Tryptaminev

So why are you having the flag of a country in your profile picture if you are fine with that country being invaded and destroyed so another country can commit genocide?

Shouldn't you be honest and just replace it with a Zionist flag?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MVZdS18NX8

I hate linking a probably right wing channel by the name, but it is a compilation of dozens of occasions just in the last two years. Biden is definitely not at the mental capacity to run a nuclear armed country. Neither is Trump.

And that should alarm everyone as they both are clearly put there as puppets to be controlled.

Use of stimulants like amphetamine or methamphetamine, which are both drugs prescribed for ADHD comes with many side effects. When abused they deteriorate the brain and body quite strongly and they have many psychological problems associated with them like delusions, developing a lack of empathy, disorientation...

80 years old should definitely not do speed, even if it is doctor prescribed.

Since you have the Ukrainian flag in your picture. You know that Israeli drones are used by Russia for surveillance and target acquisition? Ukrainians are being murdered by Putin thanks to Israeli tech. And of course Israel did not join the sanctions against Russia.

Why are you sucking up to a fascist country helping another fascist country invade a country you want not to be invaded?

Netanyahu yelled at the German foreign minister in a meeting how she dares compare them to the Nazis after she said the pictures of full fruit stands that Netanyahu claimed to be from Nothern Gaza were not reflecting the reality there. So Netanyahu and his crownies know exactly whose historical example they are following.

But as she is a zionist and american suckup she continues to humiliate herself and Germany by continuing aiding those fascists.

Tuesday coming after Monday is an arbitrary convention. In the same way that for natural numbers in the decimal system we called the number after one two and the one after that three. But we could have also called them three, two, one, four...

And yes i claim that believing there to be no god is a form of faith.

Think about it this way: God promises the believers who do good and ask forgiveness for their sins paradise and threatens the disbelievers with eternal hellfire. This is reiterated throughout history multiple times by prominent figures and the believe in god is the standard around the world. So from a rational risk minimizing point of view believing in God is the safer thing to do. Especially with how little religious practice Christianity requires compared to Judaism or Islam.

But to get to your core argument: Flying Squid claimed Jesus like in the bible did not exist because it is impossible for him to have existed in this way.

That is like saying you know for a fact Dragons never existed because there is no Dragons today. Now replace Dragon with Dinosaur and you see why this line of argumentation is problematic from a scientific methodological point of view.

So i think we agree that what is consistent with scientific methodology and what are matters of believes need to be separated in argumentation.

the burden of proof lies with the one who speaks, not the one who denies) is the obligation on a party in a dispute to provide sufficient warrant for its position.

Flying Squid said it is impossible what is described in the bible. So he or you if you take his side are the one burdened with proof. In fact the bible provides a very straightforward reasoning. Jesus was granted the power to do wonders by God so people would recognize him as a messenger of God and listen to him spreading the message of God.

You can say you dont believe in that. But it is not a proof of it not having happened. Especially as a lot of people who lived at the time said otherwise.

Where did i say that it should be scientifically proven? I merely reject the idea that it is scientifically disproven or to claim that what has no scientific proof does not exist. This kind of thinking has rejected microorganisms, atoms, gravity and many other nowadays established things. Heck people acknowledge it to be perfectly reasonable to theorize about the existence of dark matter that is unobservable to us and holding the universe together.

It is simply unscientifc to claim to have "facts" against what is written in the scriptures as they describe events from 1400 to 5000 years ago. Not believing in them is perfectly valid, but it needs to be acknowledged as a matter of believe, a matter of faith and is in such in no way more valid than the believe that a scripture is true.

Which is why is said scientific arguments need to be separated from theological arguments.

Saying you believe there is no god is a theological argument based on a believe. It is not scientific.

Saying there is not observable physical proof or disproof of a divine power, which is agnostic, is in compliance with science.

Why do you accuse me of something i never said?

A message being powerful is not in contradiction to it taking time to establish. If you look at the timeline you will see that it grew exponentially. and that the critical point was in the fourth century, after which it became the dominant religion in many parts of the empire.

That is how exponential growth works.

Yes they do. They believe, without evidence, that no god exists. This is specifically different from agnostics, who say that they do not know. So atheism is a form of faith, because they choose to believe something about the nature of the divine, even if that is the absence of any divine.

Interestingly there is also religious atheism for instance in some forms of Hinduism and Buddhism.

I always find it silly, when atheists proclaim to "believe in science" violating the very principles of scientific research by proclaiming something as factual and absolute they have no evidence for. If someone is true to scientific principles he'll say he does not know hence he is an agnostic. An Atheist however is always a person of faith, even if many people fight tooth and nail to deny it. Which brings me back to what i wrote here somewhere earlier in the comment chain that my impression is most atheists to be traumatized by bad religious practice or actors abusing the religion to harm them, and not having found a healthier way to address their trauma yet.