Nalivai

Lawns aren't the problem but they are a problem

Country girl make do

...and that's why they start with maximum violence out of the bat. If for you as a criminal the outcome is the same, why risk it and start with random pickpocket, when you will be tried as if you assaulted a person, start with an assault, safer for you, same risk.

Reading shit like this, I am no longer surprised so many Americans think they can overpower an elephant and outrun a bear. Yeah, buddy, the fact that you occasionally run on a field as a child, 20 years and 100 kilos ago, makes you superhuman now. I

Your national sport is walking from office to a car to drive home to sit on a couch. Average American walks three hundred meters per week, the second you stop training for the sport you played once a week as a child 10 years ago, you stop being able to run any reasonable distance.
I guess another national sport of yours is overestimating how strong and powerful you actually are.

Unfortunately it has an unintended consequence of criminals being more aggressive. If you as a potential pickpocket know they will throw hands regardless, you might as well start with maximum violence, save yourself some trouble.
Parisian pickpockets are quite unpleasant but at least you know they will not go beyond stealing your wallet while you're distracted.

You probably wanted to show off how smart you are, but instead you showed that you can't even talk to people without help of your favourite slop bucket.
It didn't answer my curiosity about what came first, but it solidified my conviction that your brain is cooked all the way, probably beyond repair. I would say you need to seek professional help, but at this point you would interpret it as needing to talk to the autocomplete, and it will cook you even more.
It started funny, but I feel very sorry for you now, and it sucked all the humour out.

Agnosticism is the separate category in that questioneer. Pew is weird about it, they just list every major religion and sect, then "other" then "agnostic", "atheist", and "nothing", and you need to chose one, which might be the source of confusion, and I can't see any good explanation on why do they do it like that. LIke I said, bullshit number. "Don't believe in any gods, don't follow any religion, not an agnostic" is an atheist, by definition. Separating it into "atheist" and "atheist but different word" can only serve one purpose, to dilute the numbers so christians don't feel threatened by all the evil heathens.

According to the same research, 1% of US adults are Buddhist, and they fall in a separate cathegory.
All the polls are weird, and very much depending on how you ask the question and how you slice the data.
But you're right, the word atheist carries some baggage in a christian nationalist country, but that was kind of almost my point. So many people are afraid of the word atheist, but are "not religious, don't believe in any gods, don't follow any practices", which is, actual textbook definition of the word.

This isn't the difference. Agnosticism postulates that knowing if any god exist is categorically unanswerable. The matter of your personal believe is a parallel question entirely. "We cannot be sure, but I personally don't believe any gods" makes an atheist, but so does "There is absolutely no evidence for any gods so I don't believe any". "We cannot be sure, but I personally believe in Sobek, may his sperm be neverending" makes a theist.

3% Atheists is such a bullshit number. There is a famous Pew poll, where they asked people two questions side by side, "are you an atheist" and "do you believe in any god", and 4% answered no to the first one and something like 20% answered no to the second one.

Were you prone to this weird leaps of logic before your brain was fried by talking to LLMs, or did you start being a fan of talking to LLMs because your ability to logic was...well...that?