Tryptaminev @ Tryptaminev @lemm.ee

Posts

2

Comments

547

Joined

1 yr. ago

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.

Nope. Israel cannot bomb Egypt without starting a major war.

Israel bombed the Gazan side of the crossing, destroying the roads and making it unpassable for trucks. Also Israel killed two Egyptian soldiers when taking over the crossing.

Dude Israel literally defied a UN Security Council resolution from Biden to stop the war. What the heck are you smoking?

As the US continued to send billions in bombs to Israel and will soon host Netanyahu despite the ICC seeking him as war criminal. You know that the UN resolutions only work if the powerful countries enforce them? Guess who would have to enforce it by just not sending weapons. But he still does. Judge actions, not words.

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.

The skin looks less "flat"/"clean" the face is more pale, the dark rings under the eyes are more noticeable, the lips are less red and the eyebrows are weaker.

However this is going to be extremely flawed, as it has to make assumptions about which parts of the face are made up and which aren't, probably exaggerating what it has to "correct" for. Also i wouldn't be surprised if this will struggle immensely with non white faces.

I hate this so much. I save as a new file for a new version. I expect it to go into the same folder by default like the file i currently opened and worked on. Nope, onedrive it is if you aren't careful.

In civilized countries there is an understanding that noone is reading dozens of pages of terms of agreement, so any clause in there that is unexpected is automatically void. Expecting a software agreement to include rules not to distribute it further, break copy protection mechanisms etc. is normal so those terms are valid. But having all your data stolen is not something to be expected, hence invalid.

Unbeknown to the company Bob had found a Diamond mine below his backyard. So he weathered another few months saving money to rent his own excavator and pay a lawyer to deal with the excavation rights. Within four weeks of his own excavations he made enough money to buy his old company and make changes to management. When he let go of his former boss he said:

"All i wanted you to do is listen to me for ten minutes and let me see my kids in the morning before heading to work so early."

For someone who has no physical experience with guns. Would the problem be the recoil kicking the gun into your face or would you break your hand? What kind of injury would you expect from this?

Can you elaborate what you mean by that?

That god couldn't change the rules he himself created according to the scriptures? That seems pretty consistent to me.

I think this is a terminological confusion. The original Gospel as in the life and teaching of Jesus, that got lost as it wasn't documented in his lifetime.

The four gospels that made the choice are as you said collections written later. And there were many more Gospels that the early church decided not to put into the bible. On top of that there is the issue how those gospels got translated multiple times and each translation inadvertently adds a layer of interpretation.

Did i ever cite the bible as that? I also think the bible has many inconsistencies and looking at concepts like trinity or Jesus as literal son of god being introduced hundreds of years later, are things i also disagree with.

But i understand that theological differences are something different from scientific differences. And i think it is important to separate the two.

Because scientific differences can be analyzed with repeatable tests and empirical evidence. Theological differences are either a simple matter of different faith or they can only be discussed in whether the theology is consistent in itself. But that again relies on certain axioms, like math relies on certain axioms or many social sciences need to use axioms because of the complexity of empirical information.

So do you believe the people 2000 years ago knew nothing about the laws of nature or did they? Did they understand that walking on water was something regularly possible or not? Did they understand raising the dead was something not normally possible?

Because that is your claim. And i strongly disagree because we have plenty of evidence that people understood the laws of nature quite well, even if they couldn't verbalize them in math yet. We have many ancient buildings and technologies that only work with a profound understanding of how physical matter behaves under normal circumstances.

EDIT: By the way i do not believe the bible to be an accurate description of Jesus, as there is an accurate description in the Quran. Still i don't claim to have proof that Jews, Christians or Hindus are wrong, because i have different theological believes. I acknowledge that my believes are that. And Atheists should realize that they also have theological believes, which is fundamentally different from knowledge about natural sciences.

was written by people with no knowledge of physics

So why would they write about it and describe it as wonders? Do you think they did not understand that walking on water, giving life to the death, curing diseases on the spot and other things ascribed to Jesus as wonders were defying the conventional laws of nature?

The burden of proof is on the claimant.

Exactly. You claim to know that Jesus as described in the bible is an impossibility. So you have to proof that. All i want you to acknowledge, is that you are making an assumption, not providing proven knowledge.

And telling me I can’t assume that the laws of physics work all the time doesn’t really compel me to think otherwise since I’ve never seen any modern documented account of the laws of physics not working.

Ever heard of modern Physics? Relativity theory? Relativistic effects? All of these are the results of observations in defiance of classical Newtonian physics. There is an ongoing revolution in physics since a hundred years because we keep observing things inconsistent with our prior assumptions about the laws of physics.