Man, poor Michael...

Same shit with other USB types. Nothing new here

the 'problem' for this guy is that technolgy moves on

you might look at hdmi as an analog to type c

hdmi has been around for close to 15yrs? of course there's new tech that comes along so it must be added to hdmi

why would type c not be the same? the type c cable is constantly evolving and further companies will get away with what they can so they will 'add' stuff or make modifications to a standard that the 'type c usb' controlling body may not be able to stop

Tl:dw - despite compatible connectors, USB-C cables still have unique internal features that may make them either unusable or less desirable in some applications

Dude you should just watch it.

He could have won without the oral

Johnny Harris complaining about something? Shocking.

Let me guess, mac fan boy whining again?

How do you think he won his Emmy.

Bobbing his head frantically and dressing like a gay lumberjack

With what?

In that case he needs to chill out

One size does not fit all. You can certainly buy top of the line cables that will work with just about everything. But that gets really expensive if all you need is a power cable. There really isn't a perfect solution that isn't wasteful. A good advantage is getting rid of proprietary connectors. I do wish there was some standard color or something to tell the difference versions apart.

He just won an Emmy he don’t care about views.

well that's not how you get views

Guy needs to chill out

In the context of religion it's often meant to be a recognition of deities, not the degree of certainty you have in their existence.

If you are agnostic: you believe that there could or could not be a god. Basically it's unknowable if there is or there is not a god. That makes perfect sense to me, as religion is based on a system of faith and not logic (verifiable truth). Take that distinction as you may but that's not my point.

My point is that all atheists are agnostic - there isn't yet a way to disprove the 'existence' of god. There isn't a special class of atheist that has the ability to disprove god, therefore it's only reasonable to conclude that there only exists one type of atheist - the one that doesn't believe in god but also cannot prove/disprove it's existence.

What's more, gnosticism (is this what you mean by gnostic theism? - I looked it up but only found some dodgy quora answers using your terminology) is based on an inward looking acceptance that there is a divine force in the universe. It's not provable because the idea of god in this sense is purely spiritual and operates through the actions of people.

The interesting thing about Gnosticism is it's relation to greek/roman polytheism and their influences on early Judaism and Christianity. Much like one of the core components of the reformation - they believed that the channel between humans and god(s) were irrespective of organised religion and was a deeply personal projection of the forces of the universe (god).

I don't have to believe in god to be called a moron by an atheist because I feel a connection to a divine force that underpins the passage of time. I feel sorry for people who get organised religion tangled up with spirituality - I can feel there is something larger at play I just don't think it's personifications should be taken as gospel.

If an atheists prime example of disproving religion is taking a personification of god(usually intended for children because they don't have the mental capacities to understand more abstract concepts) as a way of invalidating everything ELSE that comes from texts/studies on religion then they are also like children.. unable to see the forests from the trees.

This is the whole point of the video - don't trip up on religion's gaps and throw the baby out with the bathwater. For a lot of people, they find a deep sense of contentedness when they believe in God, Religion, Unicorns... whatever. That is the point of Religion, not scientifically debugging texts from 2000 years ago.

> This is mostly semantics

Or, ya know... epistemology.

This is mostly semantics but If you told me you believed in a god that was irrational like a squared circle God I could be certain that particular God does not exist but It wouldn't prove no god exists.

No, it's not. It's agnostic atheism. You can't just eliminate words because you disagree with their definition, lol.

No one can prove that a god does exist (gnostic theism), but billions of people worldwide are still 100% certain that there is a god. Atheism would be the same thing, but the opposite. The "agnostic" part of "agnostic atheism" is a critical component.

> You can be an agnostic atheist (in fact, most atheists are): someone who doesn't believe that there's a god, but doesn't claim that they know with certainty that god doesn't exist.

This is just atheism. What class of atheist can prove god doesn't exist? No one can know with certainty that god doesn't exist.

Sure you can find someone who will fit any straw man you make but most atheists have more nuanced thoughts than just religion = wars = bad.

A huge chunk of the "atheist community" have trauma in their own lives that was caused by their religious upbringings, whether that takes the form of ostracisation of people from their communities for being different in any way, widespread child abuse or even worse shit like genital mutilation and forcing young girls who were raped to then give birth.

To just dismiss the cause of all of that trauma and say religion gets a free pass because it makes people feel good about where they'll go when they die is an insult to those victims.

I mean he's just not really on point here. Atheists aren't quite right and believers are fully wrong, but this kind of agnostic take is also wrong.

The thing about the concept of "god" is that said being would be so incomprehensible and beyond our scope as humans that to even begin to almost understand the edges of such a thing you'd have to be able to simultaneously imagine both everything and nothing at once... which is not possible since humans can't even imagine actual nothingness let alone infinity so both at the same time is just something we can't begin to think about touching.

That's really why being agnostic makes sense. There's just no way anybody at all could say they know anything about there being or not being some kind of godly power since it's so inconceivable to us and our pitiful pointless place in this universe as well as whatever else there may be that we just can't/don't experience lol

[deleted]