No problem, It’s interesting how differently the terms are used within and outside of the atheist community. I think it’s also important to realize that most Atheists are going to have more certainty when it comes to a specific God not existing, compared to the general concept of a God. It’s much more likely that some kind of God exists than the specific one of a given religion exists. Like I would personally put the general idea of a God existing at maybe 50% (like a God who created the universe and let nature take its course), but the specific God of a given religion that listens to your prayers at near 0%.

Antitheist is one term, I think the more common one in the same area would be Gnostic Atheist, which given my definitions from before would claim knowledge that gods don’t exist.

As with anything there are always more sub categories, some go as far as to say knowledge of God is unknowable, or that no form of a God exists, but most seem to stick with Agnostic Atheist, or just Atheist.

At least among most Atheists it’s defined as lack of belief. It’s also arguably the most correct definition based on the parts of the word itself.

Theist is usually defined as “with belief”, so it makes sense that A-theist means without belief. Adding that A to another word usually means without, like asymptomatic (without symptoms) or amoral (without morals).

The same thing can be said with Agnostic, Gnostic is with knowledge, A-gnostic is without knowledge.

Agnostic/Gnostic answers the question of “do you have knowledge that a God exists”. Atheist/Theist answers the question of “do you have belief that a God exists”.

I think calling Atheism a religion does degrade its value. It brings atheism into the same category as religion, it promotes the idea that atheists need just as much faith as religious people, it basically turns science into a religion.

Just to be clear, I define Atheism as “without belief in a God”, that would include anyone saying they are agnostic.

I never understood why some people take one comment of “I don’t agree with that criticism” and think you are some diehard fanboy? I don’t like Apple, I don’t like Tesla or Elon Musk, but sometimes I disagree with some criticism they get and basically every single time someone thinks I must be a loyal fan.

I’m sure there are those who will or could make great use of USB3 speeds, but I think like 99% of the users won’t notice the difference because they just don’t use it. I know I’ve never used USB for data transfer in my last couple Android phones, I only use it for charging and even that is greatly reduced since I mainly use wireless charging now.

I feel like not many people actually use the data port on their phones anymore, I know I haven’t used my android USB port for anything other than fast charging for I feel like 10 years. Do you even use the data connector on your phone?

If they could find a better liar and hype man than musk, that would be a miracle.

If you had someone honest at the head of Tesla saying realistic stuff like “we won’t have FSD for at least a decade, robotaxis even longer, and it’s going to take more than just the cameras we have” and “due to legal liability concerns we are pulling FSD from the market until it’s ready” , I don’t think you would have nearly that market cap.

Tesla built that market cap off Mr Hypeman, the market cap only begins to make sense if those hype promises are realistic. If Mr Reality takes over Tesla that market cap is going to crash hard, they need Mr Hypeman.

It’s not just the share percent, it’s the whole company culture, he is the face of Tesla and his crazy thinking and over promising got the company this far. I doubt it would have gotten this far with a more rational and ethical CEO.

He is the ultimate hype man, without him Tesla just wouldn’t have the same pull IMO.

What does that have to do with anything? Should I only care about what’s best for me, no matter how much it screws someone else?

The problem I have with taxing wealth is this. Let’s say you start a company, it blows up and becomes the next Amazon or whatever. You own most of the company still, or at least a controlling share in it.

Should you be forced to sell away some of your ownership in your own company just because the market values that ownership and voting power to be worth billions? Personally I don’t think so. There is a reason these big companies like Amazon, Apple, Tesla, etc can’t exist outside of the US, the owner would be forced to sell away their company just to pay for taxes on money they don’t have.

You have eyes that are way more amazing than any cameras that are used in self driving, with stereoscopic vision, on a movable platform, and most importantly, controlled via a biological brain with millions of years of evolution behind it.

I’m sorry, you can’t attach a couple cameras to a processor, add some neural nets, and think it’s anything close to your brain and eyes.

It’s ok, it’s in beta, so some features may not be complete just yet, but hey, let’s just release this to the public anyways.

For some that ideas are radical, yes. However what I find more radical with Sanders is how he wants to fund all these “free” things. It’s basically a playbook of “how many different ways can we possibly tax the rich for more money than they have”.

Edit: since people seem to not get it, he wants to have taxes based on net worth, which will mean taxes that cost more than the amount of money these people have. Net worth isn’t the same as money/cash.

I agree that Tesla has done a lot to push us towards a more sustainable future with cars, and unfortunately I have to give Musk some credit for that also. The thing is, I don’t think you can separate Musk and Tesla like you are trying to.

Without Musk there really isn’t a Tesla. Even now they are very tied to him and his way of thinking. Nobody but Musk would ask someone to design the Cyber truck, and nobody but Musk would even call it that, or name the other vehicles so they spell S3XY, or release beta driver assist /self driving software to the public.

A lot of the problem with Tesla is Musk though, especially when it comes to the whole FSD and Autopilot thing. Tesla is spreading misleading data and releasing software to the public that they really shouldn’t be, and it’s Musk that is pushing for that to happen.

I hate to say this, but Facebook Messenger is one of the most fully featured messaging apps. It has its own internal messaging standard that offers iMessage like features between Facebook users, and it also is one of the better SMS apps out there.

I can see why they make it its own app, it’s supposed to replace other messaging apps.

This could be true of basically any Android phone on specific carriers, at least in the US.

Lucky until we get actual quantum computing, it’s not worth the years on a supercomputer to crack a single stolen set of encrypted passwords.

Yes really, I’m part of that pro gun community, I own some myself. In the US, we have certain rights that are in our constitution, like the right to freedom of speech, freedom of the press, a trial by jury, and along with all those is the right to bear arms. It was so important to early America it’s the second amendment, right behind free speech.

Just having a gun, or any item that is also a weapon really, doesn’t oppose the right to live. Both exist, it’s illegal to kill someone with your fists, a knife, a bat, or a gun, it doesn’t matter what tool is used.

Most mass shooters fit the definition of “law abiding gun owner” right up to the minute they start firing into crowds.

So they aren’t law abiding? Glad we can agree on that. Yes it’s legal to carry a gun around as long as you don’t go shooting random people with it, what’s the point? I carry a pocket knife everywhere I go, that’s also legal also as long as I don’t go stabbing people.

Who blocks expanded checks and red flag laws that would have prevented mass shooters from buying semi-automatic weapons on a whim

So about red flag laws. Should red flags prevent the ability to practice a right? I’m not mentioning any specific right because constitutionally they all have the same protections. If it’s illegal to use two flags to prevent free speech, it’s illegal to use it for any other right, that’s how rights work.

The people wanting to single out one right are destroying the integrity of the most important document in US history. There are correct ways to do it, but they aren’t being done, instead they are trying to do things unconstitutionally. Removing a right is hard, and requires agreement, and there isn’t enough support to do it so the left resorts to unconstitutional methods and the right fights to stop it.

And surprise surprise, it’s the same groups that routinely strips other people of their rights without a glimmer of guilt or self awareness.

I’m also against the recent movements to remove stuff like the right to abortion, but I was honestly shocked to see how weak the argument that made abortion a “right” was. Did you know how the original Roe V Wade decision was made?

It starts with the 14th amendment, known as the amendment that gave citizenship to anyone born in the USA, and providing them equal protection under the law. There is one line in the 14th amendment that reads “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law”. The supreme court decided that one little phrase gives us the implied right of privacy. From that right to privacy, they determined that means we also have the right to abortion, but only some abortion, no late term abortion.

So not surprising it was a very controversial decision that many saw as the right result in the wrong way. I’m honestly surprised it lasted 50 years.

They do have that right actually, which is why we punish those who take those rights away. Just because it’s illegal doesn’t mean people can’t break the laws