Psst. You forgot the megameters.

Farting in an elevator is wrong on so many levels.

Thank goodness, there are 2⁷ ways to cure that.

You’re right, but I did manage to make the device show up as a compliant Linux laptop in their Intune UI, and that was all that mattered to them.

They don’t care that you have to make Intune think the distro is Ubuntu when it’s in fact EndeavourOS. Some necktie people were satisfied with the result and devs can now use Linux. Après moi, le déluge.

Boss told me I couldn’t use EndeavourOS because “it doesn’t work with M$ InTune”.

So I said if I could make an old unused laptop work with that setup, maybe the company could turn that into a pilot system and we could be more sexy to new developers we want to hire.

Boss said why not. IT said sure, here’s your laptop, have fun.

A few months later, a couple of devs have switched to Linux. Some have kept Windows. Some didn’t care because they have Macs. Everyone’s happy, we have more options, and everyone can choose what they subjectively feel is the best tool for the job - which is what professionals do instead of fighting.

And we actually hired a new dev who uses Linux.

Wow, okay. At least I got my wife to appreciate a decent sauce, and I got her off the store-bought sauce mixes.

It’s been many years but I still remember which recipe did the trick: Salisbury steak.

Make steak patties using ground beef, Worcestershire sauce, mustard, pepper, breadcrumbs. Fry until brown. Set aside. In the same pan, sauté 250g mushrooms and a chopped onion until brown, add tomato paste, add some flour, add 500ml beef stock and a pinch of sugar (ketchup works well too). Salt, pepper, Worcestershire sauce to taste. Add steaks to sauce. Cook until steaks done.

She loves this and it kinda cured her from buying Maggi crap, lol.

I never heard of Moqueca and googled it, and it does look very delicious!

I like a good steak. However, my wife does not prefer it medium rare - she belongs to those heretics who would shamelessly order it well done (that’s why I never go to steakhouses with her). She also hates spicy food. Or some kinds of traditional German food which I grew up with.

So yeah. Whenever she’s away, it’s usually steak, some spicy Asian dish or Berlin style grilled liver.

Same here, except I also use the opportunity to cook stuff for myself that my wife doesn’t like. Fuck pizza.

No, I’ve never told anyone what to call themselves except Christians. I don’t care what denomination or special kind of Christians they insist on being.

But now that you’ve started the Ad Hominems, calling me uneducated instead of explaining the “huge difference”, apparently you’ve run out of arguments. Or knowledge. Or both. Someone who claims to be an expert on logical fallacies like the No True Scotsman should also understand that you’ve sunk very low if you need to resort to Ad Hominems.

So you just stopped being as respectful to me as I was to you during the whole discussion and now I’ve lost interest in talking to you. You proved yourself undeserving of my time. Good day.

The difference between atheism and agnosticism has no practical meaning to the vast majority of unbelievers.

You can’t positively state that something does not exist. You can’t logically be 100% certain there is no God. We know that. So if you love going by definitions, yes, most unbelievers are agnostics, not atheists.

So why do we keep calling ourselves atheists? Because we view the likelihood of God’s existence as so infinitesimally small, the difference between agnosticism and atheism becomes negligible. If we rate the odds of God’s existence at 0,000000001% we can as well just call it zero.

In other words, stop whining about atheists not using the term you’d prefer. We don’t tell you what you should call yourself either.

If someone denounces this baseline (and not fails to follow it, but denounces it), there’s not much left to a claim of following Christ.

And that is not an objective statement that’s verifiably and objectively true. It DOES depend on personal opinion and interpretation. Other Christians might say other stuff in the Bible is more important. Like killing homosexuals. Or burning witches.

There is no clear definition of an ideal Christian. Never was. Never will be. Every century has its own view on what Christianity has to be like, we just happen to live in one which tends to agree with your views.

In other words, according to your statement, there were almost no Christians a few centuries ago, which is verifiably untrue.

“No atheist believes in God” is a factually correct statement. It’s like saying “One does not equal two” - a verifiable, objective truth that does not rely on anyone’s opinion.

Therefore, person B made a contradictory statement, and person A would be correct in responding “Then you aren’t an atheist”, because person B stated a verifiable falsehood. Same as saying “One equals two”. We all know it’s wrong.

Christianity has a much looser definition. You quoted it yourself:

A Christian (/ˈkrɪstʃən, -tiən/ ⓘ) is a person who follows or adheres to Christianity, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ.

So anyone who follows this religion and calls himself a Christian is a Christian. Nothing in the definition says “You must follow the Bible to the exact letter” in order to be one. There wouldn’t be ANY Christians if that were true.

So that leaves us with a whole bunch of people who all claim to be Christian, but have different opinions on…

• how strictly you have to follow the Bible,
• whether racism is condoned or forbidden by the Bible,
• whether slavery is forbidden by the Bible,
• who you can fuck,
• what kind of funny hat you have to wear,
• what food you can or can’t eat,
• whether you have to kill any non-believers,

… et cetera, et cetera.

And all of these people claim the others aren’t the true believers.

Now here’s a very simple question: What gives you the confidence, why should we believe you that it’s YOU, out of all these people, who follows the correct interpretation of the Bible?

That’s why the No True Scotsman fallacy applies to the whole bunch, including you, when you claim the others are no true Christians. Not a single Christian can objectively, verifiably prove that their individual view of Christianity is the correct one.

Want me to list all the parts of the Bible where it commands Christians to kill gays…?

But that’s not even the point. You know just as well as I do - Christians of each century have always cherry picked the Bible. There’s a currently fashionable interpretation of the same book that keeps changing over time. Pick a different country and a different century, suddenly people are burning witches.

The exact contents of the Bible don’t even matter that much, it’s the fact that Christians are free to interpret it to their liking.

The Bible isn’t the framework I was talking about. The framework is the Bible plus the man with the funny hat can tell you whatever the fuck he thinks it means and what makes you blindly serve his current agenda.

American “Christians” aren’t Christians

Classic defense by religious apologists and still a fallacy. You don’t wish to associate all the bad Christians with Christianity, so you pull the old “they aren’t real Christians” card. No, only you, a good and righteous and kindhearted person, you are the only one who is a true Christian. Of course. We’ve heard it countless times.

Of course they’re Christians. You don’t get to whitewash Christianity by simply declaring they aren’t.

Oh absolutely. That’s the scariest part about this whole line of argument.

Christians do not believe people are inherently good. We are all sinners. And even scarier, you can be excused for anything if you confess. Three Bloody Marys and one Hello Dolly and you’re golden. Still get into heaven.

The whole religion is just a thinly veiled framework designed to allow bad people to do bad things - and even make good people do bad things.

And don’t forget, those are the people who tell us atheists that “without the Bible, where do you get your morals from?”

Well, we can see what these biblical morals are - you mentioned it: homophobia, racism etcetera. It makes people hateful, while claiming it is charity and compassion.

Religion poisons everything.

I remember having that quite often as a kid in the 1980s. It is very delicious - somehow the consistency gives it that special something. Softer than solid ice cream because it melts a little quicker.

Fun fact - the Germans didn’t invent it, it was probably an Italian ice cream shop owner living in Germany, although several others have claimed inventing it.

I kinda prefer nosing glasses over tumblers.

A picture of two men who don’t exist.