Political violence is overwhelmingly from the far right and you are playing defense on the issue?

I love how he and whoever writes these articles completely ignore all the reasons this is all absolutely not going to happen.

She doesn’t seem to understand who decides whether someone goes to prison. Pretty irresponsible thing for any prosecutor to say.

Not to worry. He’s focused on saving trillions of hypothetical people who stand a non zero chance of living in an intergalactic community in the distant future.

Same

Yeah, it’s more of an unveiling.

I was about to write a response about why the meaning of the word atheist is so contentious, but this says it perfectly.

I guess my response would be that active disbelief connotes knowledge, which gets me right back to the distinction b/t gnostic and agnostic atheism. But I obviously get your pov. Wikipedia actually has an extensive entry on this debate.

It’s true that I just prefer the original Greek meaning over the dictionary. I know that people often use the word the way you do, and the dictionary reflects that. It’s a common disagreement, and I’ve just never understood adding knowledge to the literal meaning. It’s caused a lot of confusion.

Atheism literally means without theistic belief. Adding an element of knowledge to the definition changes it to gnostic atheism. I’m certainly not saying you’re the only person using this definition, but it seems mistaken. I have no idea if there is a god, but I don’t believe that there is.

The two aren’t mutually exclusive. Most atheists are agnostic atheists. He’s referring to gnostic atheism, which isn’t what most people using the term atheism mean.

Yeah, I shouldn’t say no one. But it’s not atheism.

He’s talking about gnostic atheism and just calling it atheism. I’ve never known an atheist who claimed some special knowledge that a god doesn’t exist. He’s right that it’s a dumb position to take, but also, it’s not what atheism is and no one takes this position anyways.

Atheism is simply a lack of belief in gods. It doesn’t require anything else; it’s just a default position. So called hard atheism is an active disbelief but this requires adding baggage to an otherwise straightforward term.

Depending on what definitions you use. If atheism is without belief, and agnosticism is without knowledge, then being an atheist requires nothing other than a lack belief in gods. I’ve always considered agnostic atheism to be the most defensible position.

They know the market cap implodes if he leaves.

All of these people are eugenicists. They are trying to kill off certain people.