Some of them actually believe that if they can get you to say the magic words, you’ll go to heaven instead of hell.
If I thought I could prevent someone from eternal pain and suffering, and instead have them go to a place where the creator of everything, including… uh… hell…
I wouldn’t mind if there was a god who created a hell, if hell is the special place reserved for fascists, human traffickers, and greedy billionaires who destroy the planet.
People act like this god guy is such a dick for creating a hell. As if they really want to share an afterlife with everyone who ever lived.
Somehow the paradox of intolerance dovetails into this, but I’m too lazy to explain how.
I would mind: if you’re all-powerful then why create fascists, human traffickers, greedy billionaires, and the majority of people who are making the biosphere uninhabitable for most genera? And why punish them with hell, when you created them that way? That’s just sadistic.
I understand wanting a hell for bad people, because most people do extremely evil things:
voting to be ruled by openly greedy, sociopathic liars (with only about 1-4% of voters choose ethical candidates);
giving money to factory farmers and fishermen;
contributing to human overpopulation;
etc.;
but I still prefer honesty and saying there’s absolutely no evidence that a biblical hell is real.
Oh come on, that is so easily answered by the concept of free will. An all-powerful god doesn’t create a universe populated by sentient beings just to control everything that any of them do. That’s just silly.
Human beings are endowed with free will, and given a choice: use it for good or evil. You can try to be morally neutral, but ultimately you’re either serving yourself or others. It’s possible to balance doing both, but that means neither is to the exclusion of the other and therefore still counts as doing good.
It’s so lazy to just ask “Why did god let people do evil things in the first place.” Do you really expect me to believe the concept of free will has never crossed your mind when asking this question?
And I never said that a biblical hell is real, I was just following along with the hypotheticals of the previous comments.
Do you really expect me to believe the concept of free will has never crossed your mind when asking this question?
Free will is so obviously an illusion to me (since no-one in recorded history has ever been able to magic their way around causality) that I sometimes forget that most people, especially religious people, think they have free will. I should have stated that.
If free will is real for people tho, then God isn’t all-knowing or all-powerful, which means it’s not God - unless you use a definition of God that extremely few people in the West or Middle-East hold.
Free will isn’t about magic or causality. Framing it like that just shows you misunderstand the concept of free will.
We’re bound by circumstances and possibility, yes. That doesn’t contradict free will, because free will is about self-determination: being able to choose a course of action from among the possibilities, rather than being compelled one way or the other by some extrinsic force such as fate.
For example, say you go to a restaurant. They give you the menu. You get to choose anything on the menu, and maybe even make a special request, and no one is compelling you to choose one thing or another.
They might say “No, we can’t do that” when you ask if they can substitute hush puppies for a side. That’s not a contravention of your free will, they might just not have hush puppies.
Just because the menu doesn’t include everything in the universe doesn’t mean you don’t have free will when choosing an option.
Also, free will doesn’t contradict god being omniscient or omnipotent. I don’t know why you keep implying that it does, but you haven’t presented any rationale for why we should suppose that.
This doesn’t mean I believe in a god, by the way. I’m just telling you that your logic about free will and omnipotence doesn’t add up.
You are the one misunderstanding. When you are sitting there with the menu in front of you, what is doing the “choosing” in the end? What is causing you to rule out this dish or that?
Got food poisoning from eating salmon that one time? Better not order that then, you’d get nauseous just looking at it.
Grew up eating tamales? Of course you love them, but mostly the ones that taste similar to the ones your parents made.
Your parents fed you a ton of sugar as a kid? Well now you’re gonna want something sweet for dessert.
You had a bad day, you’re gonna want some comfort food.
You have a lifetime of experience behind you dictating your preferences, beliefs, values, epigenetic state, hormone balance, and current state of mind.
Note about god, they are supposedly the ones who set this whole sequence of events into motion. God would know that, given an initial state that they set up, the series of events of the universe would eventually lead to you picking tamales on the menu. Or pasta. Or honey glazed chicken. But that is more of a question of determinism, whether starting over at the same initial state would lead to the same current state of the universe. But given god is supposedly omniscient, they should know all the branching possibilities from the initial state in addition to which one the universe will tumble down.
In other words, if god is real, and they are omniscient and omnipotent, then literally everything that happens is their fault.
If humans have free will then god is not omnipresent omnipotent, we’re all powerful.
Evil exists in the world because God allows it or because he’s powerless to stop it.
Even if God is not omnipresent omnipotent and does not know everything you will do, Then he is still making creatures to which he will torture for all eternity if they do not align with him. The most morally just thing at all would be to create nothing or at least create things that are not bound to heaven or hell.
False, endowment of freewill doesn’t logically contradict omnipotence. And your statement “we’re all powerful” is a giant leap. Free will is not omnipotence.
Evil exists in the world because God allows it or because he’s powerless to stop it.
(Assuming we’re going with theistic explanations for the purposes of argument), Evil exists because humans are endowed with free will, meaning god gives humans a choice of how to behave. Anything less would make us mindless automatons/slaves, which would arguably be evil.
Then he is still making creatures to which he will torture for all eternity if they do not align with him.
Assuming an omnibenevolent god, hell would be a place for genocidiers and fascists and other people who caused untold suffering for others, who would then be tortured for eternity by their own degeneracy because when you remove the pleasures of the flesh from the equation, there’s nothing left to distract one from one’s own inner life.
multiple protestants have theological holes in their boats
hell is not eternal suffering
its just the state of nonexistence
as you will be in hell as you were without God
aka nonexistent, God made you.
And you cant have torture and suffering without life, so you cant have eternal torture and suffering if you do not have eternal life, and if you have eternal life, you aint going to hell.
Idk i think atheism is just as presumptuous and asinine as theism.
Atheists don’t tend to fall down the nationalism - fascism hole quite as frequently, but they can be just as annoying.
I just don’t know what’s wrong with admitting we don’t know. We can’t perceive everything and there is still too much mystery for me to subscribe to anything. That being said, I do not use the promise of an afterlife to live well, I justify that by making happiness my goal, I just can’t say definitively there is nothing going on beyond what we know, spiritually speaking. I don’t think any religion has gotten it right because how could they if we can’t perceive everything?
The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists, and “we don’t know” is that in a nutshell. Gnostic atheists who “know” there is no god are rather rare but very loud.
gnostic or agnostic, atheists are just not convinced. Like I dont believe you, that you have a unicorn at home. If I am gnostic or agnostic about that matter isnt really too important to anyone.
Gnostic atheists aren’t just not convinced, gnostic means “to know”, e.g. certainty. Agnostic atheism is “I’m not convinced, therefore I don’t believe in god.” and gnostic atheism is “I believe there is no god.” They would usually phrase it “I know”, but let’s be real it’s a belief.
Personally I find the distinction important, because gnostic atheists are annoying. This is why I usually label myself simply agnostic when asked.
Yes, you yould make the argument that it is impossible to know that there is no god, as the existence of a god is unfalsifiable. But if your definition of agnostic is this strict, then noone is really an agnostic atheist, because you cannot know that there isnt a very quiet and passive god which doesnt intervene on earth after Jesus. Its just not falsifiable.
So if someone examines all arguments by scholars and the most avid theists for a god and comes to the conclusion that they are all bad/not good enough, then I’d argue that this person is a gnostic atheist. Because what else is one supposed to take to become gnostic? You cannot make scientific experiments to prove that there is no god.
You cannot make scientific experiments to prove that there is no god.
And I can appreciate that this is frustrating for a lot of people, but it is simply unknowable.
Because what else is one supposed to take to become gnostic?
The default position is “I don’t know”. It’s OK to sit there, you don’t have to have the answer. If you want to get to “I know and here’s the answer”, you either need to prove it or make a leap of belief.
Edit: they certainly look like they’re opposites, but just like deontology and ontology aren’t opposites, these two words are just awkwardly related. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism which is not just “believing in a god”. I’d say a proper antonym for atheism is theism/deism.
respectfully, your edit made it even more clear that you are misunderstanding the context and meaning of the terms in this case. agnostic / gnostic atheism needent necessarily have anything to do with gnosticism as a general term.
True enough, but even still I don’t see that “gnostic atheism” is obviously the opposite of “agnostic atheism”. In any case it’s not what I claimed. The terminology is confusing and I was hoping to be helpful, although I see now I was far too glib.
Offtopic: What in gods name is that wiki? https://hmolpedia.com/page/Main_Page
I understand almost every word but dont get the combination of them at all. Am I crazy?
right, one type of atheism and another type of atheism arent “opposites” and no one said they were.
the prefix in question and how it functions in this case are indeed opposites. one is a position of certainty about the topic, and one is a position of a lack of that certainty.
Oh, I see. “Gnostic” has more than one meaning. It can mean “A believer in Gnosticism”, but it can also mean “Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge.” I’m using the American Heritage Dictionary, but you can find similar definitions in other dictionaries.
In this case, I’m sure that most people can figure out that a gnostic atheist isn’t an atheist who believes in Gnosticism.
Totally right. Worse again though, there is a lesser known term “gnostic atheist”, but it doesn’t quite mean “a spiritual believer in the absence of a god”, nor any other straightforward guess.
no no … its like this … within the context of atheism the prefixes gnostic and agnostic refer to the following term “atheism”.
atheist refers to belief
gnostic / agnostic refers to certainty
no one claimed anything about gnosticism at all, let alone that its the opposite of atheism. thats doubly wrong. also, iirc you are the one who introduced opposites into this conversation. i do agree the whole situation is semantically confusing. :)
because to consider yourself a “gnostic atheist” you need to do some amount of research, consider the arguments for a god (or the regionally modt believed in god(s)) and then come to the conclusion that all of the arguments are not convincing.
You can still be unconvinced after an honest examination of course and consider yourself an agnostic. But from my experience most agnostics are just indifferent to the whole question about gods, so they naturally dont have a strong opinion about it and dont voice it.
Finding arguments unconvincing would still be definitionally agnostic. To be a gnostic atheist, you have to posit an argument that no deity/whatever could exist, not just that’s it’s exceedingly unlikely.
I figured this was the case. The loud ones tend to set the stage, unfortunately. I’d personally just consider myself to be fully agnostic, but I’m sure I share a significant base of beliefs with most agnostic atheists.
I say there isn’t a god the same way I say the sun will rise tomorrow and the universe won’t blink out of existence. In truth, nothing is certain or absolutely knowable; there’s always the unknown unknowns and axioms which are untestable. But I have no reason to believe that lawn gnomes come alive when they’re not being watched; just because I can’t be absolutely certain to exactly 100% certainty doesn’t mean I also can’t confidently state that claim’s full of shit.
if enough people started saying so, would you think theres a chance that shoelaces are sentient even though theres no evidence to support that and all reasonable evidence supports the opposite conclusion? ofc not, so why should i entertain the idea of gods. hmu when you have some evidence.
Probably just selection bias. Which group of annoying people you run into more often is just a reflection of the spaces you hang out (through choice or otherwise)
Exactly, which is (sorta) my point. If this thread (and most atheist-dominated online threads I’ve seen) is any indication, atheists think they’re per capita less insufferable than their least favorite brand of religious people when they just express their insufferability indifferently.
Religious people and vegans are exactly the same. They both claim absolute nonsense to be undeniable truth and are smug about everything they can’t prove.
Prove me wrong. The loud ones are making themselves the representatives of the cult and exactly like any other cult, constantly proselytizing like street preachers. The pushiness poisons the movement, even if it wasn’t full of shit. Live your little life of self denial but shut the fuck up about it.
religious people are way worse, who cares
Absolutely, You can be actively in the process of dying and they will be bible thumping your chest.
I don’t go door to door telling people they should be atheist but at least once a year someone knocks on my door to talk to me about Christ.
Some of them actually believe that if they can get you to say the magic words, you’ll go to heaven instead of hell.
If I thought I could prevent someone from eternal pain and suffering, and instead have them go to a place where the creator of everything, including… uh… hell…
OK, never mind.
Isn’t jesus torturing you forever too?
My version of jesus only tortures the epstein class
I wouldn’t mind if there was a god who created a hell, if hell is the special place reserved for fascists, human traffickers, and greedy billionaires who destroy the planet.
People act like this god guy is such a dick for creating a hell. As if they really want to share an afterlife with everyone who ever lived.
Somehow the paradox of intolerance dovetails into this, but I’m too lazy to explain how.
I would mind: if you’re all-powerful then why create fascists, human traffickers, greedy billionaires, and the majority of people who are making the biosphere uninhabitable for most genera? And why punish them with hell, when you created them that way? That’s just sadistic.
I understand wanting a hell for bad people, because most people do extremely evil things:
but I still prefer honesty and saying there’s absolutely no evidence that a biblical hell is real.
Oh come on, that is so easily answered by the concept of free will. An all-powerful god doesn’t create a universe populated by sentient beings just to control everything that any of them do. That’s just silly.
Human beings are endowed with free will, and given a choice: use it for good or evil. You can try to be morally neutral, but ultimately you’re either serving yourself or others. It’s possible to balance doing both, but that means neither is to the exclusion of the other and therefore still counts as doing good.
It’s so lazy to just ask “Why did god let people do evil things in the first place.” Do you really expect me to believe the concept of free will has never crossed your mind when asking this question?
And I never said that a biblical hell is real, I was just following along with the hypotheticals of the previous comments.
Free will is so obviously an illusion to me (since no-one in recorded history has ever been able to magic their way around causality) that I sometimes forget that most people, especially religious people, think they have free will. I should have stated that.
If free will is real for people tho, then God isn’t all-knowing or all-powerful, which means it’s not God - unless you use a definition of God that extremely few people in the West or Middle-East hold.
Free will isn’t about magic or causality. Framing it like that just shows you misunderstand the concept of free will.
We’re bound by circumstances and possibility, yes. That doesn’t contradict free will, because free will is about self-determination: being able to choose a course of action from among the possibilities, rather than being compelled one way or the other by some extrinsic force such as fate.
For example, say you go to a restaurant. They give you the menu. You get to choose anything on the menu, and maybe even make a special request, and no one is compelling you to choose one thing or another.
They might say “No, we can’t do that” when you ask if they can substitute hush puppies for a side. That’s not a contravention of your free will, they might just not have hush puppies.
Just because the menu doesn’t include everything in the universe doesn’t mean you don’t have free will when choosing an option.
Also, free will doesn’t contradict god being omniscient or omnipotent. I don’t know why you keep implying that it does, but you haven’t presented any rationale for why we should suppose that.
This doesn’t mean I believe in a god, by the way. I’m just telling you that your logic about free will and omnipotence doesn’t add up.
You are the one misunderstanding. When you are sitting there with the menu in front of you, what is doing the “choosing” in the end? What is causing you to rule out this dish or that?
Got food poisoning from eating salmon that one time? Better not order that then, you’d get nauseous just looking at it.
Grew up eating tamales? Of course you love them, but mostly the ones that taste similar to the ones your parents made.
Your parents fed you a ton of sugar as a kid? Well now you’re gonna want something sweet for dessert.
You had a bad day, you’re gonna want some comfort food.
You have a lifetime of experience behind you dictating your preferences, beliefs, values, epigenetic state, hormone balance, and current state of mind.
Note about god, they are supposedly the ones who set this whole sequence of events into motion. God would know that, given an initial state that they set up, the series of events of the universe would eventually lead to you picking tamales on the menu. Or pasta. Or honey glazed chicken. But that is more of a question of determinism, whether starting over at the same initial state would lead to the same current state of the universe. But given god is supposedly omniscient, they should know all the branching possibilities from the initial state in addition to which one the universe will tumble down.
In other words, if god is real, and they are omniscient and omnipotent, then literally everything that happens is their fault.
If humans have free will then god is not omnipresent omnipotent, we’re all powerful.
Evil exists in the world because God allows it or because he’s powerless to stop it.
Even if God is not omnipresent omnipotent and does not know everything you will do, Then he is still making creatures to which he will torture for all eternity if they do not align with him. The most morally just thing at all would be to create nothing or at least create things that are not bound to heaven or hell.
False, endowment of freewill doesn’t logically contradict omnipotence. And your statement “we’re all powerful” is a giant leap. Free will is not omnipotence.
(Assuming we’re going with theistic explanations for the purposes of argument), Evil exists because humans are endowed with free will, meaning god gives humans a choice of how to behave. Anything less would make us mindless automatons/slaves, which would arguably be evil.
Assuming an omnibenevolent god, hell would be a place for genocidiers and fascists and other people who caused untold suffering for others, who would then be tortured for eternity by their own degeneracy because when you remove the pleasures of the flesh from the equation, there’s nothing left to distract one from one’s own inner life.
multiple protestants have theological holes in their boats
hell is not eternal suffering its just the state of nonexistence as you will be in hell as you were without God aka nonexistent, God made you.
And you cant have torture and suffering without life, so you cant have eternal torture and suffering if you do not have eternal life, and if you have eternal life, you aint going to hell.
Tell them they can stop, go home, and enjoy time with the fam. I found Christ, and I stopped the problem.
Ok, take it out on them
Idk i think atheism is just as presumptuous and asinine as theism.
Atheists don’t tend to fall down the nationalism - fascism hole quite as frequently, but they can be just as annoying.
I just don’t know what’s wrong with admitting we don’t know. We can’t perceive everything and there is still too much mystery for me to subscribe to anything. That being said, I do not use the promise of an afterlife to live well, I justify that by making happiness my goal, I just can’t say definitively there is nothing going on beyond what we know, spiritually speaking. I don’t think any religion has gotten it right because how could they if we can’t perceive everything?
The vast majority of atheists are agnostic atheists, and “we don’t know” is that in a nutshell. Gnostic atheists who “know” there is no god are rather rare but very loud.
gnostic or agnostic, atheists are just not convinced. Like I dont believe you, that you have a unicorn at home. If I am gnostic or agnostic about that matter isnt really too important to anyone.
Gnostic atheists aren’t just not convinced, gnostic means “to know”, e.g. certainty. Agnostic atheism is “I’m not convinced, therefore I don’t believe in god.” and gnostic atheism is “I believe there is no god.” They would usually phrase it “I know”, but let’s be real it’s a belief.
Personally I find the distinction important, because gnostic atheists are annoying. This is why I usually label myself simply agnostic when asked.
Yes, you yould make the argument that it is impossible to know that there is no god, as the existence of a god is unfalsifiable. But if your definition of agnostic is this strict, then noone is really an agnostic atheist, because you cannot know that there isnt a very quiet and passive god which doesnt intervene on earth after Jesus. Its just not falsifiable. So if someone examines all arguments by scholars and the most avid theists for a god and comes to the conclusion that they are all bad/not good enough, then I’d argue that this person is a gnostic atheist. Because what else is one supposed to take to become gnostic? You cannot make scientific experiments to prove that there is no god.
And I can appreciate that this is frustrating for a lot of people, but it is simply unknowable.
The default position is “I don’t know”. It’s OK to sit there, you don’t have to have the answer. If you want to get to “I know and here’s the answer”, you either need to prove it or make a leap of belief.
Gnostic and agnostic are not opposites!
Edit: they certainly look like they’re opposites, but just like deontology and ontology aren’t opposites, these two words are just awkwardly related. See e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism which is not just “believing in a god”. I’d say a proper antonym for atheism is theism/deism.
“I know” and “I don’t know” aren’t opposites?
They are of course, but that’s not the meaning I attach to those words.
respectfully, your edit made it even more clear that you are misunderstanding the context and meaning of the terms in this case. agnostic / gnostic atheism needent necessarily have anything to do with gnosticism as a general term.
True enough, but even still I don’t see that “gnostic atheism” is obviously the opposite of “agnostic atheism”. In any case it’s not what I claimed. The terminology is confusing and I was hoping to be helpful, although I see now I was far too glib.
https://hmolpedia.com/page/Gnostic_atheist
Offtopic: What in gods name is that wiki? https://hmolpedia.com/page/Main_Page I understand almost every word but dont get the combination of them at all. Am I crazy?
No, no you aren’t. I’m worried about the creator of the site, though. Y I K E S
(ETA: Y’all, I think we’re being trolled.)
They aren’t, but that wasn’t the claim. Here’s what you said:
The article you linked explains how they’re opposites. Gnostic and agnostic are opposites, just like theism and atheism are opposites.
deleted by creator
right, one type of atheism and another type of atheism arent “opposites” and no one said they were.
the prefix in question and how it functions in this case are indeed opposites. one is a position of certainty about the topic, and one is a position of a lack of that certainty.
Oh, I see. “Gnostic” has more than one meaning. It can mean “A believer in Gnosticism”, but it can also mean “Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge.” I’m using the American Heritage Dictionary, but you can find similar definitions in other dictionaries.
In this case, I’m sure that most people can figure out that a gnostic atheist isn’t an atheist who believes in Gnosticism.
Totally right. Worse again though, there is a lesser known term “gnostic atheist”, but it doesn’t quite mean “a spiritual believer in the absence of a god”, nor any other straightforward guess.
in this context, i think they are. aka certainty / uncertainty
I take your point. For the record if you do claim that gnosticism and atheism are indeed opposites, them isn’t “gnostic atheism” an oxymoron?
no no … its like this … within the context of atheism the prefixes gnostic and agnostic refer to the following term “atheism”.
atheist refers to belief gnostic / agnostic refers to certainty
no one claimed anything about gnosticism at all, let alone that its the opposite of atheism. thats doubly wrong. also, iirc you are the one who introduced opposites into this conversation. i do agree the whole situation is semantically confusing. :)
because to consider yourself a “gnostic atheist” you need to do some amount of research, consider the arguments for a god (or the regionally modt believed in god(s)) and then come to the conclusion that all of the arguments are not convincing. You can still be unconvinced after an honest examination of course and consider yourself an agnostic. But from my experience most agnostics are just indifferent to the whole question about gods, so they naturally dont have a strong opinion about it and dont voice it.
Finding arguments unconvincing would still be definitionally agnostic. To be a gnostic atheist, you have to posit an argument that no deity/whatever could exist, not just that’s it’s exceedingly unlikely.
deleted comment -
i had misread this part here “To be a gnostic atheist” and attempted to politely correct what i misread as “agnostic atheist” my bad. good comment!
I figured this was the case. The loud ones tend to set the stage, unfortunately. I’d personally just consider myself to be fully agnostic, but I’m sure I share a significant base of beliefs with most agnostic atheists.
I say there isn’t a god the same way I say the sun will rise tomorrow and the universe won’t blink out of existence. In truth, nothing is certain or absolutely knowable; there’s always the unknown unknowns and axioms which are untestable. But I have no reason to believe that lawn gnomes come alive when they’re not being watched; just because I can’t be absolutely certain to exactly 100% certainty doesn’t mean I also can’t confidently state that claim’s full of shit.
Right? There is some hubris is this absolute certainty without room for doubt. Thats just not scientific to me, either.
if enough people started saying so, would you think theres a chance that shoelaces are sentient even though theres no evidence to support that and all reasonable evidence supports the opposite conclusion? ofc not, so why should i entertain the idea of gods. hmu when you have some evidence.
You are walking, talking evidence of militant atheists being asinine.
I will not be elaborating.
thats not kind
I don’t know you and I have no obligation to be kind to strangers. You’ll live, I’m sure.
just dropping an ad hominem and peacing is a poor way to engage in my opinion. be well.
I’ll give that, I shouldn’t have called you asinine. I will rephrase.
Your behaviour is asinine – and not making me any less annoyed at militant atheists.
im just enjoying lemmy
if you say “religious” you have no valuable opinion on Christianity
I see more insufferable atheists than insufferable religious people on Lemmy at least.
Yeah duh… Its a space made by and largely populated by computer nerds
Oh intelligent and educated people have less stupid beliefs without evidence to back them up on average? Huh.
Oh, and I’m supposed to respect magical thinking of ignorantscand cowards as if it were equal to science? Huh.
Try going outside anywhere in the US
That’s because here, we’re winning.
Probably just selection bias. Which group of annoying people you run into more often is just a reflection of the spaces you hang out (through choice or otherwise)
Exactly, which is (sorta) my point. If this thread (and most atheist-dominated online threads I’ve seen) is any indication, atheists think they’re per capita less insufferable than their least favorite brand of religious people when they just express their insufferability indifferently.
Just because someone uses Linux doesn’t make them an atheist
Okay I’m an atheist and I use Linux but
go vegan for a triple
templeos
if only
Religious people and vegans are exactly the same. They both claim absolute nonsense to be undeniable truth and are smug about everything they can’t prove.
The fuck? This comment is so out of left field holy shit 🤣
Looks like you took a play out of your own book when you lumped vegans in there.
Prove me wrong. The loud ones are making themselves the representatives of the cult and exactly like any other cult, constantly proselytizing like street preachers. The pushiness poisons the movement, even if it wasn’t full of shit. Live your little life of self denial but shut the fuck up about it.
What would it take to prove you wrong? Now I’m just curious.
You can’t at this point. Keep yelling at the wall if you enjoy it though.
They’re yelling at a wall? My friend, nobody here is talking about vegans but you lol
vegans are right tho
they say a lot of things. not all of it is right.
“Animals feel pain and causing pain without having to is bad”
NONSENSE!!11!!
Onmivores gotta omnom.
deleted by creator
Not to mention the environment…