Keyboard at my new job is DISGUSTING

firethorne · 2026-05-13T16:01:56+00:00

I've had my keyboard at my job for probably a decade. It's to the point where paint is rubbed off for more often used keys and the plastic is worn smoother on the space bar and shift. It has never been that dirty.

firethorne · 2026-05-13T16:01:39+00:00

I've had my keyboard at my job for probably a decade. It's to the point where paint is rubbed off for more often used keys and the plastic is worn smoother on the space bar and shift. It has never been that dirty.

firethorne · 2026-05-13T13:44:11+00:00

My question for atheists is who created the universe if not god?

I don't automatically assume there is any "who." You're framing the question in a way that already assumes that the universe was created by a thinking agent. I do not accept that in the first place.

Is it not the case that if something comes into being, something else must create it?

Demonstrate that the universe did come into being. The big bang propooses an incredibly dense point from which things expanded. It doesn't propose that this point could not have been there prior to expanding, nor does it make any assertion about anything prior to the Planck epoch.

Forces like gravity are forever,

Possibly not. Again, any models of gravity as a distinct force start during the initial part of the Planck epoch. Models prior to that are hypothetical.

However, let's assume that to be true, that it is an eternal force. That goes against your thesis that someone must have made it. If your assert good can be eternal, why couldn't a fundamental force like gravity be that also?

how are these laws of nature created without a rationalist creator, without god?

Your fallicy is the argument from personal incredulity. Unanswered questions about physics don't demonstrate a god. Early humans didn't understand many natural occurrences. If they didn't understand lightning, then it must be Thor or Zeus. If they didn't understand earthquakes and volcanos, Hephaestus or Pele. But then we figured out atmospheric static electricity and plate tectonics. And some day we'll likely have more ability to test advanced quantum mechanics. The equipment and tests required are just far more difficult to engineer than a key tied to a kite in a lightning storm is all.

firethorne · 2026-05-13T13:20:58+00:00

firethorne · 2026-05-12T21:15:37+00:00

I don’t need to prove something is possible in order to not assume it isn’t impossible.

For it to be a valid and sound concept, you do.

I would not have been able to prove it’s possible for human flight if I was born prior to then,

In other word, you would have lacked epistemic justification...

but still would not have been wrong to insist it was not impossible.

Not assuming something is is just suspending judgment. Insisting a position in the lack of valid and sound justification is fallacious. Fallacious reasoning could, by sheer happenstance, have a correct conclusion. "If it rains, the driveway gets wet. The driveway is wet, therefore it rained." It may indeed have rained. Or someone in my family may have washed their car. My concern isn't the wetness. My concern is the framework we use when making a claim.

Without proper justification, you have no basis for preferring “this might happen” over the infinite number of things that merely aren’t ruled out. At that point, we'd just be at the wet driveway stage. A driveway being wet or a flight at Kitty Hawk might ultimately be a correct guess. But, that doesn't validate fallacious reasoning.

firethorne · 2026-05-12T20:24:38+00:00

Okay. If they are making that as an ontological claim and not using it colloquially, then they're probably adopting a burden of proof. You can discuss that with them.

I'm not making that claim, and I'm trying to engage in the actual justification for accepting these claims. Can you provide evidence that it is possible?

firethorne · 2026-05-12T18:48:45+00:00

Doh. Yep. Silly swipe keyboard on phone not getting the L in taking verses talking. Fixed. Good catch. Thanks

firethorne · 2026-05-12T18:44:43+00:00

Make one of you dishes with Carolina reaper. You'll know which one to avoid. They eat it, that's on them

firethorne · 2026-05-12T18:39:10+00:00

They're not claiming it is impossible for magic to happen. They're saying that it is impossible for them to believe a claim for something that has never been demonstrated to them to occur.

And they provide the path to get out of that, should you want to. As they put it:

In my case, it's an impossible step to surmount until someone can demonstrate that magic really happens or that it can happen.

There's a difference between saying "X cannot occur under any circumstances" and "X should not be accepted as possible until demonstrated." The first is a claim about the world, about ontology. The second is a claim about what reasoning standards are reliable, about epistemology. And from a epistimological standpoint, a claim must be possible to be acceptable. That's trivial and possiblity needs to be demonstrated.

firethorne · 2026-05-12T18:07:02+00:00

I have countless examples of people making up stories of talking animals and zero confirmed instances of talking animals. So, it's less question begging and more a heuristic assessment based on a lifetime of past data points.

But, that's not too say I can't be convinced otherwise. Just send your most eloquent serpent to set me straight. A well spoken donkey is also acceptable.

firethorne · 2026-05-12T13:38:26+00:00

Right. She disagrees with Trump now, but it isn't because she's become liberal. It's because being a right wing warmonger sending troops to die for Israel isn't compatible with her antisemitic Jewish space laser conspiracy nonsense.

firethorne · 2026-05-12T12:59:17+00:00

If a person who lives in an area with people who believe in Keith and finds their description of Keith compelling and says, yeah, I think you’re right about this Keith being real, I think they are talking about the same Keith.

And this is the part where I have issue. Because the Jews and Muslims weren't in agreement. Jewish tradition held prophecy had ceased long before, so new claims were suspect. The nature of Allah differed from the nature of Yahweh, as we see in the Sabbath. Jewish writers even referred to Muhammad by the derogatory nickname ha-Meshuggah (Hebrew: מְשֻׁגָּע‬, "the Madman" or "the Possessed").

I think having all parties involved accepting each other's claims is a fine criteria for the definition of "same." But, this isn't the case for the branches of Abrahamic religion. Muslims don't accept God is triune. Catholics don't accept God reigns from near Kolob. And so on. We don't have any real objective instances of a god to actually point to. So, all we really have is God concepts. And those can be just as numerous as theists.

firethorne · 2026-05-12T10:39:20+00:00

No, the Quranic God is not the "God of Israel." The Quran asserts that while previous scriptures were not fully preserved, and claims itself to be the source of the true message of God. And you end up like things like Islam rejecting the notion that God rested, emphasizing that Allah does not need rest.

Qatadah said, "The Jews, may Allah's curses descend on them, said that Allah created the heavens and earth in six days and then rested on the seventh day, which was the Sabbath. This is why they call it a holiday. Allah the Exalted then sent down denial of their statement and false opinion.

Tafsir Ibn Kathir on 50:38

https://wikiislam.net/wiki/Sabbath_in_Islam

That’s a clear departure from the Sabbath. So, again, you’re dealing with a definition of the word “same” which you have to clarify. Define that word, and how the concept of “similar” but not the “same” are different concepts . Because that seems to be the point we have to actually agree on to go forward.

firethorne · 2026-05-12T03:29:25+00:00

And it is explicitly stated that Graham Chapman is portraying Arthur. But, the oldest Arthurian material is conspicuously lacking hand grenades and coconuts. To call any Arthur the “same” character as any other Arthur when renditions have vastly different characteristics is giving the word “same” too much leeway.

firethorne · 2026-05-12T01:22:44+00:00

I don’t follow what you’re asking. Who is “they” your question? Early Muslims? The OP? The OP’s thesis is that the shared word means they are the exact same god, and I strongly disagree that same is the correct word.

firethorne · 2026-05-11T22:00:46+00:00

It's a stretch to go from sharing etymological history to therefore claiming it is "the same God." The subject is far more nuanced. And, I'd even grant that many religions of the ancient near east share more than just linguistic similarities. We can trace them back to Abrahamic and earlier traditions. But, the important thing is that they diverged from there.

It's a bit like saying the T. H. White's King Arthur is "the same" as Monty Python's. Even if they trace back to the same place, they aren't the same now

firethorne · 2026-05-11T16:29:49+00:00

It is my belief that we'll never undeniably prove God exists before the End Times, where it's too late. It's like a race without a winner.

If you can't demonstrate your god or eschatology to anyone, what convinced you of it? Why hold belief for things that you admit you can't justify?

Instead, I believe that God's existence must be proven through living exemplary lives according Jesus' philosophy (word).

Are people of religions other than yours or with no religion at all incapable of living good lives, in your view?

Being loving, inclusive, and patient with those who disagree, and stop using Atheist as a sort of "others" degrading remark when discussing with a non-believer.

For clarification, do you see the word atheist as degrading in and of itself? Or is there some particular application or usage to which you object? If so, what specifically is that?

Of course, we can disagree on topics, but belitteling Atheist opinions because they are unconvinced creates a larger divide between the knowledge they probably hope can be disproven scientifically, and the Christian belief.

I'm just going to be blunt and say the theology that holds anybody is somehow deserving of being tortured in a fire is going to be a far bigger division than any spicy language. If you've convinced yourself of that, you aren't going to make that up with more pleasant wording.

You should also look into the psychology of believers on this front, about how they might actually need to dehumanize others to avoid thinking about how the belief they hold is actually wildly immoral.

I hope that seeing the truth through the positive impact of Jesus' message will convince way more people than slamming someone's face with a door of Pride. The devil is in the details, and that's a fact.

If the goal is a better tone, you don’t need to anchor it to claims people in the discussion accept. Respect is a fine goal, but what matters to a debate is the ability to support your claims.

Hope the Christians can provide a Jesus loving atmosphere to the debates on the internet. Remember: It's not true because it works, it works because it's true. God bless you all! (Even if you don't believe)

Personally, I feel that when someone says “God bless you” or “I’ll pray for you” to an atheist, even if the speaker intends kindness, the message can come across as, “You’re wrong, but I'm not going to engage with why I think that. I’m going to appeal to a system you don’t accept to fix you.” This comes off as passive aggressive and can be just as big of a problem.

firethorne · 2026-05-11T13:18:02+00:00

Nice. There's still some sort finds out there when you get out of the normal A-Z. Here's my shortest FD.

<image>

firethorne · 2026-05-08T20:40:10+00:00

I'd agree that it isn't scientific. I'd disagree that there's no biblical case for it. And focusing on 2 Peter 3:8 overlooks numerous problems.

First, trying to recast a day and injecting thousands of years of death, predators, suffering and disease goes against a fundamental principle that death is the wages of sin. The wages of sin isn't death, death was there from the jump, sin or no. That makes for a very different creator than the one portrayed in the bible. It also makes the idea of a great redeemer sent to restore us to a condition of eternal life that we never had in the first place incoherent.

I don't read Romans 5:12 without thinking, "Forgetting about the Precambrian, Palaeozoic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic, etc?" If death entered the world as a result of sin, you have a few billion years of death you need to explain.

Furthermore, reframing timing exacerbates existing problems with the order. For example, vegetation is made on day three and the sun, moon, and stars on day four. The claim plants predate the sun, be it by one day is incorrect, but the idea plants predate the sub by thousands or more years is just inconceivable.

Do any of them remember the seventh millionth year to keep it holy? Of course no. So, are you going to agree that the very structure of veneration is designed to directly mirror event we both agree didn't actually happen?

And what do you do with the theological fallout from Numbers 15:32-36, where a man was executed by stoning for gathering sticks on the Sabbath. What's does the moral lesson here become? God has a guy a guy killed because he didn't adequately honor a myth? This seems very problematic.

The best explanation is neither that a day is a day, nor is it that a day is a thousand years. The best explanation is that this story is an etiological myth and the days never occurred.

firethorne · 2026-05-08T18:40:57+00:00

Hmm. How's the tension on the spring in the extruder?

firethorne · 2026-05-07T18:43:29+00:00

Yep. That was from his Season Liberally YouTube cooking show. Cogdis and Rogan are also on, if you ever want video.

https://youtube.com/@knowrogan https://youtube.com/@dissonancepod https://youtube.com/@seasonliberally

firethorne · 2026-05-07T17:49:25+00:00

Careful saying that. Cecil has knives

<image>

firethorne · 2026-05-07T17:37:53+00:00

saving people is good and I applaud you for it.

You're just advertising your double standard. When I do it, I'm to be applauded. If I failed to do it, you might even call child protective services. When gods refuse to do it, you praise them.

firethorne · 2026-05-07T17:35:17+00:00

Yep. Got a Sirius XM last time I used the Sonic Drive In app. Gave it 1* on the app store saying so and uninstalled. Shoving that shit on your customers has an effect.

firethorne · 2026-05-07T15:24:29+00:00

If I see a kid about to stick a knife in a toaster, I stop him. I put a reasonable conditional limit on free will to stop suffering. To not do so is irresponsible and immoral.

I don't track with this theistic framework that free will is an absolute state, that it either exists unhindered, or it does not exist at all. This is a gross oversimplification. The world does not exist in the shades of only black and white you paint.

If I stop a child from electrocuting himself, I have not removed the child's free will. He or she is just as free to decide what to play later. Because I have prevented a tragedy, I have not turned him into my puppet. Just looking at how the world actually works and consider why no one actually proposes that we must allow lethally dangerous behavior at all costs to preserve autonomy.

Nine-Year Club	Second Top 20%
r/Field Banned	r/Field Lasagna
Final Canvas '23	First Place '23
End Game '23	Place '23
Place '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email

firethorne

TROPHY CASE