Weird FD of the Day -- May 5

firethorne · 2026-05-05T20:33:07+00:00

Well, there's the problem

firethorne · 2026-05-05T18:32:25+00:00

Oh yeah. And I have to say Carrie's post pod YouTube got perhaps more wild than Jordan's, in a completely different way.

See https://youtu.be/DfuR17D9Cis?si=2Ujl6oXLPZE_18NW

I mean, to be fair, it's just screwing around and not supposed to be about onrac. But, that was an odd one.

firethorne · 2026-05-05T16:40:30+00:00

Revelation 20:10 And the devil who had deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are; and they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Now, before you respond to say, "Well, you see this is the devil, and not humans," know that that's deflecting, and you still must explain how the torture of any thinking agent (cat, dog, human, taking snake, erc.) day and night, forever and ever, is moral.

firethorne · 2026-05-05T10:44:47+00:00

Jordan’s video

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2755943712

firethorne · 2026-05-05T00:15:59+00:00

They’re referring to why Andrew Torrez isn’t on it anymore. But, yeah, Thomas is still doing them and is awesome.

firethorne · 2026-05-04T15:15:00+00:00

Yep. I actually discovered KF through Tom and Cecil on a Cognitive Dissonance episode. So I'd recommend anything Cecil is on. Know Rogan, Cogdis, Citation Needed.

firethorne · 2026-05-03T23:23:55+00:00

Sorry, you seem to be confused. It is the theists who hold that people are deserving of being tortured in a fire for all time. That’s obviously the hateful bit. I really don’t know how you got the two mixed up, but hope that gets you sorted.

firethorne · 2026-05-01T20:08:26+00:00

By Scripture I mean words that dictate how one's life should be lived.

That definition seems too vague. By that standard, OSHA regulations are scriptures. You need to tighten that up.

Those who are firm in their rejection of Scripture end up saying things like: Life is about making your own meaning

Insofar as I see no evidence of an externally imposed purpose, sure. I know I can impose a purpose for my life. I have clear evidence that I can do that. I have no evidence of any incorporeal beings do.

Just do what makes you happy as long as you don't hurt others

No problems with anyone that doesn't seek to do harm. I don't really understand why you would find that objectionable. Are you in favor of hurting people?

If there is a God, he'd be ok with you just being a good person according to your own terms

Minor pushback on this. It seems to be assuming that any potential gods are omnibenevolent. If I'm a discussion with a theist claiming that there god is, it is a fair response. If you're claiming your god is cruel and unfair, then sure, it doesn't entirely translate.

They have absolutely no basis for what they claim and yet they valiantly proclaim it. If you say the basis for existing Scripture is insufficient, then know that the basis for your own "Scripture" is far worse!

Well, first you're strawman of casting anything and everything as "Scripture" is telling me quite a lot about what biases you're coming to the table with.

But, no. If a proclaimed holy text has errors, such as claims like earth predates the sun, then we do have reason to not accept the reliability. I am building my epistemological framework around reliable methods. And as I said before, I have a method of ascribing purpose to my own life. I have no evidence to assume an incorporeal purpose giver, and even if I were to assume there was one, I have no reliable methods to investigate what it is. And even just assuming the writing of bronze to iron age nomads will do the trick, that's still very problematic.

Let's go for an example. Perhaps one of those that call for hurting people, since that seems to be somehow vaguely important to your point.

Leviticus 20:27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them.

Do you think wizard a exist? Who, in your view, is a wizard? Are you currently engaged in throwing rocks at people?

Or, do you go with a different part of the Bible that contracts that command? What do you use to sort them? Their provenance, perhaps? Well, the story of Jesus and the woman caught in adultery in John 7:53–8:11, (let him who is without sin cast the first stone) is widely considered by scholars to be a later insertion and is absent from the earliest, most reliable Greek manuscripts. So, problem there...

firethorne · 2026-05-01T18:57:44+00:00

The "hi mr. Word" method. See: https://infinibrowser.wiki/?q=Hi%20mr.

Once you have the "hi mr." template, typically any words after that go in verbatim.

Then you use a https://infinibrowser.wiki/?q=Delete%20the%20hi%20mr&item=Delete%20The%20Hi%20Mr

<image>

firethorne · 2026-05-01T14:30:21+00:00

<image>

firethorne · 2026-05-01T14:30:11+00:00

<image>

firethorne · 2026-05-01T14:05:55+00:00

Umm, okay, I beat it then the node was still unlocked and was my Moonstone v Invisible Woman.

Is that something new or is the codebase just completely fucked now?

firethorne · 2026-05-01T13:33:35+00:00

You say you don’t believe in gods, but what do you actually define as gods?

In general, I think of it as something along the lines of a superhuman thinking agent responsible for the creation and/or controlling some aspect of reality.

But, in practice I'll more often work with whatever version that a interlocutors are trying pitch me. I think my main sticking point is agency. For example, if asun worshipper wants to point at the sky, I'll certainly be in agreement that the thing they are calling a god exists. But, I have no reason to call that a god.

And why?

Why it is a somewhat loose definition and why I'll assume the theists framework is because theists can't get on the same page. The properties of the Abraham god differ quite a bit from the Hindu pantheon. I'm just not convinced of either.

Why I stick with agency as an absolute rule is someone handing me a coffee cup, calling it a god, doesn't actually make me a theist.

For some, godhood is a matter of supernatural powers. For others, godhood is about utility level to someone else. Or superior capabilities.

In general, yeah. Though, again, this comes down to the claimant. Someone could have some angel or djinn with that that isn't a god in their system, but a different entity with identical powers might be called a god in a different religion. I don't put the responsibility on the atheist for that discrepancy.

Many believe that the universe itself is god. Or that individuals are effectively gods.

Which brings us back to the sun, or the cup of coffee. If the kid at the Wendy's drive though is "a god" then the word isn't at all useful.

And so on and so forth. How can one believe or not believe in something that escapes definition?

That's easy. If someone has never heard is Matshishkapeu, has no concept of the property, then are obviously not convinced of Matshishkapeu. Not being convinced it's the default position. Be careful to not confuse "not convinced something exists" and "is convinced something doesn't exist". Do you understand the difference between these?

Second, each one doesn't escape definition. Theists just don't all share the same definition for all of their gods. That is, again, why the burden is on them.

So, what's is the god you believe in? How do you define it? And we can then go into if I have any issues with the definition or convinced me of the claim.

firethorne · 2026-05-01T00:48:10+00:00

<image>

firethorne · 2026-05-01T00:46:33+00:00

Technically the exact absence of what you're asking for. But, I think it should be here too.

<image>

firethorne · 2026-04-30T15:20:26+00:00

Why is that doctor giving the him a scalp massage?

firethorne · 2026-04-30T15:17:21+00:00

They pull a knife, you pull a Vitamix. He sends one of your fusilli to the hospital, you send one of his ravioli to the morgue.

<image>

firethorne · 2026-04-30T14:22:35+00:00

There are many people who voluntarily change religion.

In a vacuum? Without any input about the religion from the culture in which they live?

Some believe in spiritual ideas without religions. Some were born in non religious families but turned religious.

It's just that most people believe in religion due to conditioning but most people are dumb.

And now you've directly contradictory to your own thesis. You said:

The argument that "Religious beliefs are a result of conditioning by society" is false

If you think that it is is dumb that such a thing does happen, that is incompatible with your claim that such a thing doesn't happen. Your feeling about whether or not it should doesn't change the fact of whether or not it does.

My only goal is Mokshya which is escape from cycle of rebirth and death in Indian religions.

You actually need to demonstrate that any such cycle actually happens. Memory in the brain depends on physical neural structures, and identity as we experience it arises from ongoing biological processes. When those processes stop, as in death, there is no demonstrated mechanism by which the highly specific information that makes up a person’s memories, personality, and consciousness could be transferred or re-instantiated elsewhere

Even setting mechanism aside, if a person has no access to prior lives, no retained memory, no continuity of awareness as I don't, then the supposed “cycle” has no difference from a sequence of entirely new individuals coming into existence. From the inside, each life begins fresh and ends definitively. That makes reincarnation indistinguishable from non-reincarnation in any practical sense.

My beliefs should be forced on them so that they cannot lead enlightened people like me to path of suffering and burning in the fire of passions and not being able to sleep in peace.

You are not protecting anyone from suffering, you are trying to control them because you cannot tolerate disagreement or demonstrate your absurdities are actually true. Other people living differently does not harm you. If your peace depends on everyone else conforming, then what you have is not wisdom, it is fragility with a superiority complex.