zzzzzz

I have found Nginx Proxy Manager to be a huge time-saver for configuring nginx and certbot.

ADL vice, ADL vice, every morning hypocrisy.

Fair point, but that probably wouldn't be a "big difference" for a first time user.

[email protected]

(put an "!" in front)

This seems to be a general theme. Those arguing loudest for better privacy are really saying "only we should be allowed to invade your privacy". See: Google, Apple, the EU

No, the rejection of the claim "God exists" leads to "I don't know whether or not God exists", not "God does not exists". "God does not exist" is a claim in its own right.

As for your historical comment, perhaps it would be better to precede your claims with "As far as I understand..." to allow yourself room for growth in the future.

You're missing the point. What makes your view "religious" (or, as someone else pointed out, perhaps "faith-based" would be the better term) is your definite rejection of things (a la "my claim is what you say is bull shit"). You could respond with "That could be. I don't have any evidence to support or refute it". That would be a rational position, in the absence of evidence. You, however, go further. You say it's bullshit.

Am I religious if I say there isn't a marble at the table? Or a walnut?

Yes.

A rational person would say "I don't know if there is a ball, marble, or walnut". If you have experience with other tables with upside-down cups, you might go further and say something like "If this table with cups is like the other tables with cups that I've experienced... (fill in whatever your experience re:balls, marbles, walnuts, etc)". To say more requires a leap of faith.

And, unlike tables, cups, balls, and walnuts, the existence of the universe is apparently quite singular. Thus, if you haven't had direct experience with it, it is unlikely that you'll have had sufficient parallel experiences to make any meaningful statements like "If this universe is like the other universes I've characterized...". Therefore, lacking any direct experience, the reasonable position would be "I don't know".

But, you might, metaphorically speaking, encourage that baby to remain open-minded about the existence of an outside world as opposed to dismissing the possibility out-of-hand.

You feel superior because you asked yourself that question and you came to your logical conclusion.

I haven't even stated my conclusions. I am only trying to help y'all understand that it is not reasonable to jump from an absence of evidence to a conclusion of non-existence. It has nothing to do with me. It is a fact of formal logic.

OK, then I don't know my vocabulary. When I said "atheism" I was intending to refer to, for example, OP, who is making the definite claim that there is no God. But, a quick Google search shows that you are right about the definition. And, for those who have no personal experience of God, the absence of belief in God is reasonable.

I'm saying that we all have prior experience of transitioning from situations where we had no evidence for something into ones where we had definite evidence. The implication is that we should remain open rather than forcing conclusions of non-existence.