And here we go again. Once someone from a marginalized group exposes the lack of backbone and the insincerity of you, you attack him personally and suggest him to be part of “the enemy”. It is funny in a sad way because this reads exactly like /r/conservative over on reddit, when people challenged the current Trump narrative.

Biden is literally arming a genocide. He was even adamant about his continued support for that. Meanwhile Dems led cities have brutally beaten up peaceful colelge protests and invited fascist MAGA mobs to attack minority students there.

The DNC and Biden do not protect minorities. They are white supremacists with just a bit more moderation to the means they employ, but they will absolutely resort to authoritarian crackdowns if they feel the minorities to step out of line by demanding justice and rights.

And you are happily imprisoning yourself into believing that the system is right to only offer you these two as candidates. If everyone that was progressive and unhappy with Biden would vote for Stein, then she could win. It is the mere talk about her having no chance of winning and the vote being wasted that keeps people in line to take the system as is.

I see the same arguments made against voting for smaller parties in my country where there is a minimum % they need to achieve before getting parliament seats. It is a system designed to preserve the current political elites with their network to the economic and cultural elites against ideas and movements taking a foothold.

Everyone sees what Biden is and what he stands for. If everyone who disagrees with that would take to the streets and demand the DNC to hold a real primary, or better yet demand fundamental changes to the political system, you would be surprised what is possible.

In a two party system the only way to “crush” the extreme right is by establishing another party to take the spot in the two party system. And you know what will happen then? The Dems will move from being the far right party with gay rights to being the extreme right party. Because they already are far right by any sensible measure.

I mean all the concerned people could take to the streets right now.

The DNC wants you to believe that all you can do is cast your vote for something every other year and just take the options presented. In that sense they are worse than the Reps who encourage their base to be active for more than just the ballots and it is working.

Especially now the Dems give me huge 1984 vibes in how the individual should handle politics relative to the party.

The DNC replied that you are just a secret Trump fan. The party knows what is best and you should not expect primaries and having a say. Also we have always been at war with East-Asia.

They managed to procreate successfully. Can you say the same about yourself?

How to say that you have no idea about Abrahamic religions without saying that you have no idea about Abrahamic religions.

The Bronze Age ended around 1200 BC. 1200 Before Christ. Most of the prophets of the Torah are estimated to have lived around 1000 BC up until Jesus was born. Mohammed s.a.s. lived in the 7th century AD.

Also if your argument is that something originating in the bronze age is bad, i recommend you to stop using metal tools, eat bread and cultivated fruits. Obviously no beer and while you are at it reject math, astronomy and most of architecture. All stuff originating in the Bronze Age.

Which is kind of the point he is making. Instead of engaging in a honest talk and understanding the reasoning behind social norms, they are just pushed as normative and understandably confusing to people who struggle with “just behave like everyone else, lol”.

Ironically this is exposing us neurotypicals to be socialy underdeveloped instead of non neurotypical people.

Thank you. Now i learned why Revolver handles are curved as opposed to straight like pistol or rifle handles.

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.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Jesus as literal son of god was only established some 400 years later. And when later the records of the gospel got translated through multiple languages it seems very plausible to me, that under the assumption that Jesus should be the literal son of god, this sentence is supposed to be worded to confirm that. It is as easy as forgetting a half sentence like “HE said” or turn a third person into a first person form. Or to loose the context that he was announced already before Ibrahim etc.

You make good points. May i introduce you to Islam?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_in_Islam

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quran

The final prophet Mohammed s.a.s. whose life and effect are well documented as well as the direct word of Allah s.w.t., preserved as original in the Arabic language of revelation in the Quran. You should not though that according to Islam Jesus was merely a human messenger as Allah neither was born nor gives birth. In the same wake Allah is one and not three. But these concepts were added by the church to the Christian theology four hundred years after the life of Jesus.

Why would they drive their customer basis away? A lot of female influencers is basically soft porn. And it is the type you get pushed on the platforms and that have million of followers. Not the women focusing on their hobbies or societal issues or other actually interesting stuff.

Given how prevalent make up is, especially with how many stories i heard of women struggling in the office when they did not put on makeup that specific day, how the behavior of random strangers changed etc. that is not true. There are some men, but definitely no the majority.