>Morty! *burp* [insert pop culture reference], *burp* [insert

File: 1494308246880.jpg (237KB, 1920x1406px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 1920x1406px

have they done an episode about trap qts yet

You don't need to impress us. It's okay if you enjoyed a cartoon people shitpost about here

mom walks in

>>82555184
kill yourself transmonster

This cartoon character said god doesn't real and that hurts my feelings and that's not okay!

>>82555184
That would be too topical, I've only seen season one and it's mostly time travel, parallel universes and other overdone sci-fi concepts.

>>82555160
>Am I just too old to enjoy this show?

No, you are just too much of a redditor to enjoy fun things if they are popular.
That said, the show is going downhill pretty quickly, used to be I was hyped for every episode, I haven't even seen the last season ones yet.

>>82555243
I don't think you've ever visited that website, considering they love it there.

>>82555271
>implying I am enough of a redditor to actually visit actual literal fucking actually reddit, literally

Too busy watching fun shows and posting on a vietnamese rock carving symposium.

>>82555289
So you just regurgitate what you've heard here, and you have the audacity to call another community a hive mind.

>>82555160
I've seen like two episodes top. It's always seemed like a show for redditors just like Adventure Time seemed like a show for faggy tumblrinas.

But then again I'm a shitposter who loved Aqua Teen Hunger Force so I probably have no room to judge.

File: bj houseman.gif (112KB, 500x280px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 500x280px

bojacks better

>>82555368
season 1 was pretty good memes aside
season 2 was garbage

So is this the type of show for kids who just read The Stranger or what?

>>82555207
Ow for fucks sake, we aren't living in the '60 anymore. Atheism isn't edgy.

>>82555439
If we aren't living in the '60s, why does atheism still trigger people?

>>82555420
It's "Black Science Man: The Animated Series".

>>82555210
There is no time travel in rick and morty and there never will be

>>82555387

Why are you even comparing them? Bojack is actually good.

>>82555457
because atheists are convinced they're not as deluded as god freaks

>>82555474
Literally one of the very first episodes Rick time travels.

>>82555439
How about if I said that humanity's continued belief in obvious bullshit stories from ancient times despite the internet and widespread access to information has made me realize that human beings are a primitive species and that the world would be a better place if we were all killed off by a superior species as soon as possible. Would that be considered "edgy"?

>>82555526
Is it really so hard to understand that atheism is a lack of belief and not the belief of a negative? Some atheists may claim the negative to be true but that is not necessitated by being an atheist.

>>82555526
>i am superior to you based on semantics play

The word "agnosticism" is such a fucking cancer.
Atheism is the lack of belief, so by your dictionary gymnastics it is agnostic.
However, true agnosticism is not about "oh, I don't know, but i still act as if its true :D". Thats religion. You are religious.

Atheism = we can't know if there is a god, but there is no reason to think there is one, so we act as if there isn't one.
The same way you act as if you don't have a dragon egg inside your stomach about to hatch, even though you haven't looked today, maybe one appeared just now!

>>82555607
>The word "agnosticism" is such a fucking cancer.

Use gnostic atheism or gnostic theism.

>>82555539
Yes

>>82555625
What I meant is that everyone is agnostic. Nobody knows.

Religious people don't know there is a God. They believe there is a God, without knowing it. It is a right of passage in many religions to believe without asking for proof.
And of course atheist people don't know if there is a god, because by its very definition it can't be proven true or false, even without the implications of proving a negative. You can just say god exists like courage exists, its not a thing made of building blocks, its real in a different way.

So everyone is agnostic. Nobody knows.
Religious people act as if there is a God, without knowing there is one, and atheists act as if there isn't a god, without knowing that there isn't one.

And I definitely consider one of those positions more reasonable, based on observations of reality. Acting as if there isn't a god seems to produce better outcomes more often.

Thats my dislike for the term agnostic, its just useless, and people only try to appropriate it as a bat to beat those they disagree with over the head.

>>82555625
>agnostic
>a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God.

>Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

So what's the difference? Agnostic covers the important part.

>>82555184
Ted 2 beat them to it
>Theres no such thing as chicks with dicks only guys with tits

>>82555781
>everyone is agnostic
you don't even know what that word means, do you?

>>82555810
Oh the fucking irony.

>>82555332
surprise surprise, OP is a complete fucking tool

>>82555607

Agnosticism is the only logically valid position on the question of God's existence, atheism is just religion without priests.

It's okay to want to be part of a herd, just stop lying to yourself that your herd is intellectually superior to the others.

>>82555790

Atheists prefer the latter definition because it lets them lay claim to the logical high ground.

>>82555848
>Agnosticism is the only logically valid position on the question of God's existence, atheism is just religion without priests.

You are doing the same stupid shit. See >>82555781

1. Agnosticism is the view that the existence of God or the supernatural are unknown and unknowable.
2. Atheism is the view that even though you can't know if God exists, you should act as if he doesn't, based on observations of reality.
3. Theism is the view that even though you can't know if God exists, you should act as if he does, based on faith.

Everyone is agnostic. Nobody knows. Its unknowable.
Agnosticism is a useless term. It doesn't mean anything useful.

>>82555871
Do you have posts longer than two sentences filtered, or are you intentionally ignoring mine so you can circlejerk comfortably?

>>82555491
>actually good
>actually
>good

You're overthinking it. It's just random humor. Like the pic you posted. Teaching a civilization to flip each other off as a greeting is just funny, like farting or a fat person falling. If you're looking for deep, profound humor then rick and morty definitely isn't for you. Apart from the occasional scrubs-tier music / feelings scene there's not much else to it.

>>82555873
but doesn't atheism completely disregard and denounce the idea of a higher deity? If I'm correct, agnosticism doesn't discount either of them, and many agnostics choose to follow religious commandments "just in case". If anything agnostics are just cowards, but I wouldn't say they're atheists.

>>82555939
>a higher deity?
1. It can't be known to exist, due to its definition. It is unfalsifiable.
2. I have no reason to think it exists, so I act as if it doesn't exist.

>canonical christian deity
Can be argued away, since it has flaws in its claims.
Or that of any other religion, I am just guessing as to your culture.
All organized religions have to explain a lot about their god, making him falsifiable by arguing those explanations.
However, you can't argue the very notion of a universal constant, and a higher deity can be reduced to just a universal truth, the logos, the idea of beauty, and so on, if you wanted to. Thus it can't be disproven.

Basically you can only argue against "avatars" of a higher deity created by organized religion, but not the concept.
However, you have no reason to believe in the concept, its just impossible to know to be wrong. So you should still live as if its wrong, I think.

Before going further, tell me if your higher deity is one of organized religion, that has rules and explanations, or if its just the concept of objective universal constants, like the logos and so on.

File: rick sanchez.jpg (129KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 640x640px

*BUUUUUUUUUUUURP* MORTY, YOU HAVE TO HATE MY SHOW, Y-- Y-Y YOU HAVE TO IGNORE ITS U*BURP*NIQUE AND NUANCED HUMOR BECAUSE SOMEBODY, SOMEBODY SAID IT WAS REDDIT MORT. /tv/ IS A CONTRARIAN BOARD MORTY, *BUUURP* D-DONT YOU GET IT? /tv/ HATES ANYTHING POPULAR IF THERE'S NO FAPWORTHY WAIFU BAIT MORTY. THAT'S WHY Y-YOU AND /tv/ HAVE TO HATE MY SHOW MORTY. YOU HAVE HATE MY SHOW *BUUUUUURP* BECAUSE A HARDLY COHESIVE INTERNET SUBCULTURE THAT HOSTS FUCKING PEDO THREADS THINKS ITS REDDIT MORTY. *BUUUUUUUUUUUUURP* HATE MY SHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW

>>82555902

I'm ignoring your posts because I've seen them before a hundred times, and they echo exactly my own opinions before I fully understood what I was talking about.

Atheism is just a normative argument against religious dogmatism, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's not actually a rational response to the question of God's existence.

Every atheist insists that agnosticism is just another name for atheism, or another form of atheism, or a meaningless "fence-sitting" catch-all for people who are afraid to offend, but the reality is that agnosticism is defensible with logic, and everything that is meant by "agnostic" ends precisely where logic ceases to serve.

To make the step into atheism, one must accept agnosticism and then either disregard logic or misunderstand what is meant by "God" to come to a conclusion that God does not exist. Basically, "agnostic" is a very useful term because it describes people who choose not to presume what they cannot know.

>>82555439
>>82555457
Atheism is the cucks belief.
Pathetic dogma for pathetic people.

>>82555566
You're talking of agnosticism.

>>82555781
There's more to religion than just "believing in god" you also have to believe in all the creation myths and other bullshit in the bible which has been disproven. Yeah atheist can't TECHNICALLY prove god doesn't exist but with the absence of any evidence of his existence assuming he doesn't exist is much more rational and likely than the the opposite.

File: 1274118235561.webm (3MB, 720x576px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 720x576px

WUBA LUBA DUB DUB

>>82556359
>they echo exactly my own opinions before I fully understood what I was talking about
Okay, so now that you've grown, what do you understand?
>le semantics le my definition is different le ur wrong
You grew in the wrong direction. Might want to re-read my posts, that allegedly echo your mind.

>>82556419
>WUBA LUBA DUB DUB
>doesn't even get dubs

>>82556407

>you also have to believe in all the creation myths and other bullshit in the bible which has been disproven

No, you don't. Religious people have spent thousands of years disputing the minutiae of the wording of holy books, and for every sect like the JWs who take every word literally, there's another like the Anglicans who see Genesis as somehow metaphorical and allow gay or female priests.

>the absence of any evidence of his existence assuming he doesn't exist is much more rational and likely than the the opposite

Likely and rational are two very different things. Probability has no influence over logic - there is nothing rational about declaring that God doesn't exist because the odds are against it.

File: IMG_1528.jpg (217KB, 1600x1203px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1600x1203px

>A guy who turns himself into a pickle? Sounds hot.

>>82556405
No I'm not. Agnosticism is being unsure of there being a god or not because of a certain amount of perceived evidence toward yes and no. Atheism is default "no" in the same way as with fairies, because there's simply no perceived evidence toward yes.

File: colbert.png (319KB, 286x386px) Image search: [Google]

319KB, 286x386px

>BIG REVEAL, IM PICKLE RICK
>Beth walks in
>"I can't find my dildo... eh this will do

>>82556519

>Okay, so now that you've grown, what do you understand?

Exactly what I already explained to you, that atheism is not actually supported by a stronger logical position than theism, despite the fact that at first glance it certainly seems like it ought to be.

>You grew in the wrong direction.

That's your opinion and I'm happy to let you keep it.

>>82555160
The show was decent early on until Rick went from humorous inversion of the educational mentor trope to smug 4th wall breaking avatar of the creators.

>>82556550
>Agnosticism is being unsure of there being a god or not because of a certain amount of perceived evidence toward yes and no.
>Atheism is default "no" in the same way as with fairies, because there's simply no perceived evidence toward yes.

Both of these are horribly wrong.
Agnosticism is KNOWING that the idea of a deity is unfalsifiable.
Atheism is KNOWING that the idea of a deity is unfalsifiable, and deciding that based on observation of reality, the rational decision is to act as if there is no such deity.

Atheism is an extension of agnosticism, just like many religions are an extension of agnosticism.
You don't know God exists, but you act as if he exists. This is faith, or belief, and its is not knowledge.

You simply can't define your terms and only argue semantics. I won't reply further unless you put something new on the table.

>>82556618
You realise the majority of religious argument on the internet is semantics?

>>82556653
You realize you are part of this problem, while I am attempting to solve it?

>>82556669
The only way to solve that problem is to have universally agreed upon definitions of these terms, which will simply never happen. I do agree with you that they should be agreed upon for the purposes of an argument though

File: doritos_lacroix.png (169KB, 554x595px) Image search: [Google]

169KB, 554x595px

>the 16 year old highschool philosophy debate itt

>>82556718
We do have universally agreed upon definitions, people like you are just twisting them when said definitions don't suit their feelings.

Agnosticism = I know that it is not knowable.
Atheism = I know it is not knowable, but I think its rational to act as if its false, because observations.
Enlightened religious = I know it is not knowable, but I think its rational to act as if its true, because faith.
Retarded religions = I know its true, because I can't do logic.

>>82556618

>Atheism is an extension of agnosticism

An unnecessary one, not motivated by logical reasoning but by utilitarianism. It's an ideology and a lifestyle choice, not a rational conclusion, and as such it is much more like religion than any atheist is ever willing to admit.

Also, not all atheists accept that the idea of a deity is unfalsifiable, and even fewer theists are willing to accept that the idea of a deity is unconfirmable.

>>82556419
Sauce?

>>82556758
>An unnecessary one, not motivated by logical reasoning but by utilitarianism.

In that case, so is religion. You can't know if there is a god, why bother having temples and rituals and shit?
You are yourself, in your effort to brand these utilitarian, being very utilitarian. You only attack them because they lack utility according to you.

>>82556751
really makes you think

>>82556537
>No, you don't. Religious people have spent thousands of years disputing the minutiae of the wording of holy books, and for every sect like the JWs who take every word literally, there's another like the Anglicans who see Genesis as somehow metaphorical and allow gay or female priests.
This only further prove religeon is bullshit if you can interpret it anyway you want and still be right.
>there is nothing rational about declaring that God doesn't exist because the odds are against it.
Except its literally the opposite you retard.

>>82556756
2 second on google shows that you are incorrect with regard to atheism. It is not agreed upon

>>82556795
>Except its literally the opposite you retard.

In that case, can you declare that nobody ever wins the lottery, because its very unlikely?
We can't prove a deity doesn't exist, unless the religious people make the mistake of explaining and defining things, and we then disprove these definitions and explanations.
However, that just causes them to backtrack to the great unfalsifiable idea of a divinity outside reality. You can't argue thart.

>>82556817
Search Results
atheism
ˈeJθJJz(ə)m/
noun
noun: atheism
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Lack of belief in god doesn't equal knowledge of gods lack of existence.
I don't believe it will rain today, but I don't know it won't.

>>82556777

>In that case, so is religion.

The motivation for religion is very rarely utilitarianism, if ever, but I understand what you're getting at and I don't disagree - logical reasoning doesn't lead to the conclusion that God exists, either.

>You only attack them because they lack utility according to you.

That's not what I mean by utilitarianism, nor is that what I'm doing. I'm not attacking anyone, nor do I believe that either atheism or religion lack utility.

What I'm saying is that the difference between atheism and agnosticism is the departure from pure logic and into normative declarations about how people ought to live their lives, and that is why the term "agnostic" is far more significant than you claimed.

>>82556824
Nobody can argue against any made up bullshit people believe because its irrational. I can say invisible fairies live in my attic and beleive this without a doubt and leave the burden of proof on you to prove me wrong, it doesn't make my beliefs true just impossible to disprove but since we have never seen fairies or have any evidence of them actually existing it would be much more likely to assume I was just a nutjob than of them actually existing.

>>82555160
Isn't nihilisn the only true answer about meaning of life? Can you refute this without buzzwords and memes?

>>82556948
Stop saying "irrational" and try to incorporate "illogical" into your posts.
Because that other guy is clearly talking entirely about logic. Retreating in this realm beyond reality, he is untouchable. This is exactly what I mean as well, that if you don't give your deity any qualities beyond existing, he can't be disproven.
It is illogical, as it doesn't logically follow, to claim you know there is no god. It may be rational, based on observations, but its not logical.

>>82556824
>In that case, can you declare that nobody ever wins the lottery, because its very unlikely?
Not even comparable, we KNOW people can win the lottery we have seen people win the lottery we have never seen god create miracles or shown that anything in the bible is possible at all.

>>82556998
>This is exactly what I mean as well, that if you don't give your deity any qualities beyond existing, he can't be disproven.
Religeons do give their god qualities beyond "just existing" they even have fairly detailed accounts of how the world was created and disasters like a world flood, god leaves his touch all over the world in religeous text but when we look we can find nothing of this "touch" of god in reality: no ark, no world flood, no nephelim, no origins of mankind between the tigris and the euphrates its all bullshit.

Why can't Australians post threads?

>>82557172
>no world flood
You might want to re-considrer that one

>>82557172
Right, but if you argue these qualities and disprove them, they can retreat saying its all metaphors and not to be taken literally, and that god is outside reality as a form of energy or knowledge or being that can't be measured physically.

What now?

File: 1387464967456.jpg (36KB, 299x275px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 299x275px

>>82556419

>>82557234
Then the god either does not match those qualities claimed or he does and is simply pointless

>>82557289
Or he matches them while you aren't around to argue, doesn't match them when you argue, and then when you leave he matches them again.
Thats how conversion occurs in le current year.

>>82557234
Then God doesn't exist, if everything in the bible is a metaphor than god must also be a metaphor and simply a figment of the author's imaginations without any literal qualities to tie him to reality.

>>82556898
>high fructose corn syrup first ingredient
Is there anything 'murricans don't put it in?

>>82557367
That doesn't logically follow. You can have his qualities be exaggerated by myth, and his existence be factual.
You aren't arguing with logic again. You need logic to argue abstract concepts.

>>82557391
I'll just mention it was invented by the Clinton Corn Processing Company.

>>82555243
This is Reddit: the show

>>82557601
t. reddit

>>82556910
Isn't it reasonable to think something doesn't exist until it's proven it does? If I make up a story about how I have superpowers and just don't use them in front of people, will it be more logical for you to think
>huh, since I can't prove he doesn't have those powers, I can never know if he actually does, it's a 50/50 chance
or
>well, it sounds like fucking bullshit, doesn't make any sense what so ever to be true from my current understanding of laws of physics and he says he won't prove it to me, I'm just gonna assume he's lying and doesn't have any superpowers
?

File: 1378134812325.jpg (141KB, 500x752px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 500x752px

>>82555160
You're too young, probably below 12

>>82557651

What you're doing in this post is known as "tearing down a straw man" and "reductio ad absurdum".

To humour you, though, you're still wrong. The second conclusion is not "more logical". It's based on instinct and baseless assumption, neither of which have any place in logic.

>>82557782
Isn't it based on your current knowledge about world, using logic to assess how probable each of those options is? Seems pretty logical to me.
I also don't see how this is a fallacy, it's the same principle applied in different situation. Even if the guy actually DID have superpowers, it would be more logical to think he doesn't have them (even though you can't know for sure).

>>82557867
*options are

>>82555184
who is this gamete athlete

>>82557687
is that the retard kid from breaking bullshit

>>82557867

The fallacy is reducing the concept of a divine, metaphysical deity which exists outside of time and space to that of an easily observable, flesh-and-blood person physically telling you in conversation that they possess supernatural powers.

It's the old "sky daddy" trope - misconstruing the concept of a deity, intentionally or not, and arguing as though it is reasonable to expect God to have a verifiable physical residue of some kind, like you could scan the planet with a satellite and find the bearded wizard with his host of androgynous harpists cruising through the upper atmosphere.

The best way to think of this is that philosophy (of which religion is a sub-category) endeavours to answer questions of "why?", whereas science answers questions of "how?". The scientific principle, which demands repeatable experiments or other observable evidence, and places that infamous "burden of proof" on positive claims, cannot be applied to metaphysics.

It is perfectly sensible, knowing that much, to disregard metaphysics and maybe even philosophy as a whole as a waste of time, but that's not a decision born of logic, simply practicality.

What I'm getting at is that when anybody says (as others have in this thread too), "Even though it's technically unknowable, it's more likely that God doesn't exist because of an absence of evidence, so I will live my life as though there is no God", they're not being entirely logical, since the logic only actually goes so far as the "technically unknowable" part. Beyond that, utilitarianism kicks in - they make an assessment of probability based on the scientific method and subjective experience, thanks to either a lack of fully understanding the concept of a deity or an unwillingness to engage with its full meaning.

I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad thing to do that, it could well lead to far greater success in life and collective value to the human race, but it's not the cold, clean logic it's so often claimed to be.

>>82556359
>To make the step into atheism, one must accept agnosticism and then either disregard logic or misunderstand what is meant by "God" to come to a conclusion that God does not exist. Basically, "agnostic" is a very useful term because it describes people who choose not to presume what they cannot know

I dont see people being agnostic about Zeus or the giant spaghetti monster. Agnosticism leaves room for anything contrived to be real. "You don't know if it DOESNT exist so you shouldnt say you know it doesn't."

There aren't words for people who don't believe in horoscopes or the bunny rabbit. Atheism only exists because someone else said "x made up thing might be true!". Do you see how agnosticism starts to make less sense?

>>82558735

>I dont see people being agnostic about Zeus or the giant spaghetti monster.

Don't you? That's literally the whole point of the church flying spaghetti monster - since its existence cannot be disproven, they maintain that they ought to be considered for tax exemption and the other legal privileges that religious organisations enjoy.

>Agnosticism leaves room for anything contrived to be real.

To an extent that's true, but why is that a negative thing exactly? Also, you're potentially making a false equivalence between deities and supposedly physical entities like the classic Easter Bunny or Santa. It's a lot easier to disprove the existence of animals like the bigfoot or unicorns than it is to disprove the existence of God(s).

Even then, I personally wouldn't even venture so far as to make a definitive statement that the former two certainly don't exist, I don't know that at all, new species are constantly being discovered. Obviously the odds are hugely against the sudden discovery of a large, land-based vertebrate, but I can't rule it out for sure.

>Do you see how agnosticism starts to make less sense?

Not based on your post, no. It's still, to my mind, the only logical conclusion based on all the available arguments, especially because I don't have any difficulty making distinction between claims of God's existence and more tangibly disprovable claims. Can you elucidate more clearly what exactly irritates you so much about agnosticism and the inherent uncertainty that it permits? Because even putting pure logic aside, frankly I prefer that uncertainty, it's whimsical.

>>82558574
Good post.

>>82559066
It sounds like your beef is with organized religion and not religion in general. A person can be religious without being a part of a corporationesque church.

I could also say all atheists or agnostics are smug shitheads and cucks like Dawkins or Black Science Man or Bill Nye the Stop Being White Guy but that would just be picking the worst of the bunch who stand out due to their audacity.

>>82558574
What am I if I'm fairly certain every man made religion is a bunch of horseshit, but I'm open to concept of intelligent force creating this universe? I'd say I'm an atheist by definition, since I don't believe in anything.

>>82559066
>Because even putting pure logic aside, frankly I prefer that uncertainty, it's whimsical.

I don't have a problem with agnosticism so much as I do with the point of Atheism being misunderstood. Atheists don't abandon philosophy or logic when the make their conclusion. Atheism only exists because of a whim- someone saying "x might be true". Taking away the deity or physical entities, what are you left with? An idea? So you're believing in something for the sake of it? That isn't a logical conclusion, that's a whim as you put it. It's your decision counter to what we don't know to just say "eh, something might exist. I can't prove it so i'll leave room for it."

When you reduce it to that, the "false equivalence" is no longer false. Believing for the sake of believing is fine as long as you're willing to accept the hole in your logic. In that it's a whim, not logic.

>>82559131

You might be misunderstanding me, I don't have a beef with anyone. Organised religion isn't my jam, sure, but I'm not going to resent anyone for being a part of it. Really, my objection is purely philosophical, I've been to church stuff before and it definitely feels good to be surrounded by an overtly friendly and supportive community of your peers.

Over the course of my life my respect for people who genuinely study their faith and remain resolute in it has only increased, I think it's far more impressive to avoid becoming dogmatic when you're already on the inside than it is to not be taken in as an outside observer. A lot of religions deliberately make it very easy and tempting to eschew critical thinking and reflection in favour of the official story.

I think Dawkins is an interesting case - his books about genetics and natural selection are actually fascinating reads, it was only after the God Delusion debacle that he was essentially forced to become a martyr for the Church of Smug Atheism. It's a shame, because he was a decent writer but his expertise wasn't anything to do with theology.

>>82559214

>I'd say I'm an atheist by definition

Well you'd be wrong as far as I understand the term, I would refer to you as an agnostic and incidentally a cynic, but I am aware that there is a very popular, much more recent, definition of atheism that basically says "anyone without a positive belief in God's existence is an atheist".

As far as I'm concerned that is an improper use of the term, but I only studied philosophy at university so what do I know right?

Yes it makes me pretty salty and no I can't get a proper job

>>82559551
Seems pretty cool though, I'd like to go on philosophy lectures.
I probably have wrong definition of atheist then. Well, it's semantics and labelling anyway, people should just explain what they believe in to one another without using these terms.

>>82559551
Would you say you are agnoemployed, or aemployed?

>>82559620
kek