You’re totally right, lol

I was spelling from memory and I always pronounced it as “yerk” in my head because it rhymed with “jerk”.

I’m going to leave my mistake, I’m not ashamed to be imperfect.

Brain slugs from the Animorphs book series.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animorphs

The yerks are on Earth.

Yes.

pops a wheelie

Chaotic good.

No. I’m suggesting that just because a person is intolerant doesn’t mean that they’re oppressive.

Oppression implies that there is an oppressor with some sort of power or control over the other party.

Intolerance is being unwilling to accept something.

Only an idiot would spend their time trying to figure out who the biggest idiot is.

There’s a substantial difference between intolerance and oppression.

Both, but it also depends on if I’m winning the argument or they are.

Or a different definition of “problem”.

Obviously it is god’s fault for creating this flawed universe in which I don’t win every single game I play.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Bullshit.

I don’t think dogs are that judgmental.

Wide implementation of this technique would certainly explain why anxious/nervous people would have fewer friends.

From my perspective trust is all about belief. If something can be proven then there is no need for trust.

Can you prove free will exists?

Let’s say you believe people have free will and you loan a friend $60 for a game.

Your friend says they’ll pay you back. You can’t prove that they’ll pay you back because we’re operating under the assumption that they have free will so they could very realistically choose not to.

Do you think your trust in your friend a mental illness? Because I think the majority of people feel that trusting your friends is a sign of good mental and emotional health.

It’s the infinite monkeys, infinite typewriters, infinite time problem. Given an infinite number of universes anything that can happen statistically will happen.

This video explains it in relation to entropy https://youtu.be/nhy4Z_32kQo

Why are religious apologists always throwing gobbledygook around and acting like it’s logic?

Why is everything a religious apologist shows as explaining how the religion “really works” actually has nothing to do with what the religions preach?

(Spoiler: it’s an impossible position to defend)

What exactly did I say that was gobbledygook?

Nothing I said defends or supports organized religion.

Christians don’t teach people that they are god.

Correct. Christianity teaches people that “God” created everything and that they are children of “God”. AKA that “God” is the fundamental force in the universe.

What religion works the way you described?

None of them. Yikes.

Pretty much all of them do…

“God” is what idiots claim is behind everything good but not bad.

Most religions argue that “God” is behind everything, the good and the bad. The Christian Bible specifically calls this out

“ISAIAH 45: 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.”

It’s inane. Quit pretending otherwise it’s disingenuous and illogical on top of it.

What’s inane?

Religious people are superstitious fools. They cannot be trusted. They will be orthodox when it suits them and drop all the rules when it suits them.

Because it’s made up bullshit yo be used as a weapon against other people and deep down they know it’s phony. Which is why they drop all belief when they want to.

It sounds like you’ve let your valid criticism of hypocritical religious people prevent you from distinguishing “organized religion” from “belief.”