Thank you! That’s exactly who I was thinking of, but couldn’t place it.

I’m going to congratulate you. It’s taken me several replies before realising that you’re a troll - you have gotten further than most.

Kudos.

You kinda did.

“Is that a crazy way to phrase…”

And now I’ve answered it twice, from two different angles. You’re going to have to rephrase your question if you’re not satisfied at this point, because I don’t know what you want from me.

You asked what I meant by my sentence and I clarified it.

For example, I personally find the idea of transubstantiation weird. To my mind, that does not provide evidence that all religion is wrong, just that maybe strict Catholicism maybe isn’t for me.

100%

Also, you’d need to live for over 380 years for those $50 weekly payouts to add up to a million dollars.

This was spectacularly bad advice in every aspect.

Ah, but they can get you because a bunch of zeros isn’t “a number”.

You could cross out the first 1000000… leaving just the last zero, though.

Not really. It’s an observation that most religions have some dogmatic and scriptural aspects that can be seen as either absurd or abhorrent.

Most large religions have been co-opted at some point in history by powerful people to do some terrible things.

If you were anti-religion, there’s a lot of things to take shots at.

Top tip that I can give is to identify and stop consuming whatever content that has made you think that “females” is a normal thing to say.

This will give you the fastest return on investment over anything else.

Secondly, women are just people. No secret tricks. Different people like different things, hate different things and want different things.

Thirdly, and this is because I have no real understanding of where you’re at - maybe try asking some of the sex workers that you mentioned in a previous post if they’d mind talking and suggesting some pointers. Ask before - not afterwards, and do keep in mind that giving advice is not their actual job, so don’t be upset if they don’t want to!

OK, let’s go through the motions.

“Conversion to atheism”

Ah, but atheism isn’t a belief system, it’s the absence of one.

Yes I know, I’m not asserting that atheism is a belief system or a religion or anything like that

But you used the word conversion, as if it was a religion

Yes because you’re trying to change my beliefs and win me over to your way of thinking. Conversion is the correct word.

But atheism is the default human position, so you can’t convert to it

Humans are social creatures. World views, philosophies and beliefs are cultural, not biological. Atheism is no more the default position than English is the default language. Whatever you start off with, that’s your default position.

I’m sorry for putting words in your mouth here, and I hope I haven’t put up a strawman argument, but like I said - conversion really is the correct word.

I realise I mightn’t have won you over, and that’s fine, but this is a mad thing to get hung up on.

BTW, I do appreciate you doing the legwork and actually digging out the definition.

I get what you’re saying, but you’re wrong. I’ve used the word correctly. Genuinely, look it up.

Sorry, but it’s true. I’m afraid you’re going to have to take it up with a higher authority than me (i.e. the dictionary people) if you want to change how the word is used.

It’s the word for changing someone’s belief system not, as you seem to think, giving someone a new belief system.

Sorry, but I’m correct here.

Also, here’s additional lesson for you - you started your reply admitting that the question was asked in bad faith, that I did spot what you were talking about, and that you do know that I’m talking about atheism. Then you finish with “so my question stands”.

No it doesn’t. You understood fully what I was talking about in both the post you replied to and my response. So it doesn’t stand - you already knew the answer.

Look, I don’t mind you having a crack at being Mr I’m-Very-Clever-Catch-You-Out-On-Word-Meanings, but at least do it well.

Hmm. I’m going to go ahead and assume this is a bad-faith comment. Despite that, I’ll try to help.

I’m guessing from the phrasing that you’re not aware, but if you’re trying to change someone’s belief system, it’s called conversion.

I appreciate that you were probably trying to do the “atheism isn’t a belief, it’s a lack of a belief” thing, but unfortunately that’s how the language works in this case.

It always starts from the assumption that I’m an atheist too. They’re all friends, by the way, so don’t picture some kind of weird high-pressure pitches on the street.

Also I want to make it clear that I’m not trying to conflate being atheist and being anti-religious - my friend in this story however is in the “religion is ultimately the cause of every war in history” camp.

Anyway, very basically, I’d done something nice. Another work friend was talking about it, and my anti-religion friend responded with “see, he’s an objectively nice person, no religion needed or anything”. And it was at this point I revealed my secret identity, and the discussion began.

Just for balance, over my 44 years, I’ve also had a Scientology pitch, a Jehovah’s Witnesses pitch (old-school knocking on the door style), and an uncomfortably high-pressure pitch from what I’m sure was one of those churches set up to scam immigrants.

But outside of those, the main people who have tried to change me have been friends with strong anti-religious views.

My experience has been the exact opposite!

I suspect it’s a cultural thing, though. I’m British, but I know America has a very aggressive evangelical base. There are mega-churches and politicians and sports people are always talking about God and Jesus and we just don’t have that over here.

On the other hand, a few atheists I know have tried to “convert” me before.

I’m guessing it’s a certainty thing. From what I’ve seen of the American churches, some of them are absolutely borderline cults. So of course the folk are certain that they’re right.

And there’s certainly enough ammunition in religion as a whole for anyone who hates religion to think that they’re right.

It’s awful. It feels like we’re just sitting here letting it happen.

But two things have happened that at least show we, at long long last, might be moving in the right direction.

First of all Emmanuel Macron has announced that France will officially recognise Palestine as a state, making it the first G7 country to do so.

Secondly, in the UK things are reaching a point where not recognising Palestine as a state is becoming a real problem. Just since the start of July, dozens of British diplomats have signed a statement calling for the recognition of Palestine, Labour’s own MPs have signed a letter calling for it, Senior Bishops* have signed a letter calling for it. The PM, has even said in the past that he intends to officially recognise Palestine as a state “when the time is right”.

Why is this hopeful? Mainly because it changes the dynamic of the war, at least on paper. It changes the narrative.

• Adding this note about the Bishop’s letter, because it may not be obvious to non-Brits, but this is a biggish deal. Almost all of our national-level stuff is the way it is because it works, not because it’s official; for example our national anthem isn’t “official”, it’s just our national anthem because it’s what people sing. One of these unwritten rules is that the Church and the monarch don’t weigh in on politics. For Senior Bishops to officially, publicly, call on the government to recognise Palestine as a state, it’s pretty unprecedented.

Poor Henry’s looking a little anaemic

Not just media - he directly has a hand in shaping governmental policy.

By his own admission, that’s why he dislikes the EU so much - they don’t pay enough attention to him.

The shocking truth is that the US is just one of many, many, many democracies. There’s nothing uniquely American about democracy.

The American system was based on the French implementation, which in turn was based on the British implementation.

What is unique about American democracy is the scale. The biggest issue that America has is that the current incarnation is not fit for purpose - it’s a system that when used like it is, creates massive vote inequality, gives some “elected officials” what amounts to jobs for life and spreads blame so thin that (heaven forbid!) should someone try to create a dictatorship, it would be very hard to stop it.

You start buying all of the new updated versions of the toys you had as a kid, of course.

Sure, you bought some for your own kids when they were younger, but now you can buy the more expensive better-painted versions from Japan for yourself.

I think it’s more the case that this is an unnecessary barrier to the process.

I don’t think the issue is that someone else has touched the pack of undies, it’s that you need to go through the palaver of having someone retrieve your undies for you.

Additionally, and I know it might be a radical departure from what the internet suggests, but not everyone wants to share their underwear choices with other folks.

And I know you might think “well the cashier would see it anyway”, but surely you see the difference between someone mechanically ringing up undies in a pile of shopping, and needing to have an actual conversation about what type of underwear you intend to buy with someone?

That’s the issue.