controlling nature. It's like "you gotta do this this and that all because it's written in this book! And we claim that God wrote this book through human intermediaries! Wait what contradictory things in the book? No, they don't exist even if you point them out because God's work is perfect". There are those of the religion who do recognize their book has inconsistencies, and yet they still continue to believe in the religion, claiming that even if there are errors in their book, even if they are reading a version that was translated through multiple languages to get to their own language, it must necessarily still reflect the will of the God they believe in, and that just seems wrong to me.



Oh, and upon coming back from class today, I found the last page of replies in the closed thread utterly hilarious lol.
ItsYoungLee
Profile Blog Joined December 2007
Korea (South)227 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-03-06 20:46:42
March 06 2008 20:39 GMT
#15
I don't like religion.
Science doesn't explain "why?"
Faith is something almost "axiomatic", so if you begin to argue about which faith can be proven, etc... you get nowhere because you're arguing about your axioms.

Just as you can't eat food and have it fill someone else's stomach, it's hard to get someone to understand the power of "faith" unless they have experienced a certain faith themselves. I'm pretty sure there are some things you have taken with faith that you probably would not be willing to scrutinize.

As for the the errancy of the bible, inerrants believe that only the original version of the bible (wherever that may be) is completely true. Any other translation has been tainted by differences in culture/imperfections of language.

I disagree with your distinction between religion and faith. Religion is the set rituals and traditional behaviors that accompany the faith. It is not necessary to maintain faith, but it can sometimes reinforce your faith.

In response to BlackStar, agnosticism, is the neutral stance. The neutral stance is always "it's possible", not "it's impossible" or "it is true" which are the views of atheists and theists, respectively.
ePParamedico.160 (formerly ElParamedico)
L
Profile Blog Joined January 2008
Canada4732 Posts
March 06 2008 21:22 GMT
#16
whereas in the religion you believe in everythign else that accompanies that statement in whatever holy book or another you may have.
No, you really don't.
The number you have dialed is out of porkchops.
EtherealDeath
Profile Blog Joined July 2007
United States8366 Posts
March 06 2008 21:27 GMT
#17
o.O Then what the hell would be the point of the Bible and related books for other religions?
L
Profile Blog Joined January 2008
Canada4732 Posts
Last Edited: 2008-03-06 21:32:15
March 06 2008 21:30 GMT
#18
Take the relevant parts. If you actually bothered to read the Bible, Quran, TNK, any of the vedic books, you'd know that they're 90% bullshit and written in a historical context which simply doesn't apply to us. Do I read genesis and say "goddam, abraham musta lived 900 years because the book says so?" no. Just means he was important. There are directions on how to stone people in 3 of the above texts, does that mean we go out with rocks and pelt women who've slept with men they aren't married to? No. What you CAN do, however, is look for the general themes, messages, and lessons.

It doesn't even have to do with translation through languages, its just a contextualized and relevant approach to religious literature.
The number you have dialed is out of porkchops.
EtherealDeath
Profile Blog Joined July 2007
United States8366 Posts
March 06 2008 21:33 GMT
#19
Well i did read the entirety of the Bible a couple of times. The about that is, if you accept 90% of the Bible as bullshit, what's to say the overarching themes in it are not bullshit as well? It's like saying, "well this book I'm reading is just so completely full of bullshit, but I'll believe this and that point selectively from it anyways". it's just....... I dunno what to call it.
Jibba
Profile Blog Joined October 2007
United States22883 Posts
March 06 2008 21:34 GMT
#20
By looking for the general themes and lessons, you're cherry picking which values you find acceptable. That implies that values and morality exist independent of the religion because certain parts of the holy books are worthwhile and others aren't. If morality exists independent of religion, then you should be obeying morality and not the religion.
ModeratorNow I'm distant, dark in this anthrobeat
1 2 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 3h 7m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Harstem 343
RotterdaM 295
ForJumy 39
StarCraft: Brood War
Rain 5444
Sea 4974
Larva 757
EffOrt 675
Pusan 368
Stork 334
BeSt 332
Mini 321
Last 226
Zeus 216
[ Show more ]
Mind 177
Snow 148
ZerO 137
Light 124
Hyun 115
hero 75
Rush 64
Aegong 54
JYJ35
Movie 27
Sharp 23
sSak 20
NaDa 12
scan(afreeca) 12
IntoTheRainbow 12
Noble 10
Shinee 10
Barracks 9
ajuk12(nOOB) 8
SilentControl 8
Icarus 8
HiyA 4
Hm[arnc] 1
Britney 0
Stormgate
NightEnD15
Dota 2
Gorgc5801
qojqva2191
BananaSlamJamma539
XcaliburYe351
febbydoto4
League of Legends
singsing2507
Counter-Strike
x6flipin416
markeloff105
Super Smash Bros
Mew2King144
Westballz9
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor171
Other Games
hiko526
Fuzer 409
DeMusliM370
B2W.Neo312
Pyrionflax233
XaKoH 220
crisheroes210
ArmadaUGS47
ZerO(Twitch)10
Organizations
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 12 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• StrangeGG 45
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
Dota 2
• C_a_k_e 2122
Upcoming Events
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
3h 7m
OSC
6h 7m
SHIN vs Bunny
Cham vs MaNa
SKillous vs TBD
PAPI vs Jumy
Gerald vs Moja
ArT vs TBD
Replay Cast
11h 7m
The PondCast
21h 7m
RSL Revival
21h 7m
ByuN vs Classic
Clem vs Cham
WardiTV European League
1d 3h
Replay Cast
1d 11h
RSL Revival
1d 21h
herO vs SHIN
Reynor vs Cure
WardiTV European League
2 days
FEL
2 days
[ Show More ]
Korean StarCraft League
2 days
CranKy Ducklings
2 days
RSL Revival
2 days
FEL
3 days
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
RSL Revival
3 days
FEL
3 days
BSL: ProLeague
4 days
Dewalt vs Bonyth
Replay Cast
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
The PondCast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-06-28
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
BSL Season 20
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025
YaLLa Compass Qatar 2025

Upcoming

CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.